Critical review

Chapter 18: The political economy of statebuilding: Rents, taxes and perpetual dependency (Berit Bliesemann de
Guevara and Florian P. Kueh)
Belagi Tarik, 2962/P
Faculty of Political Science
April, 2017

Introduction

Through a surprisingly informative introduction and very thoughtful examples, the writers
question the political economy of statebuilding, to be precise the two types of transformation from aid
dependency to self-sustainable state financing: rentier states and tax states. While looking at the ideal
types, both show capability of doing the job, while the examples of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Afghanistan offer an insight on how external financing in interventions may cause dysfuctional effects,
pointing out how the answer is not more time or more money. Ammong the wide spectre of
possible dysfunctional effects, one stands out of me, since it is oh so contrary to what I believe
statebuilding interventions should be about primarily perpetuating ethnic conflicts. And what also
disturbed me while reading is what the donors focus mainly on: creating an exit option. Either way,
through rents or taxes, tendencies have shown that the dependency on external actors has solidified. I
do acknowledge that in the cases of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Afghanistan all kind of aid was (and
sadly still is) welcome and that the actual issue is that most interventions do bring side-effects and
encounter various complications. After reading the article I can only agree with the writers pointing the
financial side of statebuilding as neglected compared to other issues. Afterall, How states are
financed, or to be more historically accurate, how they finance themselves, is the most complex of
affairs - a shoutout for the international community, at least the ones participating in interventionism,
to pay more attention to it.

Summary

The introduction gives a brief summ of what the article is about, which examples and why are
used as well as pointing out the key questions which got discussed further. Before even mentioning
statebuilding, the article goes progressively through factors affecting the behaviour of donors, as well
as a theoretical background of how states, in terms of political economy, behave. Aside of th complex
issue of how the state balacing plebiscitarianism (participatcipative decision-making) and corporatism
(corporate groups controlling key resources), the authors write about a third set of intrests which only
Critical review
Chapter 18: The political economy of statebuilding: Rents, taxes and perpetual dependency (Berit Bliesemann de
Guevara and Florian P. Kueh)
Belagi Tarik, 2962/P
Faculty of Political Science
April, 2017

apply to states under intervention that of the intervening actors. That third intrest is where things get
out of hand. Various issues like modes of aid delivery, organizing transformation to self-sustainable
state financing ando thers are listed just before going over though the examples where they are very
visible. Those examples, Afghanistan and Bosnia and Herzegovina have been analyzed with a focus on
which donors, through what means, have aided these states, and more importantly how it was
recivied by the states, and what is the aftermath of interventionism. Also, what is present in all parts of
the article, is the role of ruling elites in the states under intervention. A typical conclusion at the end,
summarizing the key arguments and again leaving many questions for the reader to think of him/her
self.

Conclusion

How could one label aid, especially in times of crysis, as negative? I have tried coming up with an
argument that would mark interventions as unfavorable or even inimical, but I could not. What
hindered me is the complexity of the issue. Too many factors, like who intervenes, who is under
intervention, ruling elites, public acceptance etc., is what it makes for statebuilding so hard to meet its
expectations. The ideal type formula would be easy, conflict region + help = functioning state, but that
is far from what can be achieved, especially regarding issues of economic reform. I do however
criticize those who intentionally hindered, abused or sabotaged the forms of external aid. Donors and
interventionists could have also done a better job at making sure the help helps those in need, and not
those of greed. Then again, I feel the need to point out that afterall, as someone living in one under-
intervention states, we still need to thank those who bothered helping. What if it weren't for them?

The article itself was very informative as well as intriguing since I rarely encounter well explained
examples of political economy in action. The writers did an amazing job making complex
economical issues readable and understandable for someone who is not that into such matters. They
talk about the dangers of perpetuation and from first hand expirience, living in a state of perpetuated
conflict and perpetual external dependancy is no fun at all.