What is a successful state?
We hear often about a country that is a 'failed states', which, according to Britannica is
But, really, is that all a government is supposed to do? Keep its own people down and other peoples out?
What would be realistic criteria for a state to be considered successful?
a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries.
But, really, is that all a government is supposed to do? Keep its own people down and other peoples out?
What would be realistic criteria for a state to be considered successful?
Comments (26)
No its more, can it protect its own people from itself and others. Rights Theory sees government as always a possibility of tyranny. US government uses balance of power which causes friction and thus hard to change, hard to make laws (and thus inherently conservative and lurching unlike perhaps parliamentary systems). The Bill of Rights circumscribes where the individual is paramount and the government is not allowed (in theory).
I would propose that a state is successful wherever it is considered sovereign, while the people who it nominally represent remain dependent and subordinate to its whims. With this it is successful in its most basic function.
Where people can determine how to organize, what to produce, how to produce it, how to distribute whats produced, and meaningfully participate in communal decisions. Whether a nation-state is needed is questionable. I dont think it is.
Gee, Vera, that's kind of a negative way of looking at it. But yes, a functioning government should control immigration and political unrest.
Quoting NOS4A2
So, a minimally successful state is sovereign; controls its borders; controls its own population; facilitates an adequate economy; maintain a stable government over a long period of time.
Failed states are taken over by insiders or outsides; lose control of its borders; loses control of its population; has a collapsed economy; has a series of very short, ineffective political regimes.
A successful state may not make everyone (or anyone) happy. The question is whether it's a going concern, or not.
Well, yes, failure is a negative. By that standard, the US qualifies. I'm trying to define what, beyond those basic abilities to maintain sovereignty - which is easier for a world power than some little nothing country just trying to get by, especially if it has resources or a strategic location major powers want - should be required for success.
What is a stable government? How long is a long term?
What is an adequate economy?
But for the sake of offering a position, for me, a successful 'state'/nation, is one that does not maintain itself, or grow its economy/military power by using any advantage it has, to subdue/intimidate any other nation or community. In any conflict situation, its priority must always be defense over attack.
I am far more attracted to a position where the people are as impervious as possible, to attack by others, compared to any demonstration of ability to destroy others.
A nation whose governance is of, for and by the people it represents.
A nation that nurtures people, foreign and domestic, far more, than it nurtures, the profits and power of its manifest elites, or better still, one that does not manifest elites.
If only we could become more like the Orgainians. Yeah, I know I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, perhaps one day, you will join us.
A state has "whims"? I would think that eliminating whims from the ruling system would be a defining feature of success.
That's a very different beast from a successful state, and 'success' for a state will depend on the criteria one is adopting, which are not going to be universal. Monaco, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Seychelles - different states are successful for different reasons. Surveys of prisoners, or the poor, for example, are going to give you a different league table :)
There is some nervousness in Europe, incidentally, that the USA might become a dysfunctional state, if say Trump were president and right-wing Republicans pursued disruption rather than governance. But for the people who voted such a government in, this might count as success!
How would you do that?
I see your point. I'm actually interested in both - what it takes for a nation to functional over a specified period of time, and what we believe to be the benchmarks of successful governance.
The US has been socially dysfunctional from its inception (see devastating civil war in the middle of its history, with its aftermath lingering to this day, and four frontiers porous to illicit trafficking of damn near everything) even though it's been phenomenally successful in the international arena. Yet its spokesmen do not hesitate to call "failed state" on nations they themselves destabilized.
Yes, there are different ways of measuring how well a country is organized and run. One might be longevity of political systems and efficacy of its adminitration; another might be economic stability and competitiveness in the world market. By the definition of failed state, the opposite would be internal order and amicable diplomatic/trade relations with other countries.
A popular standard is from the POV of average citizens
and
I was wondering what posters here consider reasonable criteria for measuring the success of a country, in terms of governance and citizenship.
Successful state: one which has made the proper deals with the right corporations and currency market manipulators.
Failed state: one that hasnt.
It was, by John Ralston Saul https://www.johnralstonsaul.com/non-fiction-books/the-doubters-companion/
I'm thinking in terms of generations--20 to 25 years. A stable government should stand across generations. So, when people think about their government, their grandparents and grand children would have the same government, (This doesn't mean the same political party over the years.) The United States government was stable for 3 generations (1781 to 1861) then experienced a rupture. Since the Civil War, 170 years ago (6-7 generations) the government has been stable with stable (if not necessarily good) political control.
Town meetings have been going on in Massachusetts since the 17th century; the English Parliament has been in business for a similarly long period. France, an entirely going concern, has had several governments, including revolutions and invasions by an occupying army. Very strong cultural continuity has kept France enduringly glued together.
Quoting Vera Mont
An adequate economy is able to provide the basic needs of citizens -- food, clean water, housing, clothing, transportation, cultural activities, and so on. "Adequate" doesn't mean "plenty"; a good economy provides plenty. An adequate economy is able to distribute what people need (through employment and production) somewhat evenly. I assume some people are going to get more than others. That's a political matter -- market regulation and taxation.
A stable government and an at least adequate government requires a reasonably effective political system. "Reasonably effective" means reasonably honest, reasonably fair, reasonably competent, reasonably focused on the needs of the citizens. Since, per Emmanuel Kant, "nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind", "reasonably" is as good as we are likely to get for periods longer than a bad cold. Eternal vigilance being the price of liberty and all that.
Quite a few nations qualify, but quite a few don't. I don't disagree with Donald Trump that Haiti qualifies as a "shit hole". Haiti isn't the only one. It's a graphic term, but doesn't over-state how bad things can get when everything that can go wrong has gone wrong.
Thanks, that's a reasonable assessment. Not exactly desiderata, but I suppose it covers the essentials.
The inequality and inequity do rankle some, but I understand that we don't all have the same criteria for success.
To begin with, a "whim" is a sudden, unpredictable, and very subjective, inclination. Because of the idiosyncratic nature of whims, the logical first step which a "state" could take toward avoiding whims would be to have a ruling group, or party, instead of a ruling individual. Having to go through the party would impose the sober second thought required to eliminate acting on whims.
A marriage that ends amicably is a failed marriage.
That the people are happy. :smile:
That the society is prosperous... for everybody living there.
Top 10 Most Prosperous Countries (Legatum Prosperity Index 2021):
1. Denmark
2. Norway
3. Sweden
4. Finland
5. Switzerland
6. Netherlands
7. Luxembourg
8. New Zealand
9. Germany
10. Iceland
(Do notice the absence of the US or the rich Arab Gulf States from this list, even if by GDP per capita they ought to be there!)
I can't believe Japan is out from the list!
Isn't Japan famous for its unhappy salarymen and its terrible work/life balance?
Quoting Vera Mont
A hard question to answer in some ways as it goes to the core of people's values and some value things like community, freedom or individualism more than others.
The basics would include clean running water, power, a sewage system, infrastructure which is maintained and working appropriately. I would include, not in any particular order, rule of law, effective services for the disadvantaged, employment opportunities, free education for all, health care, affordable housing, safe streets, work/life balance, a decent living wage, protections for the environment.
It is true that they have a big issue with unhappiness and suicide ratio. But these factors should not affect the fact that Japan is a prosperous country. I wish we had in my country an advanced education, economy, employment market, and sophisticated culture like the Japanese. Things would be better...
And, I never understood why people consider Japan terrible because of the balance of work/life balance. Maybe it is just a cultural conflict again...
Anyway, a successful state? I thought there were just less unsuccessful states? :)
, hey that could be a useful metric. At least, if many more people want to exit one, and enter another, then the latter is the more successful in some way.
Because it is. It has borders - a configuration you can find on a map. It has laws, an economy, a social structure, institutions, trade and diplomatic relationships with other entities at that same level of organization. There are people in a family, too, and yet a family is a recognizable entity with defining characteristics. A school of fish is entity which has recognizable characteristics more specific than "a bunch of fish". A molecule is a made up of atoms, but behaves quite differently than its components. Collectives take on an identity and a life beyond that of each individual, and so the collective survives even when its individual components die, because new ones are constantly added.