state-building in fragile states: an assessment toolkit

State-Building in Fragile States:

An Assessment Toolkit

2

CONTEXT Ongoing, increased challenge of state fragility WDR 2011 has moved the consensus and knowledge on the role of

donors in FCS forward, BUT Challenges of operationalization and persisting weaknesses in donor

approaches to state-building: Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States:

◦ Overarching 'Guidance Note’◦ Interactive E-Tool (excel-based)◦ 'How To' Note on how to use the Tool◦ Set of 'State Building at a Glance' indicators, ◦ Working / background paper reviewing literature underpinning the

approach

3

Toolkit on State-Building in Fragile States

Offers country and donor teams:◦ A common ‘language’ or framework for approaching/

understanding fundamental state-building issues◦ A structured and guided process for collectively an

consistently discussing and assessing state-building challenges and their implications for country programming

Toolkit CAN: ◦ Help teams arrive at a common understanding on state-

building challenges and implications for country programming◦ Help ‘surface’ some of the difficult state-building

challenges that often are passed over◦ Help identify areas for further in-depth investigation (via PEA

and other analytical instruments/ approaches) Toolkit CANNOT provide definitive answers (if you find X, then do Y)

4

Overview - Conceptual framework 1. Social and Political Context: Nature and Context of

Fragility2. 3 core dimensions/ characteristics of functioning

states and institutions: Authority, Capacity, Legitimacy (ACL)

3. 4 ‘domains’ where these dimensions play out: constitutive/survival domains (security, political/ government), and output/expected domains (economic, social service delivery)

4. A myriad of institutions that contribute to outcomes in the four domains

Each institution will have its own authority-capacity-legitimacy (ACL) challenges

5

THE ACL FRAMEWORK – CORE CONCEPTS

Effective Public

Authority

Authority (A): The ability of the state to

govern its territory effectively, reach all

citizens regardless of their location, maintain law and order and protect citizens

from predation and violence. It is the ability of the laws and rules of the state to trump all other

laws and rules.

Capacity (C): The ability of the state to deliver goods and

services, procure goods and services, design and implement policies, build infrastructure, collect

revenue, dispense justice, and maintain a conducive environment for the private sector.

Legitimacy (L): Whether citizens feel the government has the right to govern –

and whether they trust the government. (Both

performance and process matter)

Macro-/Structural Level

Specific Institutions & O

rganizations

4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT

3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT

2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT

1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT

AUTHORITY (A)

CAPACITY (C)

LEGITIMACY (L)

SECURITY POL/ GVT ECONOMICSOC/ SERV DEL.

A C L

A C L SECURITY INSTIT. 1. Core security instit. 2. Justice instit. 3. Etc.POL/ GVT . INSTIT.

Structural Causes of Fragility Elite and social cleavagesPolitical settlement, political system and social contract

7

Over view – State-Building Assessment Tool (SBAT)

Excel-based Tool guides teams step by step through the assessment process

Each step includes questions or ‘prompts’ to help teams:◦ Assess the ACL of the state or of key institutions at the

respective level and identify state-building needs based on this assessment

◦ Assess what the government, the Bank, and the international community are doing to address these needs

◦ Identify the implications of the assessment for the Bank’s portfolio in terms of risks, priorities and next steps

4. INSTITUTIONAL & ORGANIZATIONAL ASSESSMENT

3. DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT

Analysis Practice

4. OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

3. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

2. STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

State-Building Implications Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implications

State-Building Implications Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implications Prioritization

Implications for the Bank portfolio and partnerships Risk implicationsPrioritization

Macro-/Structural Level

Specific Institutions & O

rganizations

2. STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT

1. SOCIAL & POLITICAL CONTEXT

AUTHORITY (A)

CAPACITY (C)

LEGITIMACY (L)

SECURITY POL/ GVT ECONOMICSOC/ SERV DEL.

A C L

A C L SECURITY INSTIT. 1. Core security instit. 2. Justice instit. 3. Etc.POL/ GVT . INSTIT.

Structural Causes of Fragility Elite and social cleavagesPolitical settlement, political system and social contract

9

How to use the SBAT

Team-based assessment and planning tool workshop of 1 to 4 days (depending on version used)

Needs:◦ Team contact person + facilitator for planning,

conducting and following up on the workshop◦ Ideally: work in groups of max 5-6 people◦ Laptop(s) + Projector(s)

10

Purpose and Options for Customization

The SBAT is best used to inform the development of country strategies in FCS (ISNs or CASs), but it can be ‘customized’ to meet a variety of needs. E.g.: 1. Joint donor assessments. 2. Focus on a specific sector or domain. 3. Use for sub-national authorities. 4. Use with government and/ or civil society

representatives. 5. Use in other low- and middle-income countries.

11

Conclusion Not just ‘another’ analytical tool:

◦ Focuses more directly on the state and what the Bank and its partners can do to strengthen it

◦ Takes a systematic approach of linking different levels of assessment: From the macro-/ strategic level to individual institutions and organizations From analysis to strategic and operational implications

◦ Offers a conceptual framework or a ‘common language’ on state-building.

◦ Generates a common team-based experience of linking analysis to operational implications

◦ Can 'surface' many of the difficult issues and diverse viewpoints about state-building that often are left unnoticed

◦ Offers (some) suggestions for strategic and operational choices for supporting state-building

Structured guidance for systematic team discussion of state-building challenges and implications

The SBAT in detail

13

Step 1. Assess the Social and Political Context

To understand to nature and the causes of fragility1. Structural Causes – e.g. ethnic or religious divisions,

economic inequality2. Elite cleavages3. Social cleavages/ social cohesion4. Political Settlement/ Political System5. Social Contract/ Citizen-State Relations◦ Reflection of key drivers of fragility in the four domains of

governance◦ Key issues, risks and expected evolution over time

Sets the stage for considering the state and its institutions with their overall socio-political context

1414

TAB 1: POLITICAL & SOCIAL CONTEXT

OVERALL NATURE AND CAUSES OF STATE FRAGILITY

KEY ISSUES - DRIVERS OF FRAGILITY

KEY RISKS - POTENTIAL "STRESSES"/"TRIGGERS" CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS

Structural causes of fragility

What is/ are the fundamental cause(s) of fragility (e.g. economic/ religious/

territorial disputes etc.)?

What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could exacerbate these

causes and lead to the (re-)emergence of conflict? How likely are they?

How 'severe' are these structural causes?

How do you expect these causes to evolve over time ?

Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Critical/ Moderate/ Mild/ N/A Select one option

Improving/No change/Worsening? Select one option

Elite cleavages

Who are the key elite groups and what is their power basis? How do they bargain with each other? How credible are their

agreements; is there an 'elite pact'/ 'political settlement'? How are rents, power, resources etc. distributed?



How severe are elite cleavages? How do you expect these cleavages to evolve over time ?



Societal cleavages/ Social Cohesion

What/ who are the key social groups (e.g. ethnic religious etc.)? What is the

relationship between them/ how do they relate to each other? Are some groups sistematically excluded/ marginalized?



How severe are social cleavages? How do you expect these cleavages to evolve over time ?



'Political Settlement'/ Political System

How robust is the political settlement? (How) Is it institutionalized through the

political system? (How) does the political system mitigate or reinforce/ amplify

elite and social divisions?



How robust is the political settlement? How do you expect the [robustness of

] the political settlement - as embedded in the political system - to evolve over

time?

Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Strong/Medium/ Weak? Select one option Improving/No change/Worsening? Select one option

'Social Contract'/ Citizen-State Relations

What is the relationship between citizens and the state? (How) can citizens

articulate their expectations and (how) responsive is the state to these

expectations? How institutionalized is this relationship through the political

system?



How robust is the social contract? How do you expect citizen-state relations to evolve over time?

Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Strong/Medium/ Weak? Select one option Improving/No change/Worsening? Select one option

Conclusion/ Summary

Based on the above, what are the key issues arising from your consideration of

the nature and causes of fragility?What are the most likely key risks/

potential stresses? How severe is fragility ? How do you expect this fragility to evolve over time?

Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] High Fragility/ Medium Fragility/ Low Fragility? Select one option

Increasing Fragility/No Change/Decreasing Fragility? Select one option

15

CAUSES & NATURE OF SECTORAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAGILITY

KEY ISSUES - DRIVERS OF FRAGILITY KEY INSTITUTIONS KEY RISKS - POTENTIAL "STRESSES"/"TRIGGERS"

Security system/ institutions

How are the drivers of fragility, including elite and social cleavages reflected in the

security sector?

What are the key institutions "to watch" in the security sector - which ones are the

most important for state fragility or resilience? Do they have the capacity to

mitigate these drivers of fragility or do they reflect/ exacerbate them?

What (kind of) events, changes in key variables etc. could undermine institutional stability in this sector? How likely are they?

Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]

Political/ Gvt System/ Institutions


political/ government sector?

What are the key institutions "to watch" in the political/ gvt sector - which ones are the





Economic System/ Institutions


economic sector? What are the key institutions "to watch"? Do they have the capacity to mitigate these stresses or do

they reflect/ exacerbate them?

What are the key institutions "to watch" in the economic sector - which ones are the





Service delivery system/ Institutions

How are the drivers of fragility, including elite and social cleavages reflected in the service delivery sector? What are the key institutions "to watch"? Do they have the capacity to mitigate these stresses or do

they reflect/ exacerbate them?

What are the key institutions "to watch" in the security sector - which ones are the





16

Step 2. Strategic/ Overall Country-Level Assessment

To get an overall picture of the state’s authority, capacity and legitimacy◦‘Flags’ issues for further assessment at the next

stages◦Can highlight some macro-level risks and

strategic implications for teams E.g. if the state has high legitimacy due to political

inclusion, but low capacity to deliver services that are increasingly demanded by the population, then ‘flag’ building capacity for service delivery as a key issue to keep in mind for the following steps.

17

TAB 2: OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL ASSESSMENT

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: ROOTS OF FRAGILITY

KEY ISSUES KEY RISKS CURRENT STATUS EXPECTED TRENDS

Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2]


High Fragility/ Medium Fragility/ Low Fragility? Select one option

Increasing Fragility/No Change/Decreasing Fragility?

Select one option

ANALYTICAL INPUTS

STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT HIGH-LEVEL STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS

AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L]

STATE FRAGILITY/

RESILIENCEGOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

CURRENT WB

PORTFOLIO

OTHER DONOR/

INTERNATIONAL

PORTFOLIO

RISKS NEXT STEPS

What analytical products are available/ planned/

needed for this assessment (e.g. PEAs,

CAFs/ CSAs etc)?

Q. Considering your assessment of the roots of

fragility, to what extent is the state able to govern its

territory effectively, reach all citizens regardless of their location, maintain law and order and protect citizens

from predation and violence? Do the laws and rules of the

state trump all other laws and rules?

Q. Considering your assessment of the roots of

fragility, to what extent is the state able to deliver goods

and services, procure goods and services, design and implement policies, build

infrastructure, collect revenue, dispense justice, and maintain a conducive

environment for the private sector?

Q. Considering your assessment of the roots of fragility, to what extent do

citizens feel that the government has the right to govern? Do they trust the

government? Based on this ACL assessment, what are the key issues for state-

building?

How/ to what extent does the

gvt address these issues?


current WB portfolio

address these issues ?

How/ to what extent do the other donors'

and international partners'

portfolio(s) address these

issues?

What are the implications of

this assessment for (country)

risks idenitifed (e.g. in the

ORAF)?

What can your team do to address the

state-building issues identified

here? (eg: through WB

portfolio, partnerships

with other donors, dialogue

with the government,

etc)?

High/Medium/Low? Select one option



Rising/Stable/Falling? Select one option



Insert List Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here

Insert Assessment

Here

Insert Assessment

Here

Insert Assessment Here



18

Step 3. Domain Level Assessment ‘Disaggregating’ ACL in the four domains of

governance (security, political/ gvt., economic, and social/ service delivery) - Helps to:◦ See in which domain and dimension the state performs

better or worse Suggestions for indicators to help assess the state’s

authority, capacity and legitimacy in each domain◦ get a more disaggregated picture of ‘meso-level’

challenges and implications for country programming◦ assign priorities to each domain (if possible/ desired)◦ Identify sector-level risks and priorities

Some suggestions for strategic/ operational options to consider in each domain + further literature included in toolbox

19

TAB 3: STATE DOMAIN LEVEL ASSESSMENT Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1: Country Snapshot Sheet

To see indicators suggested for each cell of the State-Building Assessment below, please see FCS, State-building at a Glance Sheet or refer to to Indicators Spreadsheet in Toolkit Click Here to Go to Tab 5.2: Country Summar

y Sheet

Click Here to Go to Tab 6: State Domains - Operational Suggestions & Sources

ANALYTICAL INPUTS

STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS

AUTHORITY [A]CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C]

LEGITIMACY [L]STATE

FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

CURRENT WB PORTFOLIO

OTHER DONOR/ INT'NATIONAL

PORTFOLIORISKS NEXT STEPS

Constitutive Domai

ns/ Surviv

al Functi

ons

SECURITY

What analytical products are

available/ planned/ needed for this

assessment (e.g. PEA, CSA, CFA)?

Does the state's monopoly of force extend over the

entire territory/ all people living within its borders?

Does the state have a monopoly of force

to the extent that there is limited crime or armed

conflict?

Is the way in which the state delivers security

perceived as legitimate? Is the state perceived as

the only legitimate source of security?

Based on this ACL assessment, what are the key issues

for state-building in the security

domain?

How/ to what extent does

the gvt address these

issues?





and international

partners' portfolio(s)

address these issues?


this assessment

for (country or sector) risks

idenitifed (e.g. in the ORAF)?

What are the next steps for your team to strengthen this domain (eg: through WB portfolio, partnerships

with other donors etc)?

Medium Low Medium

Rising Rising Falling 1st priority Addresses partially Does not address Addresses

partially High risk 2nd priority

Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1]





Insert Assessment Here [Copied to

Tab 4.1]

Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab

4.1]


4.1]


Tab 4.1]


[Copied to Tab 4.1]

POLITICAL/

GOVERNMENT

What analytical products are available

for this assessment (e.g. PE analyses,

previous CAS, ISN, etc)?

Are people loyal to the state over other groups? Is this loyalty based on a shared sense of national identity? Do people recognize the

authority of the government currently in power?

How effective are core government

systems (executive/ the legislative or

similar/ the judiciary) at making

and enforcing decisions?

Is the way government makes and enforces

decisions perceived as legitimate?

Based on this ACL assessment, what are the key issues for state-building?

How/ to what extent does

the gvt address these

issues?





and international




this assessment

for (country or sector) risks


What are the next steps for your team to strengthen this domain (eg: through WB portfolio, partnerships

with other donors etc)?Low Low Medium

Rising Rising Stable 2nd priority Addresses partially

Addresses partially

Addresses to a large degree Substantial risk 1st priority







Tab 4.2]


4.2]


4.2]


Tab 4.2]


[Copied to Tab 4.2]

20

Step 4. INSTITUTIONAL assessment

List of ‘typical’ institutions for each domain: ◦ Prompts to determine ACL of the listed institutions◦ Option to add country-specific institutions that are not listed

generic questions that can be applied/ adapted to any institution

Helps to:◦ Identify key institutions and their strengths and weaknesses in

terms of ACL◦ assign priorities and develop more fine-grained, ‘micro-

level’ operational options/ implications for country programming

Some general suggestions on strengthening ACL of institutions ◦ e.g. align de jure and de facto authority, build capacity of

organizations not just individuals etc.

21

TAB 4.2 POLITICAL/GOVERNMENT: INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ASSESSMENT Click Here to Go to Tab 5.1: Country Snapshot Sheet

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: SECTOR-LEVEL FRAGILITY Click Here to Go to Tab 5.2: Country Summary Sheet

KEY ISSUES KEY INSTITUTIONS KEY RISKS Click Here to Go to Tab 6: State Domains - Operational Suggestions & Sources




GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS


INSTITUTIONAL FRAGILITY/RESI

LIENCEGOVERNMENT

PRIORITIESCURRENT WB PORTFOLIO

OTHER DONOR PORTFOLIO RISKS NEXT STEPS

Political/ Gvt. Domain

Low Low Medium2nd priority Addresses

partiallyAddresses

partiallyAddresses to a

large degree Substantial risk 1st priorityRising Rising Stable





4.2]


Tab 4.2]


Tab 4.2]


Tab 4.2]


Tab 4.2]


Tab 4.2]

Executive Institutions - Public Financial

Management

How much de jure and de facto authority do PFM institutions

have? How far does this authority extend? What

percentage of national resource flows do such institutions

control?

How much capacity do PFM institutions have to fulfill

(basic) PFM functions? Where are the most severe capacity

constraints (e.g. lack of qualified staff, lack of

organizational structures, lack of authorizing legislation, lack

of/ misaligned incentives)?

How much trust do citizens/ various social groups/ key elites have in the state about the level

and distribution of public expenditures and the sources/ composition of revenues? Do people have trust in the most

visible revenue collection, budget preparation and execution

institutions?

Based on this assessment, what are the key issues for strenghtening

this/ these institution(s)?


government address these

issues?


current WB portfolio address these issues ?

How/ to what extent do the

other donors' and international




this assessment for (esp.

implementing agency) risks


What are the next steps/ specific

actions for your team to

strengthen this institution?

Medium High Low

Stable Falling Rising 1st priority Addresses partially

Addresses to a large degree Does not address Substantial risk 1st priority

Insert Relevant Institutions Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment

HereInsert Assessment





Here

Civil Service/General Public Administration

Institutions

How far does the civil service/ public administration extend over the entire territory? How much authority does it have?

How much capacity does the civil service have in terms of

human and financial resources, organizational

structures, legislative framework, incentive structure

etc. to fulfill its functions?

How much trust do citizens have in the civil service/ public

servants/ public administration? Is the lack of trust due to an inability to make and enforce decisions, corruption, lack of

representation/ inclusion etc.?

Based on this assessment, what are the key issues for strenghtening

this/ these institution(s)?


government address these

issues?


current WB portfolio address these issues ?

How/ to what extent do the

other donors' and international




this assessment for (esp.

implementing agency) risks


What are the next steps/ specific

actions for your team to

strengthen this institution?

Low Medium High

Rising Rising Falling 2nd priority Does not address Addresses to a large degree

Addresses partially Low risk 1st priority

Insert Relevant Institutions Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment






Here

22

Step 5: Country Snapshot and Summary

To get an overall – integrated – picture of the assessment and the implications◦Snapshot: all color-based ratings◦Summary: text for key issues for state stability

and resilience and next steps for the BankReview:

◦Quick ‘glimpse’ of key challenges, priorities, next steps etc.

◦Ensure consistency – revisit assessments where necessary

TAB 5.1 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]

* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment completed by using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for each level of the state-building assessment, please refer to the respective tabs.

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: NATURE AND CAUSES OF FRAGILITY



Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Medium Fragility Increasing Fragility

OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL

OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT


Medium Low High

Falling Rising Falling

SECURITY DOMAIN AND INSTITUTIONS



STATE FRAGILITY/RESILIENC

EGOVERNMENT

PRIORITIESCURRENT WB PORTFOLIO

OTHER DONOR/ INT'NATIONAL PORTFOLIO

RISKS NEXT STEPS

Medium Low Medium1st priority Addresses partially Does not address Addresses partially High risk 2nd priority

Rising Rising Falling

Core Security Institutions (e.g. military, police, etc) Medium Medium Low

1st priority Addresses partially N/A Addresses partially High risk N/AMilitary Stable Rising Falling

Justice & Rule of Law Institutions Low Medium Low

1st priority Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Addresses partially Substantial risk 1st priority

Judiciary Rising Stable Rising

Management and Oversight Bodies Low Low Low

2nd priority Does not address N/A Does not address High risk N/A

Ntl Security Council Stable Rising Stable

Security-related PFM Institutions Low Medium Low

3rd priority Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Does not address Medium risk 2nd priority

MoF Rising Stable Rising

Local authorities; Civil Society Institions Low Low Low

4th priority Does not address Addresses partially Addresses to a large degree Medium risk 3rd priority

HR NGOs Stable Rising Stable

Other Relevant Institutions Medium Low High3rd priority Addresses to a large degree N/A Does not address Low risk N/A

Police Rising Stable Falling

24

TAB 5.2 COUNTRY SNAPSHOT [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]

* This sheet provides a quick snapshot of the state-building & fragility assessment completed by using this tool in the previous tabs. For more detailed information for each level of the state-building assessment, please refer to the respective tabs.

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT: ROOTS OF FRAGILITY



Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 2] Medium Fragility Increasing Fragility

OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL


OVERALL STRATEGIC LEVEL AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L] STATE

FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS

Medium Low HighInsert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here Insert Assessment Here

Falling Rising Falling

STATE DOMAIN LEVEL


STATE DOMAIN LEVELAUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS

[C] LEGITIMACY [L] STATE FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS

RECOMMENDED PRIORITY LEVEL FOR

NEXT STEPS

SECURITYMedium Low Medium

Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.1] High risk Insert Assessment Here

[Copied to Tab 4.1] 2nd priority SECURITYRising Rising Falling

POLITICAL/ GOVERNMENT

Low Low MediumInsert Assessment Here

[Copied to Tab 4.2] Substantial risk Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.2] 1st priority POLITICAL/

GOVERNMENT Rising Rising Stable

ECONOMIC Medium Low Medium

Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.3] Substantial risk Insert Assessment Here

[Copied to Tab 4.3] 3rd priority ECONOMIC Stable Rising Rising

SOCIAL/SERVICE DELIVERY

Medium Low StableInsert Assessment Here

[Copied to Tab 4.4] Low risk Insert Assessment Here [Copied to Tab 4.4] 2nd priority

SOCIAL/SERVICE

DELIVERY Rising Rising Stable

INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL STATEBUILDING ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC & OPERATIONAL ASSESSMENT & IMPLICATIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND

ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

SECURITY INSTITUTIONS AUTHORITY [A] CAPACITY/EFFECTIVENESS [C] LEGITIMACY [L] STATE

FRAGILITY/RESILIENCE DEGREE OF RISK NEXT STEPS RECOMMENDED

PRIORITY LEVEL FOR NEXT STEPS

SECURITY INSTITUTIONS

Core Security Institutions (e.g. military, police, etc) Medium Medium Low

Insert Assessment Here High risk Insert Assessment Here N/A

Core Security Institutions (e.g. military, police,

etc)

Military Stable Rising Falling Insert Assessment Here

Justice & Rule of Law Institutions Low Medium Low

Insert Assessment Here Substantial risk Insert Assessment Here 1st priority

Justice & Rule of Law

Institutions

Judiciary Rising Stable Rising Insert Assessment Here

state-building in fragile states: an assessment toolkit

Documents