An Article Comparison
This week, I examined two articles and did a comparison of how they discussed intervention. Specifically, I looked at the two following articles which addressed intervention in states that are considered weak and/or failed:
- Post Conflict Reconstruction in Africa by Pierre Englebert and Denis M. Tull
- Warlords, Intervention, and State Consolidation: A Typology of Political Orders in Weak and Failed States by Romain Malejacq
The prevailing argument for Englebert and Tull is that rebuilding states in Africa must be the entities controlling the means of coercion[1]. Englebert and Tull disagree with the three main following assertions in the conversation of intervention:
- “Western state institutions can be successfully transferred to the continent”[2]
- “The diagnosis of failure is shared among donors and Africans”[3]
- “International actors have the capacity to rebuild African states”[4]
Englebert and Tull use comparative analysis with the elements of fiscal aid provided and troops provided (UN peacekeepers) to demonstrate that these three “flawed assumptions” are invalid.[5]
Romain Malejacq relies on extensive field research to explain why states like Afghanistan fail to recover even though the international community has made massive efforts to help them.[6]He uses “warlords” as a dependent variable, and resources available to those warlords as independent variables. Malejacq assigns different numerical values to the independent variables and a value for a specific combination of said variables. Through this process he is able to put the warlords on a continuum that ranges from low to high power. This typology is an addition to the current conversation because the data he presents displays a causal relationship between intervention and the prosecution of warlords in power. He claims this causes a power vacuum and can contribute to instability.[7]
The two articles present a small-n approach, and a large-n approach to issues found in cases of intervention, especially in already fragile environments. These two articles work in concert to show that there are individual actors on the ground who contribute to further instability in a state, and to highlight the factors that must be weighed when considering an intervention. These two articles helped me better understand the puzzle of state intervention. I plan to use both of these articles to further look at how local, or outside actors (insurgents) have effects on fragile states.
Notes
[1]Englebert and Tull, “Postconflict Reconstruction in Africa.”
[2]Ibid.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ibid.
[6]Malejacq, “Warlords, Intervention, and State Consolidation: A Typology of Political Orders in Weak and Failed States.”
[7]Ibid.
Bibliography
Englebert, Pierre and Denis M. Tull. “Postconflict Reconstruction in Africa: Flawed Ideas about Failed States.” International Security, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Spring, 2008): 106-139. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/isec.2008.32.4.106.
Malefjacq, Romain. “Warlords, Intervention, and State Consolidation: A Typology of Political Orders in Weak and Failed States.” Security Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (2016): 85-110. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09636412.2016.1134191?needAccess=true.
Josh,
I like how you chose to compare two articles that focus on two completely different regions: African states and Afghanistan. It can be difficult to remove ourselves from too narrowly focusing on what we already assume our research question to be this early in the project. Still, reading literature, even if seemingly unrelated, can help fill in the gaps of our topic so we develop a better understanding of the current conversation. It also should be helpful to deconstruct these sources, as you’ve done, by identifying the authors’ variables, methodologies, and research questions. Understanding how researchers have chosen to approach a puzzle, or even how they have documented their research, can give us a better understanding of what our finished product might look like. This can be helpful in understanding what we will be doing to arrive at that point. It might also be helpful to approach your puzzle from a different “basket” other than the conflict-resolution or political baskets. You might read sources that contribute to the state intervention puzzle based on a legal or human rights perspective. As I am currently in a Human Rights course, I know substantial data exists that discusses intervention through the Human Rights Regime lens. Overall you are moving in a solid direction and making progress to understanding the broad conversation of how research explain puzzles like yours. Good luck in your research!
Overall a very good job here Josh! You’ve done a good job identifying the overall research methodologies employed in each piece as well as some more specific factors that might well be part of your own research (the elements discussed in your last paragraphs) as well as ways in which these articles can serve as springboards to other research examples. Keep reading and researching!