首页> 外文期刊>Journal of international relations and development >Failed states or a failed paradigm? State capacity and the limits of institutionalism
【24h】

Failed states or a failed paradigm? State capacity and the limits of institutionalism

机译:失败的国家还是失败的范例?国家能力与制度主义的局限性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In the post-Cold War era, a voluminous literature has developed to define failed states, identify the causes and parameters of failure, and devise ways for dealing with the problems associated with state fragility and failure. While there is some theoretical diversity within this literature — notably between neoliberal institu-tionalists and neo-Weberian institutionalists — state failure is commonly defined in terms of state capacity. Since capacity is conceived in technical and 'objective' terms, the political nature of projects of state construction (and reconstruction) is masked. Whereas the existence of social and political struggles of various types is often recognized by the failed states literature, these conflicts are abstracted from political and social institutions. Such an analysis then extends into programmes that attempt to build state capacity as part of projects that seek to manage social and political conflict. Ascertaining which interests are involved and which interests are left out in such processes is essential for any understanding of the prospects or otherwise of conflict resolution.
机译:在后冷战时代,已经有大量文献来定义失败状态,确定失败的原因和参数,并设计出解决与状态脆弱性和失败相关的问题的方法。尽管在这些文献中有一些理论上的差异,特别是在新自由主义制度主义者和新韦伯主义制度主义者之间,但国家失败通常是根据国家能力来定义的。由于能力是从技术和“客观”的角度来构想的,因此掩盖了国家建设(和重建)项目的政治性质。失败的国家文献常常承认各种类型的社会和政治斗争的存在,而这些冲突是从政治和社会制度中抽象出来的。然后,这种分析会扩展到那些试图建立国家能力的计划中,这些计划是寻求管理社会和政治冲突的项目的一部分。对于这些对冲突解决的前景或其他方面的理解,确定哪些利益涉及而哪些利益遗漏是至关重要的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号