{"title":"什么是国家失败?","authors":"D. Shevsky","doi":"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to an overview of state failure conceptualization. One of the most popular concepts was failed state after transformed in fragile state. These two concepts are based on weberian understanding of the state that is irrelevant from historical perspective. Also critics have denoted to political labeling, incorrectness and the lack of formalization of these concepts. Since these indices were built for practical purposes, a fullfledged theoretical foundation for the idea of state weakness was elaborated in great details in a concept of state capacity. This concept tries to surpass the narrow weberian understanding of the state and offers three dimensions of state capacity: fiscaleconomic, administrativebureaucratic and the control over violence. The drawback of this concept is an absence of the threshold to understand whether the state has experienced state failure or not. The most formalized approach to measure state failure is created within a concept of state collapse. This concept has common with the previous concept because bases on the same features (fiscal, administrative and military). Using this concept faces some difficulties because of different cases are the same according to this concept. Sociology offered a concept of state breakdown which has three points: fiscal crisis, elite conflict and mass mobilization. After analyzing both sociological and anthropological literature the author offers to add to these three criteria two additional: deligitimation (or change of selfdescription in the system) and territorial disintegration.","PeriodicalId":37798,"journal":{"name":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Is State Failure?\",\"authors\":\"D. Shevsky\",\"doi\":\"10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is devoted to an overview of state failure conceptualization. One of the most popular concepts was failed state after transformed in fragile state. These two concepts are based on weberian understanding of the state that is irrelevant from historical perspective. Also critics have denoted to political labeling, incorrectness and the lack of formalization of these concepts. Since these indices were built for practical purposes, a fullfledged theoretical foundation for the idea of state weakness was elaborated in great details in a concept of state capacity. This concept tries to surpass the narrow weberian understanding of the state and offers three dimensions of state capacity: fiscaleconomic, administrativebureaucratic and the control over violence. The drawback of this concept is an absence of the threshold to understand whether the state has experienced state failure or not. The most formalized approach to measure state failure is created within a concept of state collapse. This concept has common with the previous concept because bases on the same features (fiscal, administrative and military). Using this concept faces some difficulties because of different cases are the same according to this concept. Sociology offered a concept of state breakdown which has three points: fiscal crisis, elite conflict and mass mobilization. After analyzing both sociological and anthropological literature the author offers to add to these three criteria two additional: deligitimation (or change of selfdescription in the system) and territorial disintegration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mezhdunarodnye Protsessy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17994/it.2020.18.3.62.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
The article is devoted to an overview of state failure conceptualization. One of the most popular concepts was failed state after transformed in fragile state. These two concepts are based on weberian understanding of the state that is irrelevant from historical perspective. Also critics have denoted to political labeling, incorrectness and the lack of formalization of these concepts. Since these indices were built for practical purposes, a fullfledged theoretical foundation for the idea of state weakness was elaborated in great details in a concept of state capacity. This concept tries to surpass the narrow weberian understanding of the state and offers three dimensions of state capacity: fiscaleconomic, administrativebureaucratic and the control over violence. The drawback of this concept is an absence of the threshold to understand whether the state has experienced state failure or not. The most formalized approach to measure state failure is created within a concept of state collapse. This concept has common with the previous concept because bases on the same features (fiscal, administrative and military). Using this concept faces some difficulties because of different cases are the same according to this concept. Sociology offered a concept of state breakdown which has three points: fiscal crisis, elite conflict and mass mobilization. After analyzing both sociological and anthropological literature the author offers to add to these three criteria two additional: deligitimation (or change of selfdescription in the system) and territorial disintegration.
期刊介绍:
“International Trends” (“Mezhdunarodnye protsessy”) was established in 2002 as the first Russian TIR journal. As of the early 2010s, it holds a strong position among the top three Russian thematic academic journals (according to the Russian Science Citation Index). The Journal’s key mission is a theoretical comprehension of the world as a whole, of international tendencies and the planetary political environment, and of the world-integrity our country finds herself in and develops with.