Comments on: (Lack of) State Power in Africa, Again

By: Marc F. Bellemare

Marc F. Bellemare — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:21:29 +0000

Thank you so much for these recommendations, Jen! I agree with you that Crawford can be difficult to read, but his book is also very rewarding. I’m looking forward to reading Migdal, along with the articles you recommended. I started reading the Besley and Persson book after I wrote this post, and it amazing so far.

By: Jen Brass

Jen Brass — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:58:29 +0000

I’ve always thought that Jackson’s articles/books on “juridical” vs. “empirical” states are great (for example: Jackson, R. (1992). “Juridical Statehood in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Journal of International Affairs 41(1) – or Why Africa’s Weak States Persist: The Empirical and the Juridical in Statehood by Robert H. Jackson and Carl G. Rosberg
World Politics , Vol. 35, No. 1 (Oct., 1982), pp. 1-24 ). I think Herbst draws a LOT from them, too. For the theory, I agree on Young – that chapter on the state is dense, but it is SUPERB. Ditto on Migdal – I love his distinction between the idea of state and the practices of state.

By: Marc F. Bellemare

Marc F. Bellemare — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:55:27 +0000

Thanks for this very insightful comment, Jay. Leaving stability aside for a second because my interest is really in what the absence of state power prevents the state from doing (i.e., provide public goods which eventually help economic development, such as roads, education, health, etc. and maintain order), you are probably right that legitimacy and power should not be confused, and that this is where I went wrong.

But I’m not sure either one of your examples are terribly convincing, either. Or at least, not terribly convincing when I try to relate them to Africa. It is difficult to know anything about what goes on within North Korean borders. You are probably right that the regime is not popular at home, but it also uses repression to quash that dissent. In that sense, it is powerful, though if we judge by the night-time satellite pictures, it certainly hasn’t built much infrastructure to contribute to economic development beyond Pyongyang.

As for the US, I think many Americans like to talk a big game about how they distrust the state, but the State (by which I mean the federal government) still manages to get most people to pay taxes and to abide by the law, which then allows the State to provide public goods (except maybe health, though that is changing) that have enabled the formidable economic performance the US has known over the past few centuries.

Short version: I confused legitimacy with state power, but North Korea and the US don’t relate to issues of African state power very well.

By: Jay Ulfelder

Jay Ulfelder — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:05:48 +0000

Legitimacy, power, and stability should not be conflated. Take one extreme example: North Korea. The totalitarian regime there is an international outcast (with one crucial exception), and I would venture a guess that it’s not terribly popular at home, either. Yet it has persisted for decades and even exerts some power internationally.

Or take a less extreme example: the U.S. According to an April 2012 Pew poll, only 1 in 3 Americans has a favorable view of the federal government. Not terribly “legitimate,” but not very weak, either, and I don’t think anyone’s seriously anticipating a revolution here any time soon.

In short, I think Weber got this one flat wrong. As I wrote in a recent blog post (http://wp.me/p1domH-Gg), “legitimacy” is a big ol’ red herring. Regime survival is not the result of a running straw poll. If we want to try to understand why and when popular uprisings and coups and such happen, we need to look elsewhere and talk in different terms.