Fukuyama a former policy-planner at the State Department in Washington, and now the professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins University is considered to be the strategic writing in international relations issues. In the book State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st Century, he clearly gives the clear information regarding failure and success of states and also tries to consolidate the gist of reasons behind the failure of states and the actions which leads them to be unsuccessful.
The modern state system is being exiting with several weaker as well as failure states in which the western world is not being more serious on this fact but mostly focusing on the humanitarian crisis which is also considered to be the most important issue on present international order. The present world order is engaging more on terrorism, crime, humanitarian crisis disease and Fukuyama frequently tries to provide the surficial solution on dealing with these subject matter. The major argument which he tries to forward is to maintain law and order and protect property rights and the policy makers should be more careful while dealing with this fact. Fukuyama argues that the international developmental community is now including the stable political entities which are the major qualification for economic succession of any state.
Fukuyama analyses that the failure to unpack the different dimension of stateness results the failure of state building process. In the present context we find that almost all states are focusing on the development communities. In this regard the alternative solution may be less government intervention. Fukuyama tries to clarify it with the example of Russia where the rapid privatization was going but government was failed to manage the strong rule of law which results the corrupt oligarchy.
Fukuyama had raised the several questions regarding the national building but he cannot give the major solution on those area. For instance The United States, the EU, and NATO won in Bosnia and Kosovo, but they have not won the peace, in the sense of leaving a stable domestic government in charge of its political fortunes. In this area is winning war should only be considered as the success of state and what about the failure on establishing peace on those area. The notion he provide is good but cannot be regarded as of optimum level because he discuss about the successful countries like United State is not much hard to translate on paper but how can the country like Iraq and Afghanistan would be able to accomplish the task.
Another point he discussed about the transfer of governance is much difficult. The example he provided about Denmark and how the knowledge and institution could be transferred to Somalia or Moldova. He raised the question that “To what extent is there and can there be a theory of institutions that can be generalized and that will provide the basis for policy guidance to poor countries?”. The direct transfer of knowledge and institution from richer country to the poorer country or can be described as the replicate of one state knowledge and institution is not easier activities. The history and culture of the state effects on implementing the policies. The superior economic growth of Japan was possible because of is formal norms like industrial policies and it can be adopted by any other state. Since, industrial policy is the formal rules, which may not carry informal norms like culture and is possible to transfer. The point here is formal rules can be changed easily as a matter of public policy but cultural rules cannot, and while they change over time, it is much harder to direct their development. The state building process in not limited it runs through IFIs, international donors and NGO community also.
Fukuyama mentioned that the internal institution and donor agencies point of view on similar topic may vary on almost case. Internal institutions want to run any project through its own resource like local bodies including bureaucrats, doctors and other high skill human resource but donor agencies in most of the cases do not agree on this reasoning that high level corruption, fund may end with in bureaucrats, loss of mechanism and so on. It may be valid reason on many cases but the outcome of the project makes the people more dependent and the results of the projects will be seen for short time frame only. Fukuyama did not mention about the basic guideline regarding donor agencies like donor agencies should teach how to the fish rather than distributing it which results more dependency on donor agency itself. The sense of sustainability of donor funded project is lacking on the book.
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can order our professional work here.