Aiding Fragile States through the Lens of Risk-Management: Labyrinth of Explanatory Hypotheses

Political upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa caused by the Arab Awakening provided a new impetus to studying ‘fragile states’ problematique which came to the forefront in political and expert discourse in the last decade. Examining international engagement in fragile states and situations through the lens of risk-management seems to be especially relevant. This paper unveils key dilemmas faced by external actors in aiding fragile states and choosing the following parameters of engagement: aid volumes, duration of engagement, aid channels, financial instruments, procurement modalities, implementing partner in recipient country, conditionality and priority sectors. Each of correspondent eight sections starts with positing hypotheses about donors’ choices and proceeds with their verification based on empirical data. The paper concludes with observations on potential and limitations of a selected analytical lens and on ways how to improve its utility. First, no option seems to allow external actors to simultaneously mitigate contextual, programmatic and reputational risks and maximize political and economic dividends, and donors tend to prioritize egoistic interests over mitigation of any other risk factors. Second, multiple counterexamples to each hypothesis derive from heterogeneity of both ‘fragile states’, which vary dramatically in terms of determinants, manifestations and consequences of their fragility, and community of donors, which often assess risks of engaging with the same partner countries differently given their specific long-term national interests, aid management systems, imperatives of reacting to shifts in domestic political and economic environment or other factors. Third, to better navigate a logical labyrinth and reconstruct an objective picture of interactions of these two groups one should meet at least three conditions: 1) taking into account the emergence of non-Western donors and its impact on the established donors’ strategic considerations; 2) collecting detailed data on emerging donors’ engagement with fragile states as well as on volumes and composition of military and non-ODA security assistance provided to fragile states; 3) studying the partner countries’ perceptions of risks related to receiving external assistance.

1. Ali H.E. (2018). State Transitions from Rigidity to Fragility and Failure: The Case of Middle East and North Africa. International Journal of Public Administration. Vol. 41. No.10. P. 765-771. DOI: 10.1080/ 01900692.2017.1387150

2. Apodaca C. (2017). Foreign Aid as Foreign Policy Tool. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.332

3. Baranovsky V.G., Naumkin V.V. (Ed.) (2018). Blizhnii Vostok v menyayushchemsya global'nom kontekste [Middle East in the Changing Global Context]. Moscow: IV RAN. 556 p.

4. Bartenev V.I. (2017). Ot “nesostoyavshikhsya gosudarstv” k “neustoychivym sostoyaniyam”: logika ponyatiynoJ ekvilibristiki [From ‘Failes States’ to ‘States of Fragility’: Logic of Conceptual Acrobatics] Polis. Political Studies. No.2 P. 26–41. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.02.03

5. Bartolini S. (2005). Restructuring Europe. Centre Formation, System Building, and Political Structuring between the Nation State and the European Union. N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 415 p.

6. Brautigam D. (2000). Aid Dependence and Governance. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2000. 68 p.

7. Buchanan J. M. (1975) The Samaritan's dilemma. In: Phelps E.S. (Ed.) Altruism, Morality and Economic Theory. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. P. 71–85.

8. Burnside C., Dollar D. (2000). Aid, Policies and Growth. American Economic Review. Vol. 90. No. 4. P. 847–868. DOI: 10.1257/aer.90.4.847

9. Chandy L., Seidel B., Zhang Ch. (2016). Aid Effectiveness in Fragile States. How Bad Is It and How Can It Improve? Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. 43 p.

10. Collier P. et al. (1997). Redesigning Conditionality. World Development. Vol. 25. No.9. P. 1399–1407. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00053-3

11. Degterev D.A. (2012). Sodeystviye mezhdunarodnomu razvitiyu kak instrument prodvizheniya vneshnepoliticheskikh i vneshneekonomicheskikh interesov [International Development Assistance as a Tool of Foreign and Foreign Economic Policy]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 2. P. 47–57.

12. Dudley L. (1979). Foreign Aid and the Theory of Alliances. The Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 61. No.4. P. 564–571. DOI: 10.2307/1935787

13. Faust J., Koch S. (2014). Foreign Aid and the Domestic Politics of European Budget Support. Bonn: DIE. 35 p.

14. Fawcett L. (2017). States and Sovereignty in the Middle East: Myths and Realities. International Affairs. Vol. 93. No. 4. P. 789–807.

15. Grävingholt, J., Ziaja S., Kreibaum M. (2012). State Fragility: Towards a Multidimensional Empirical Typology. Bonn: DIE. 38 p.

16. Hart T., Hadley S., Welham B. (2015). Use of Country Systems in Fragile States. L.: Overseas Development Institute. 75 p.

17. Ilyin M.V. (2008). Formula gosudarstvennosti [Formula of Stateness]. Politiya. No. 3. P. 67–78.

18. Jackson P. (2012). Value for Money and International Development: Deconstructing Myths to Promote a More Constructive Discussion. OECD: Paris. 4 p.

19. Kuznetsov V.A. (2018). Problema ukrepleniya gosudarstvennosti na Blizhnem Vostoke v svete teorii sotsialnykh poryadkov [Strengthening Governance in the Middle East in the View of Theory of Social Orders]. Vostok. 2018. No.3. Pp.6-24. DOI: 10.7868/S0869190818030019

20. Manuel M. et al. (2012). Innovative Aid Instruments and Flexible Financing: Providing Better Support to Fragile States. L.: ODI. 59 p.

21. McKechnie A., Davies F. (2013). Localising Aid: Is It Worth a Risk? L.: Overseas Development Institute, 33 p.

22. Meleshkina E.Yu. (2011). Issledovaniya gosudarstvennoy sostoyatelnosti: kakiye uroki my mozhem izvlech? Studies of States: Which Lessons to Learn? Polis: Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 2. P. 9–27.

23. Naumkin V.V. (2015). Gluboko razdelennyye obshchestva Blizhnego i Srednego Vostoka: konfliktnost. nasiliye. vneshneye vmeshatelstvo [Deeply Divided Societies in the Middle East: Conflict, Violence, and Foreign Intervention] Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta: Seriya 25 Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya i mirovaya politika. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 66–96.

24. Naumkin V.V. (2018). Krizis gosudarstv-natsii na Blizhnem Vostoke [Crisis of the Nation-States in the Middle East]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 27–43. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2017.15.2.49.2

25. Odedokun M. (2004). Multilateral and Bilateral Loans versus Grants: Issues and Evidence. World Economy. Vol. 27. No. 2. P. 239–263. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2004.00598.x

26. Okada K., Samreth S. (2012). The Effect of Foreign Aid on Corruption. A Quantile Regression Approach. Economics Letters. Vol. 115. No. 2. P. 240–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.12.051

27. Steele A., Shapiro J.N. (2017). Subcontracting State-Building. Small Wars & Insurgencies. Vol. 28. No. 4–5. P. 887–905. DOI: 10.1080/09592318.2017.1323408

28. Stokke O. (1995). (Ed.) Aid and Political Conditionality. L.: Frank Cass. 436 p.

29. Van der Veen M. (2011) Ideas, Interests, and Foreign Aid. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 312 p.

30. Walker B. et al. (2004) Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society. Vol. 9. No. 2. Art. 5. URL: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/inline.html

31. Watts S. (2015) Identifying and Mitigating Risks in Security Sector Assistance for Africa's Fragile States. RAND Corporation. 59 p.

32. Zvyagelskaya I.D. (2017). Suverenitet i gosudarstvennost' na Blizhnem Vostoke: nevynosimaya khrupkost' bytiya [Sovereignty and Statehood in the Middle East – the Unbearable Fragility of Being]. Kontury global’nykh transformatsij: politika, ekonomika, parvo. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 97–109. DOI: 10.23932/25420240-2017-10-2-97-109.

33. Zvyagelskaya I.D. (2018). Blizhnii Vostok i Tsentral'naya Aziya. Global'nye trendy v regional'nom ispolnenii [Middle East and Central Asia: Global Trends in Regional Rendition]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 224 p.