WEEK 4(a): Herbst 1990, "War and The State in Africa"

Main arguments, key details, evidence, etc

3 Main Ideas

Builds on Tilly’s thesis: “War made the state and the state made the war”. Existential external threats are the primary catalyst of effective war-making

The “African exception”: Unlike European states, African states achieved independence peacefully, no external threats, so no urgent incentive to develop or centralize power

Permeance of weak states: The international system artificially keeps African states alive by freezing colonial borders and discouraging territorial conquest— creating “lame levithans”

How did war build strong states in Europe?

Taxation and symbolism that created a National Identity created legitimacy amongst the people, allowing power to centralize and states to develop.

How did Africa’s history allow for the creation of a weak state?

Africa’s low population density, too much support from international systems, and internal conflicts weakened states and unlinked the people from the systems of power in their respective states.

What were Herbst’s main conclusions regarding the future of African states?

Thinks the main issue is Taxation Deficits: African states never had an incentive to tax their people, which unlinked the people from the state and allowed them to rely heavily on foreign/international aid

Believes these states will likely stay weak or face internal collapse.

How do civil wars produce the opposite effect of inter-state wars?

Internal conflicts fracture society, destroy infrastructure, and weaken central authority, rather than uniting a population under a central authority and boosting revenue.

The boundary dilemma

Modern borders are recognized as valid under international law regardless of a stats’s functional capacity. This protects weak regimes from external conquest, enabling these states who cant control their territory to survive anyway on paper.