The Determinants of State Strength

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Dimensions of State Strength
Capacity
Autonomy
State Strength in the United States
State Strength in Ukraine
Conclusion
Works Cited

The meaning of state strength is a convoluted matter, particularly because of the context in which it arises. Two substantial movements in politics hold diametrically opposite opinions on how it should be treated. One of them wants to increase state strength so that the government can fulfill its functions. In contrast, the other wants to minimize it to avoid bureaucratic inefficiencies and abuses of power. However, the ambiguity of the subject matter, especially in practice, it can be challenging for people on the same side, much less different ones, to reach an agreement. To help resolve the ongoing debates, scholars have been discussing the matter of state strength and trying to develop ways to measure it. This essay will highlight some of the methods used to do so and apply them to two substantially different countries: The United States and Ukraine.

Dimensions of State Strength

First of all, it is critical to establish that state strength can be defined in different ways, depending on one’s intent and understanding. San-Akca highlights the distinction between domestic and external strength and notes that the two do not necessarily have to correlate (263). In this context, the former would relate to the state’s relationship with its citizens while the latter would govern its position concerning other countries. External strength can be understood in terms of factors such as military power, alliances, economic resources, international trade, and other sources of influence. It is still not easily measurable, but in general, it is possible to determine which nation of the two is stronger by comparing them and examining their relationship and history. The situation surrounding domestic strength is more complicated, possibly because of the complicated relationship between a state and its citizens.

Generally, the domestic strength of the state can be defined as its capacity to fulfill its obligations to the citizens. The government guarantees the rule of law, maintains public utilities, and protects its citizens from internal and external threats along with working on other tasks. O’Neil identifies three dimensions of power: capacity, autonomy, and legitimacy (49-54). A capable state would be able to accomplish its duties well, while a weak one would fail to do so. However, both strong and weak states have systems such as interest groups and opposition that constrain their actions. Finally, legitimacy is the state’s rationale for being accepted by the populace, which can be founded on tradition, charisma, or rationality and legality (O’Neil 49). Unlike the other two, it is less directly influential, with successful and failed examples of countries that use all three types existing in the world. As a result, this essay will focus on the former two in its discussion of state power and national comparison.

Capacity

The state fulfills a variety of duties, for many of which it requires power to overrule influential groups. Pravilova offers a measure of state strength as “its ability to enforce the security of property” (94). Physical objects can be taken away with violence that the owner cannot match, and the state has to return belongings to the victim through various means, including force. Similar conceptions apply to most other laws, with the state serving as the highest authority and the source of overruling power that resolves disputes. In a weak state, there would be groups that can disregard its rule, whether overtly or covertly. To combat such influences, it needs resources, which it collects through methods such as taxation. The government then uses these funds to create various agencies that oversee particular aspects of the nation’s operations and intervene if necessary.

However, the presence of resources and institutional power does not necessarily define a strong government. Orvis and Drogus discuss states that appear strong because they use force on their people but are, in fact, weak and have no other methods of maintaining their existence. While such governments have a substantial amount of influence, they misuse it to maintain their existence rather than fulfill their duties. As a result, the quality of life in the country deteriorates, and eventually, the country cannot continue without external aid. In effect, the state fails to fulfill its primary duty despite having the resources necessary to do so. As such, it cannot be considered strong but should be seen as a specific variety of weak. Overall, it can be concluded that a strong state should have both influence over the country’s life and the intent to benefit the citizens.

Autonomy

A state that cannot control its citizenry and is overthrown cannot be considered strong because it is unable to satisfy the needs of its population and ceases existing. As established above, a state that prevents such an outcome by using force on its constituents cannot be considered strong, either. One can conclude that the trust of the citizenry is fundamental to the definition of strength. If the people trust and support the government, and its acts in their interests, the two entities can collaborate successfully and achieve continuously improving results. However, it is challenging to trust the state’s actions when it is generally nearly impossible to accurately evaluate the implications of a particular policy or resolution. As such, a different guarantee of trustworthiness that will motivate people to give their faith and their money to the state is required.

People want to be sure that the government is accountable to them and that they can make their complaints known if they feel that their interests are not being protected. Orvis and Drogus apply this concept to claim that the state can earn their trust by introducing “impersonal institutions and the rule of law,” using democracy with its limitations on power as an example. Legislation serves as a mechanism that binds the government as well as the people and violations of which by either party can be punished. However, while limitations on state power are critical to avoid abuses and earn the trust of the citizens, they can be harmful, as well. Ikenberry mentions the case of Japan, whose supposedly strong government is “severely constrained by interest groups and political parties” (43). In conclusion, stability in terms of strength appears to be a matter of balance, with excesses in either direction hurting it.

State Strength in the United States

The United States is a significantly decentralized nation that emphasizes the separation of powers and the supremacy of the Constitution. Ikenberry describes it as “the exemplary weak state,” with little ability to intervene in the nation’s life on a large scale and high government personnel turnover (42). Even if the federal government makes a decision, individual states can often reject it as long as their actions are not unconstitutional. However, Ikenberry also notes that the initial image of weakness is misleading because the state may show its strength and confidence by abandoning direct oversight and intervention tools (43). The government may have established a sufficiently robust system that it does not need to waste resources on careful oversight. Its long history of maintaining the same political system may be an indication of the same, suggesting that the U.S. is a strong state.

In terms of external strength, the situation is substantially less ambiguous, with the nation often being considered the most influential country in the world. Its military power is rivaled only by a few others, and it is a member of a massive alliance, NATO. The nation is also vastly wealthy and is home to most of the world’s largest companies. It conducts extensive trade worldwide and often uses economic sanctions as a pressuring tool. Overall, the U.S. is extremely strong externally, and its success in various arenas may imply that the state is powerful domestically, as well. Additional research will be necessary to make a final determination, but it would appear that the American government has created a system where it can keep the nation operating despite being severely restricted.

State Strength in Ukraine

Unlike the U.S., Ukraine is not a prominent country in the global arena, exerting little to no influence on other countries and remaining dependent on foreign aid. It shares a border with Russia and is a former member state of the USSR, which puts it into the larger nation’s sphere of influence. Its military power is low, in part due to the nation’s denuclearization effort, and insufficient to combat the most likely threat to it. Economically, the country does not perform well, with Quinn and Anne highlighting a history of negative GDP growth and a problematic debt situation. Overall, Ukraine is weak externally, and only the conflicting interests of the different parties with interests in the country protect it.

Domestically, the state is also weak, less ambiguously so than in the case of the United States. Two uprisings happened in 2004 and 2014 and resulted in a change of government each time. Combined with the secession of Crimea and the eastern territories, they demonstrate the distrust people have for the establishment despite the changes in government throughout this time. According to Bullough, corruption is extensive in most spheres of public life, further undermining the public’s trust and spurring them toward revolt. D’Anieri identifies wealthy oligarchs as a prominent limiting influence on the state that prevented it from carrying out consistent policies and fostered conflict, ultimately weakening the nation (74). Overall, the Ukrainian state may have had enough resources initially but became too limited by opposing interest groups and weakened to a degree where it failed on most levels.

Conclusion

The cases of the United States and Ukraine demonstrate the importance of the three aspects of resources, direction, and limitations to the strength of a state. Both countries started with a sufficient amount of resources and a government constrained by various factors. However, the U.S. was able to keep its focus on the people and created a system where the central government does not need much constant direct influence to maintain the nation’s performance. In contrast, Ukraine’s government succumbed to the interest of the wealthy and politically powerful individuals and squandered the nation’s leftover wealth. A similar class of people exists in the U.S. and can affect politics substantially through lobbying, but they cannot overrule the nation’s foundational principles. This similarity of circumstances and differences in outcomes shows that state strength is a complicated framework of factors, none of which can be disregarded because of their potentially critical influence.

Works Cited

Bullough, Oliver. “Welcome to Ukraine, the Most Corrupt Nation in Europe.” The Guardian, 2015, Web.

D’Anieri, Paul. Ukraine and Russia: From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Ikenberry, G. John. Reasons of State: Oil Politics and the Capacities of American Government. Cornell University Press, 2018.

O’Neil, Patrick H. Essentials of Comparative Politics. 6th ed., W. W. Norton, 2017.

Orvis, Stephen, and Carol Ann Drogus. Introducing Comparative Politics: The Essentials. 2nd ed., CQ Press, 2019. E-book.

Pravilova, Ekaterina. A Public Empire: Property and the Quest for the Common Good in Imperial Russia. Princeton University Press, 2018.

Quinn, Anne, and Marton Eder. “Even the Good News Is Bad for Ukraine’s President Zelenskiy.” MSN, 2020, Web.

San-Akca, Belgin. States in Disguise: Causes of State Support for Rebel Groups. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Click Here To Order Now!