Abstract:
Since the end of the Cold War, the effects of state failure have plagued the international
community. There are many purported solutions to state failure like financial assistance
and multi-national interventions, though the success of these solutions is difficult to
measure. Additionally, the empirical likelihood that the West will indeed respond to state
failure is missing from state failure discourse in both the academic and policy realms.
Crucially, if the West does not actually respond predictably to state failure – or at least in
the ways that we should expect – then the effort devoted to finding the solution to state
failure may be in danger. This project seeks to fill this critical gap in the literature by
conducting one of the first mixed-methods studies of its kind. Using an original large-n
dataset, I test the strength of state failure in determining the likelihood of an intervention
(financial or military) by the United States. I find that state failure itself is not a good
indicator of where the U.S. will respond. Secondly, I conduct a case study of Liberia and
Nigeria – two failed states that have received different treatment by the United States. I
find that the important factors in determining intervention in these cases include pressure
from the international community, the perceived threat of terrorism, and the failed states’
strategic position as a regional player. This study adds to a growing body of literature that
is critical of the usage of the term ‘failed state,’ and also adds a flavor to the debate about
whether or not the international community has a substantive effect on U.S. foreign
policy. The critical empirical relationship between state failure and U.S. response may
help to determine the actual success (or failure) of international responses to state failure,
and can help to inform and drive efforts in the study for new solutions.
