the human security concept. Fragility is an unusual
term of convergence grown out of disciplines of “in-
ternational relations” (i.e., security studies and con-
flict studies), “comparative politics” (theories of state
and democratization), and “development economics”
(Carment et al. 2008, 351; Carment et al. 2010, 9, 11, 12,
14, 16). Given this concept’s interdisciplinary nature
and rapid emergence, the debate over its definition
will likely continue within certain communities, just
as debate continues about what constitutes sustain-
ability. This said, one of the fragility concept’s highly
useful attributes is the ability to integrate relevant key
concepts across disciplines. Like most security-relat-
ed concepts, the core question when defining fragility
comes down to an object-of-reference question: The
fragility of what?
Early on, this concept focused on fragile states and
built upon efforts to address state-centric failure and
instability. The U.S. Agency for International Develop-
ment (USAID) became an early adopter of the term fra-
gility. Its 2005 Fragile State Strategy suggests, “fragile
states refer generally to a broad range of failing, failed,
and recovering states,” “that are vulnerable,” and not
“already in crisis” (USAID 2005, 1). Likewise, recog-
nized thought leaders, such as Marshall, Goldstone,
Carment, and Hewitt, leveraged their previous re-
search and experience with state conflict and instabil-
ity, such as the Political Instability Task Force (PITF)
and Peace and Conflict Ledger, to further develop
the fragility concept and its characterization. For ex-
ample, Marshall and Goldstone developed the State
Fragility Index (SFI) and suggest state fragility exists
where the state “lacks effectiveness or legitimacy in a
number of dimensions; however a state is likely to fail,
or to already be [considered] a failed state, if it has lost
both” (2007, 14).
sharon
(sharon)
#1