Why the U.S. Shouldn't Be so Focused on the Danger of 'Failed States'

Earlier this month, the U.S. State Department unveiled its strategy document for the next four years: the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (PDF). The term "fragile state" appears 17 times in the document, reflecting that it is a major focus of the review. This builds on the latest National Security Strategy (PDF) declaring weak or failing states one of the top strategic risks to U.S. interests—up there with catastrophic attacks on the homeland, pandemics, climate change, and global economic crises.

It should come as no surprise: According to several analyses, there are a lot of fragile states out there. For example, the Fund for Peace suggests (PDF) that only 40 countries, out of the 178 it ranks, are stable or better, while 66 countries are in the ‘very high warning’ category or above. While there are states where the government lacks legitimacy and control, there is some good news: All the evidence reveals state failure in retreat. The number of countries showing they can maintain peace, deliver basic services, and sustain at least a modicum of economic dynamism has expanded considerably since the end of the Cold War.