Reading Report - summary ofHerbst, Jeffrey. “War and the State in Africa.” International Security PDF

Preview

Summary

summary ofHerbst, Jeffrey. “War and the State in Africa.” International Security 14 no. 4. Spring 1990....

Description

READING REPORT SUMMARY

Reading Report: Herbst, Jeffrey. “War and the State in Africa.” International Security 14 no. 4. Spring 1990.

*Note: All quotes taken from cited article In Jeffrey Herbst’s article titled “War and the State in Africa,” Herbst attempts to explain why African states have remained weak. He presupposes that the inevitable trajectory of states is one in which they eventually become strong. He argues that states in Africa are developing “in a fundamentally new environment.” Herbst’s analysis also relies heavily on the Tilly-ian discourse which argues that war-making is essential for state-making. He argues that African states have remained perpetually weak and that war has not shaped their institutions in the same was as war, or rather the possibility of it, has shaped the existence of states like Taiwan and South Korea whose existences rest upon their ability to defend themselves against regional aggressors. Herbst assumes that local historical context is insignificant when he compares African state formation to European state formation--notably that European states colonized and plundered African states (i.e. engaged in warfare) to advance their domestic economic interests--by arguing that African states were not able to improve their administrative capacity or produce a nationalism that war often generates. Herbst’s argument rests heavily on two mechanisms generated by war-making: taxation and nationalism. According to Herbst, the fluid nature of which war was conducted meant that European states were significantly more likely to improve their tax apparatus, allowing them to conduct warfare with greater ease. War also generates “tremendous strains on leaders to find new and more regular sources of income;” thus warmaking meant that the state would deepen its hegemony and its rule over the people it governed. Herbst also posits that the existence of a “palpable threat” generated a “common association between the state and the population.” Herbst contends that there is an absence interstate war in the Modern Era. He says that since the end of World War II, very few poor states have engaged in inter-state warfare. “Even in Africa,” Herbst argues where the imposition of colonially imposed boundaries remains a sensitive subject, “there has not been one involuntary boundary change.” He further clarifies his interpretation of interstate warfare when he explains that wars in Africa--the few that have occurred, notably Tanzania’s war with Uganda--by arguing that wars in Africa were not wars of conquest, but rather wars fought over minor issues. He provides an additional example of South Africa, which engages in destabilization efforts against its neighbors but not explicit wars of conquest. If it were to do so, Lesotho and Swaziland would not exist. Herbst explains the lack of inter-state warfare by arguing that African leaders have “continued the system of boundary maintenance” given the “large number of groups” who want to secede from present boundaries. The Organization of African Unity, inaugurated in 1963, Herbst contends exists to defend the boundaries as they presently exist. Herbst also argues that poor states, specifically in Africa, are reliant on weak economic policies such as heavy import tariffs which constitute nearly 20% of total revenue on average; while ISI is fundamentally bad trade policy, these high tariffs also promote smuggling and corruption thereby reducing the monopoly of the state on looting and financial gain. High trade barriers and weak state

READING REPORT SUMMARY capacity are part of a self-perpetuating cycle in which states can’t abandon poor economic policies at the risk of mass revolt and simultaneously can not strengthen their capacity without serious economic reform. While Herbst’s article certainly is redundant at many points--a strong point in the article’s favor as it helps the reader digest his, at times, historically unfound argument--his ultimate point remains: “the symbiotic relationship that war fostered in Europe between tax collection and nationalism is absent in Africa” due to a lack of an external threat that forces the governed to succumb to the will of the one who is governing....