The Development Challenge in Weak States

Donors are making aid more effective in strong and reform-minded states. Reducing poverty in weak or unstable states requires a different approach.

In the Monterrey Consensus, donors pledged to increase aid volumes, to work in partnership with developing country governments and to align aid with national poverty reduction strategies. This model offers the best chance of improving aid effectiveness to achieve poverty reduction goals. But what do donors do where the government is unable or unwilling to form a working partnership for poverty reduction?

Development partnerships are difficult where the government lacks effective territorial authority due to conflict or institutional collapse. Political instability and low administrative capacity pose similar challenges. Governments that are repressive or unresponsive to the needs of poor people will not commit to poverty reduction strategies. In these difficult environments, DFID is looking to suggest new and better ways of working at the national, regional and international level.

There is no definitive list of weak states. Countries show stronger or weaker performance in a variety of ways. But leaving aside real definitional problems, there is no real argument that Somalia's government lacks authority, that Nepal is in conflict, and that the regime in Burma has difficulty attracting substantial aid. According to one estimate, the world's weak and fragile states house 342 million people living on less than a dollar a day. That is a third of the world's poor. The same countries contain some 40 per cent of all child mortality and 35 per cent of all maternal mortality in the world. The conclusion is inescapable: it will not be possible to achieve the Millennium Development Goals unless progress can be made in difficult environments.

Four challenges stand out. Firstly, we need to ensure that the international community does not abandon countries in crisis.

Secondly, we need a better understanding of what causes political instability, conflict and unresponsive governance. Identifying countries at risk of instability and weakness can help make the UK a better partner in preventing crisis.

Thirdly, DFID and others are looking for new and more effective ways to deliver basic services such as water and education in difficult environments. Poverty reduction partnerships with NGOs, local government and community organisations are important. Contracting directly with service providers is another option. The challenge is to find ways of getting services on the ground in a way that is inclusive and sustainable without undermining responsive state programmes.

The fourth challenge is to build up more effective states that are accountable to citizens and capable of delivering programmes. The growth of strong states is an internal process that cannot be imposed from outside. Yet donors can give support, and help ensure that international systems do not undermine sustainable governance.

The Poverty Reduction in Difficult Environments team in DFID's Policy Division is working on these, and related, issues. DFID met with BOND members in April to discuss the general approach. Another meeting is planned in the summer to share experience and discuss emerging issues with respect to service delivery.

The contact point for the Poverty Reduction in Difficult Environments team in DFID is:
L-Phillips@dfid.gov.uk