Hierarchical and Non-Hierarchical Coordination

This chapter focuses on hierarchical and non-hierarchical (including deliberative) governance modes in areas of limited statehood (i.e. on the ‘how’ of governance). Actorhood and modes of governance are orthogonal to each other. State actors are involved in non-hierarchical governance and non-state actors—including violent ones—sometimes exercise hierarchical control over people and territories. The effectiveness and problem-solving capacity of these modes of governance should not be underestimated. ‘New’ modes of governance appear to be more effective on average than hierarchical governance, particularly when the latter has to rely on force and coercion. Deliberative bodies, such as non-state justice institutions, can be rather effective in solving disputes and restoring peace within communities. Both hierarchical and non-hierarchical modes depend on two crucial conditions for their effectiveness, namely the social acceptance (legitimacy) of the governors and/or the governance institutions, on the one hand, and the institutional design of the governance arrangements, on the other.

Health

This chapter will introduce health as a policy field and carve out the implications of limited statehood for health governance. It will discuss broader trends in the literature on health governance in areas of limited statehood and introduce major controversies revolving around the notions of effectiveness, legitimacy, and sustainability. The chapter starts by discussing different definitions of health governance, arguing that the differentiation between domestic and global health governance makes little sense in the face of contemporary developments. It further engages with the question of which actors are involved in health governance, their motivations, resources, and core areas of activity. The chapter goes on to discuss how limited statehood affects health governance—nationally and globally—using the case of polio eradication. The last part will introduce the reader to issues of effectiveness and legitimacy with a particular focus on contemporary debates about the legitimacy of non-state actors in global health.

Foreign Aid

This chapter reviews the aid effectiveness literature to assess whether foreign aid given to areas of limited statehood (ALS) can be expected to promote economic and social outcomes in the recipient country. It distinguishes between different types of aid, motives for granting it, recipient country policies and characteristics, and the modalities by which aid is delivered, as these factors have been argued to influence its effectiveness. This chapter then compares these properties between recipients most affected by limited statehood and those least affected. This allows us to assess the relative effectiveness of aid in countries with ALS. We conclude that on average aid given there is less likely to be effective than elsewhere. As countries with ALS, however, constitute a heterogeneous group, the specifics of individual countries and the types of aid given matter.

Violent and Criminal Non-State Actors

This chapter takes stock of the main scholarly and policy debates pertaining to the rise of violent and criminal governors. First, it delves into the reasons that drive these actors towards investing in governance; emphasizing the usefulness of governance provision to extract resources, enhance control, built legitimacy, and fulfil state-building aspirations. Second, the chapter briefly accounts for the main variations in the types of governance configurations established by criminal and violent actors, focusing on when and where these actors act as governors; what types of services they are likely to provide and to whom, as well as on how governance itself is delivered. This cursory examination, along with an analysis of the relationships these groups build while acting as governors, allows us to reflect on the impact of these non-state governors on the civilian population under their rule, as well as on the notions of sovereignty and statehood more broadly.

Social Trust

This chapter investigates the relevance of social trust for governance in areas of limited statehood (ALS), especially to compensate for the lack of third-party enforcement. To capture the forms of trust in a variety of societies from small-scale communities to larger social entities, we differentiate between personalized, particularized, and generalized trust. Empirical and theoretical literature from different disciplines suggests that trust facilitates social cooperation and enables collective action at all levels. While particularized trust tends to have exclusionary effects though, and generalized trust is almost absent in ALS, inclusive forms of trust might emerge from bridging collective identities and everyday experiences of impartiality and fairness. We conclude that governance initiatives can help spreading trust, particularly by promoting universal values through service-providing institutions like schools and hospitals. Existing trust relations, in turn, can serve as facilitators of effective and legitimate governance in ALS.

Critical Approaches

This chapter looks for the contributions in both actual and potential intersections between critical theorizing and work on governance in areas of limited statehood. It does so, first, by giving a brief introduction to what the broad-brush idea of critical approaches includes, and what those approaches share. From there, it moves on to the contributions to the study of governance in areas of limited statehood from critically oriented theory, focusing on three approaches: feminist theory, post-colonial/decolonial theory, and post-structuralist theory. These three approaches are chosen as a focus because they provide an interesting cross-section of potential implications. The chapter concludes by considering the relationships among the various contributions of critical theorizing to thinking about governance in areas of limited statehood.

INGOs and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

This chapter analyses two groups of non-profit external non-state governance actors that are active in areas of limited statehood (ALS): international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs). After some examples of the collective goods these actors provide in contexts of limited statehood, their effectiveness is assessed in terms of output, outcome, and impact. It is found that in ALS, the activities of MSPs and INGOs can become part of the solution, but may also exacerbate existing problems. Empirical research shows that it is already demanding for INGOs and MSPs to produce good output in ALS, let alone broader impact. The analysis provides insights on the conditions under which INGOs and MSPs can—and cannot—successfully provide governance in ALS and how their activities impact limited statehood itself. Finally, the findings are discussed against the background of recent trends affecting governance by external state and non-state actors in ALS.

Education

Education is essential for economic and human development. The effectiveness of education governance, however, is severely inhibited by the condition of (limited) statehood. This chapter sets out to present an overview of the specific characteristics that define education governance, how its effectiveness is assessed, who the main actors are and how they and their interplay strengthens or inhibits education effectiveness in areas of limited statehood (ALS). Empirically, the chapter mainly draws upon sub-Saharan Africa as a region that is prone to exhibit ALS. After providing an overview of empirical findings on the effectiveness of the activities of state and non-state actors—and their joint activities—in ALS, the chapter concludes by formulating policy recommendations for increasing education effectiveness under conditions of limited statehood.

Geographies of Limited Statehood

Starting from the presupposition that areas of limited statehood (ALS) are not ungoverned, but ‘differently’ governed, this chapter proposes a spatial grammar that analyses authority and governance as a socio-spatial relationship. This spatial grammar distinguishes four types of dynamic socio-spatial relations—territory, place, scale, and network—and enables us to spatially analyse (a) how political authority is contested, claimed, upheld, and disrupted; (b) how political life is negotiated, regulated, and practised; and (c) how these practices and their effects are spatially situated. We apply this spatial grammar to four case studies, each providing insight into one type of socio-spatial relations. These cases from Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), explain how the negotiation, contestation, and disruption of political authority is spatially situated and embedded in ALS. A spatial grammar focuses on the shifting, overlapping, and contradictory practices of claiming political and regulatory power.

Measuring Governance and Limited Statehood

Statehood and governance are core concepts in the political and social sciences. However, most available quantitative data on statehood and governance lack reliability and validity, suffers from methodological nationalism, and fails to include the governance contributions of external or non-state actors. The chapter argues that research on governance in areas of limited statehood is in need of a subnational turn in data generation and has to develop second-generation indicators, which allow for more differentiated analyses of statehood and governance. This contribution critically discusses existing data and approaches of measuring statehood and governance. Furthermore, through empirical examples, the chapter suggests possibilities for subnational measurements of statehood and governance. It here underlines empirically that stark differences between citizens’ perceptions of governance and actual governance provision exist, and that the governance contributions by external and non-state actors have to be considered. It concludes with quality criteria for future data collection efforts.