Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
EPPiSM Baner

No. 1/2026/77 (2026)

Artykuły

Beyond Capacity: A Resilience Framework for Understanding State Failure

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52097/eppism.10705  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2026-03-31

Abstract

Traditional approaches to state failure focus primarily on state capacity–the ability of governments to perform key functions and deliver public goods. This article advances a fundamental reconceptualization, arguing that state failure should be understood through resilience theory and complexity science rather than solely in terms of capacity deficits. Drawing on network science, systems theory, and ecological resilience research, this framework conceptualizes states as complex adaptive systems whose
survival depends on dynamic responses to perturbations and shocks. The analysis introduces equilibrium transitions, tipping points, and transformative adaptation to explain state trajectories from stability through instability to potential collapse. By analyzing states through stability dynamics borrowed from physical and natural sciences, this approach reveals striking parallels between sociopolitical decomposition and system failures in other complex domains. The framework integrates State Failure Task Force findings on regime types, material well-being, and structural risk factors with insights from complexity theory on adaptation and metastability. This demonstrates that state failure represents a distinct phenomenon related to systemic resilience rather than merely institutional capacity deficits. The reconceptualization offers new pathways for early warning indicators, prevention strategies, and policy interventions accounting for non-linear system dynamics rather than prescribing universal institutional templates.

References

  1. Acemoglu D., Robinson J., Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, New York 2012. [Google Scholar]
  2. Basu K., Cordella T. (ed.), Institutions, Governance and the Control of Corruption, Cham 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. Breslauer G. W., Breslauer K. J., Political Science Meets Physical Science: The Shared Concept of Stability, “PNAS Nexus” 2023, 2, DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad401. [Google Scholar]
  4. Callen M. et al., The Political Economy of Public Sector Absence: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan, National Bureau of Economic Research 2016, No. 22340, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22340/w22340.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  5. Daems D., Reimagining the Rise and Fall of Civilizations, https://longnow.org/ideas/reimagining-the-rise-and-fall-of-civilizations/. [Google Scholar]
  6. Dahl R. A., Modern Political Analysis, 5th ed., Englewood Cliffs 1991. [Google Scholar]
  7. Deaton A., The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality, Princeton 2013, DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt3fgxbm. [Google Scholar]
  8. Eckstein H., Division and Cohesion in Democracy: A Study of Norway, Princeton 1966. [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldstone J., Gurr T. et al., State Failure Task Force Report: Phase III Findings, January 1999, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247639865_State_Failure_Task_Force_Report_Phase_III_Findings. [Google Scholar]
  10. Habyarimana J., Khemani S., Scott T., Political Selection and Bureaucratic Productivity, Policy Research Working Paper No. 8673, World Bank 2018, https://hdl.handle.net/10986/31074. [Google Scholar]
  11. Johnson C., Revolutionary Change, Boston 1966. [Google Scholar]
  12. Levitsky S., Way L., Revolution and Dictatorship: The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism, Princeton 2021. [Google Scholar]
  13. Liu X., Daqing L. et al., Network Resilience, “Physics Reports” 2022, vol. 971 (7034), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360717846_Network_resilience. [Google Scholar]
  14. Padgett J. F., Powell W. W., The Emergence of Organizations and Markets, Princeton 2012. [Google Scholar]
  15. Parsons T., The Social System, London 1970. [Google Scholar]
  16. Raciborski J., Sadura P. (eds.), O mocy i niemocy współczesnego państwa polskiego, Warszawa 2024. [Google Scholar]
  17. Simon H. A., The Architecture of Complexity, “Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society” 1962, vol. 106, 6. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sokoloff K. L., Engerman S. L., History Lessons: Institutions, Factors Endowments, and Paths of Development in the New World, “Journal of Economic Perspectives” 2000, vol. 14, 3. [Google Scholar]
  19. UK Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, Investing in Prevention: An International Strategy to Manage Risks of Instability and Improve Crisis Response, Cabinet Office, London 2005, https://gsdrc.org/document-library/investing-in-prevention-an-international-strategy [Google Scholar]
  20. -to-manage-risks-of-instability-and-improve-crisis-response. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wiatr J. J., Political Leadership Between Democracy and Authoritarianism, Opladen––Berlin–Toronto 2022, DOI: 10.3224/84742538. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.