Conceptualizing the ‘Failed State’: The Construction of the Failed State Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of the ‘failed state’ emerged in the 1990s to describe and explain why states residing outside the Western world do not function as advanced states. The failed state narrative has inherent conceptual limitations and is based on flawed assumptions that obscure its utility. These so-‐called failed states are held against a Western-‐centric norm and a universalized spectrum of state development. The concept is now widely used in the context of global security, peacekeeping, poverty reduction, humanitarian assistance and good governance. The application of the narrative within the realm of policy means Western actors use the concept to promote their own security and development interests. This translates into an inability to formulate effective policy responses to society-‐wide challenges. This essay examines the failed state narrative by exploring how the state is theorized in the context of failed states, and how the narrative is plagued with neocolonial underpinnings, definitional ambiguity, western centrism and analytical reductionism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.110 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".