Jeffrey Herbst argues that we should move from generalizations about the state-building struggle. Politics in the African continent are highly shaped by its geography; very low population density and large amounts of open land. Therefore, analyzing the African challenge of state-building through European theories is completely misleading. In Europe, control over scarce territory allowed the exercise of authority on the population. However, the inhospitable territories of Africa challenged leaders who ought to control the population since it was easier to move than to fight. Thus, political control could not be built through territorial power; it was through loyalties, coercion, and the creation of infrastructure.
Furthermore, Herbst argues that pre-colonial, colonial, and post-independence periods were not that different. During colonial rule, Europeans were able to create arbitrary boundaries that had international legitimacy, however, internally; they did not hold real political power. Europeans were not able to create a nation-state with centralized power; instead local leaders kept holding a lot of control over the territory. Control over the African territory was never about the land, since it was an abundant source; it was about controlling the population, which they did through slave trade and buffer mechanisms. The creation of arbitrary borders resulted in identity struggle since it divided ethnic ties by physical boundaries. Moreover, after the independence from the European rule, the African struggle did not change drastically since African leaders used the same strategies for the same issues than the colonizers.
Angela,
This is a useful discussion — could you clarify this sentence a bit further? I think you are driving at an important point here but it is not entirely clear.
“Thus, political control could not be built through territorial power; it was through loyalties, coercion, and the creation of infrastructure.”
Everyone,
Consider how Herbst’s assertions about the challenges of statebuilding and potential solutions to these problems compare to Migdal’s ideas on these same topics? What is the essential challenge of statebuilding? How do rulers solve it?
The way in which Herbst approaches state-building compared to Migdal is based on how they view who rules and how they impart their rule on society. Herbst contrasts rule over people vs. rule over territory; the international state system props up weaker states. He argues that rulers do a cost-benefit analysis, and compares this with how African leaders looked at how to manage their states. Herbst argues that our theories of state-building in Europe can be used in Africa as well and the core beliefs of state-building. He believes you can use views on African culture and compare them with that of European theory. Herbst says they created other forms of boundaries with currency and citizenship, and were more concerned about keeping others out versus coming in.
Migdal on the other hand believes that every state confronts a bunch of contenders and assert authority, and its the state’s goal to reign supreme. Without social control, society is fragmented, and there is weak control over who rules at the local and regional level. Strong states must be able to rule their people and enforce policies at the lowest levels effectively in order to be cohesive and united. Without state policies being implemented effectively, they lose their meaning and the power of the leadership is diluted.
The great challenge of state-building is grounded in how power and rule of law from the state leadership is enforced and followed amongst their citizenry. If the population seeks to follow the central government’s policies and mandates, the ability to mobilize and create change is easier. However if a nation’s citizens choose to follow some state polices and ignore others, it is more difficult to accomplish things on a national scale.
Brian,
You do an amazing job at contrasting the main points argued by both Migdal and Herbst. I think that when you boil down the arguments of both, we tease out that statebuilding, state success, state failure, it is all rooted essentially in who holds power, and what they are doing with that hold on power.
You said that, “Herbst says they created other forms of boundaries with currency and citizenship, and were more concerned about keeping others out versus coming in” and I think that this is one way Migdal would look at the leader identifying a way in which they can captivate the mass public and exert social control. Identifying the ways in which power is slipping from your hands, and then identifying how you can get that back is something that Migdal touches on when asking the question can weak states become strong states. I think that here, Migdal and Herbst really come together theoretically, and Herbst shows that leaders can strategically use geography to build back up that slipping power, or even increase their current hold on power.
Morgan,
yes, good points. We might consider Herbst’s boundary-creating strategies as ways states organize to offer (Migdal’s concept) of ‘survival strategies’, upon which citizens rely in order to survive and move forward. In this same vein, we can think about Polanyi, Barrington Moore, and others who offer us comparative historical accounts of how and why states experience transformation, and what that means for state-citizen relationships.
Brian’s comments here do a nice job of drawing out key points of comparison between Herbst and Migdal. For both, state-building is indeed about the state finding ways to become the dominant source of authority over a group of people (sometimes called society or community), whether that is defined by territorial boundaries, as Weber’s classic definition of the state would have it, or by populations. Angela does a good job highlighting the key concepts and theoretical contributions of Herbst’s work in this set of entries. I can think of additional empirical claims that could be tied directly into Herbst’s theoretical claims.
More generally — in all of the work we’re assessing, we can evaluate theories by looking at the evidence offered to support them. The methodological approach describes how that empirical evidence is gathered and organized. Our task is to evaluate whether the methods and argument offer adequate support for the theoretical arguments. We can also ask ourselves to what extent each author identifies, defines, and operationalizes concepts that clarify and make sense of the theoretical argument.