Transition from a "Failed State" to "Collapsed State": Comparative Analysis

Theory claims that states which have been in a disastrous condition for many years have to collapse. However, in fact most of the so-called “failed states” endure. This issue is relevant for political science today because a weak state is a threat not just to its citizens but to the global security in general. It should be noticed that studying failed states has become popular since 2001, when the United States suffered from a series of terrorist attacks. After 9/11 failed states became a matter of special concern in the American diplomatic and military agenda. It was declared in the National Security Strategy of 2002 that the USA were threatened rather by failing states than the conquering ones. Following the USA, a number of other Western governments agreed that weak states represented a significant danger. Not surprisingly, failed states were considered to be real threats to the European Union in the European Security Strategy of 2003.Why some failed states don’t transform into collapsed states, while others still come apart? It should be taken into consideration that there are more failed states than collapsed states in today’s world.There are two main approaches, trying to explain why some states collapse, while others don’t.The first approach focuses on the importance of international actors and rules. It is said that today failed states threaten to the global security. In such a way, Patrick Stewart notices that weak states, which cannot provide jobs and food for their citizens, often enable transnational terrorist networks. In addition, failed states are also considered a special area, giving roots to political violence, civil strife, outbursts of infectious diseases, environmental crises, flows of refugees, etc.The second approach goes back to political economy. It is said that bad political institutions or absence of them are good conditions for the rise of bribable elites aimed at maximizing rent income. Unfortunately, elites in weak states pursue only their individual interests, and it is natural for them to preserve the status-quo.There are weak and failed states in the field of our investigation. In particular, the following countries were chosen for the case study analysis: Afghanistan, Somalia, the Republic of Haiti and the Republic of Yemen.Why were these states chosen for case analysis? First of all, they are very different from one another: Afghanistan is the world’s largest source of refugees, Somalia is an extremely disintegrated state, Yemen is one of the poorest Arab countries and the Republic of Haiti is one of the most corrupt states in the world.In particular, it should be noted that the main goal of this research is revealing factors, which will help to answer the question “Why weak states still don’t fail?”Objectives of the research are the following:a) to review the relevant literature,b) to review indices, measuring state fragility,b) to study cases of Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti and Yemen,c) to do a comparative analysis of these cases.