This document provides a summary of a research paper that analyzes factors contributing to post-colonial states becoming failed states. It begins by defining key concepts like post-colonial states and failed states. It then reviews two major approaches in the literature - the internal/intrastate approach that focuses on ethnic conflicts, and the external/interstate approach that focuses on the international community. The document suggests that while ethnic conflicts are a major factor, the international community's insistence on maintaining colonial-era borders has inadvertently contributed to state failure by ignoring ethnic divisions and preventing border changes. The goal is to establish a hypothesis on the major factors driving post-colonial state failure by combining these internal and external perspectives.

1. The Susceptibility of Post-Colonial States to Failure
by
Michael “Nykolai” Blichar Jr.
Social Research Design and Writing
POL 101WI-10
Dr. Steve B. Lem
Kutztown University of Pennsylvania
March 28, 2015

2. Blichar Jr. 1
Abstract
This paper presents the question of asking what factors in particular contribute to post-
colonial states becoming “failed states”. The paper looks at both internal factors, as well as
external factors that may provide an answer to that question. After analyzing the literature
regarding both of these subjects, two approaches to analyzing the major factors for post-colonial
state failure are offered. The paper takes both of these approaches and formulates a new
approach to better understand why post-colonial states fail in the first place by combing factors.

3. Blichar Jr. 2
Introduction
The concept of the nation state has been one of great importance for the international
community ever since the concept was established with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in
1648 effectively ending the Thirty-Years War. This agreement brought about the current system
of nation states, which today includes roughly 197 independent and sovereign entities, 195 of
which are either a member or an observer state to the United Nations. However, only fairly
recently has the world system included such a large number of sovereign states. The Charter
established by the United Nations at its formation called for efforts at de-colonialization and the
respect of self-determination for all peoples’, which was laid out in Articles 73 and 74. With that,
the years following 1945 brought about independence for many of the colonies particularly in
Africa, Asia, and Oceania. However, since the end of the Cold War in the 1990’s these post-
colonial states have become the center of the “failed state” dilemma.
With this in mind, it is interesting to question why in particular post-colonial states are
those that see the designation of becoming a “failed state”. The question that needs to be
answered then, is what factors have led post-colonial states to failure? In order to answer this
question it is essential to analyze the internal factors, like ethnic and civil conflicts, as well as the
external factors, like the international community, that may contribute to the trend of failed post-
colonial states. The first task to analyze these factors is to define the concept of both the unit of
analysis, the post-colonial state, and the dependent variable, the “failed state”. Establishing these
definitions will be crucial to reviewing literature on the causes of state failure in post-colonial
states as well as developing a theory by reconciling the approaches that will be offered by the
literature. Ultimately, the end goal is to establish a hypothesis explaining what factors push post-
colonial states to be prone to failure.

4. Blichar Jr. 3
Defining the Concepts
The political landscape of the international community is very complex which often
creates an arena where many authors, researchers, and historians define certain concepts in
different ways. Due to differences in definitions it becomes important to lay out the definition of
both post-colonial states and those which have been categorized as “failed states”. Post-colonial
states for the most part as the unit of analysis, has an overall agreeable definition. The post-
colonial state are sovereign independent nation-states, which have gained independence from a
former colonial power, typically a European state and occasionally the United States of America.
It is important to point out that in this unit of analysis post-colonial states do not include the
nations of Latin and South America, but rather those which have gained independence during the
process of de-colonization from 1945 onward. Therefore the focus of the unit of analysis will be
the post-colonial states of Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East.
The reason for using states from these regions is because these are the states in which the events
of a state failing are so frequent and rampant, many of which are post-colonial states in Africa
with Somalia leading as the most critical and has been for three consecutive years (Policy, 76).

5. Blichar Jr. 4
Defining the Concept of the “Failed State”
With the definition of the post-colonial state established, the next step is to define what a
“failed state” is when going forward in analyzing the factors of state failure. Some authors give a
variety of definitions on the term which typically revolve around the sovereignty of the state’s
government or the domestic stability of the state as a whole. An overarching definition often
given is that “failed states” are those in which political, economic, and social control over a
territory and its people have decreased overtime (Diamond, 13). While the definition formulated
by Diamond is overarching, it does not get to the center of specific factors that may lead to state
collapse. However, other definitions that are more specific are found in many works. Most
authors tend to define a “failed state” as one in which ethnic and civil conflict is rampant which
includes the push for self-determination among the fighting ethnic groups (Schultz, 82). Other
authors go further to add that when a post-colonial government loses the ability to control its use
of force, territory, and people, then it has also become a “failed state”.
Of course, the definitions provided by authors is essential in preparing a working
definition in analyzing the factors that contribute to state failure, but it is also important to
include historical examples as well. The most common example that many others tend to point to
is the collapse of Yugoslavia in the 1990’s. Yugoslavia had been a nation which was created by
the Ally powers at the end of World War I and consisted of many diverse ethnic nations.
However, in the events that led to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism,
Yugoslavia which once had a very strong communist regime, became a weak government with
little control over its people or territory. Essentially the loss of control allowed for the ethnic
nations to break off and declare independence. What this historical example does is help to
provide validity to the definitions provided by authors like Schultz. Therefore the concept of the

6. Blichar Jr. 5
“failed state” for this analysis will be defined as a post-colonial state in which the sovereign
government has lost effective control over its use of force as well as the ability to govern its
territory and people, resulting in civil and ethnic conflicts, movements for self-determination,
and overall instability.
Literature Review
With a clear definition of a “failed state” outlined, the ability to measure the concepts and
analyze the factors that drives post-colonial states to failure is clearer. Throughout much of the
literature, two major approaches have been offered on the subject of post-colonial states
becoming “failed-states”. The first approach center around the internal or intrastate factors such
as ethnic conflict which contribute to the failure. The other approach offered by authors focuses
on the external or interstate factors, such as the international community, to explain the
continued failure of post-colonial states. Both approaches are necessary to understanding the
underlying factors that contribute to state failure and more importantly to point out any gaps in
the approaches that the literature does not address.
The Intrastate Approach
The Intrastate Approach, for the most part tends to focus on the internal factors that lead
to state failure in post-colonial states, particularly those of Africa and Asia. Most of the literature
agrees that post-colonial states experience symptoms of weak central governments that have lost
the ability to control most of its territory and people. However, this fact alone is not what allows
a state to be given the designation of failure. Rather these conditions allow for an atmosphere
where civil and ethnic conflicts can take place more frequently and rampantly. This is because
the central governments of these post-colonial states have lost their ability to prevent these
conflicts from occurring. One such example that many authors point to is the current status of

7. Blichar Jr. 6
Somalia. Somalia, which has gained independence in 1960 was formed from the joining of the
former British Somaliland and the Italian Trusteeship Territory because they consisted of people
who spoke the same language and followed the same religion, Sunni Islam (Shultz, 84).
However, what colonial powers neglected to understands is that while the peoples who inhabited
these areas has similar language and religious ties, there were very significant differences
between the Somali clans. As a result of these differences, clans would form their own
allegiances that undermined the ability for the Somali government to operate effectively,
especially when its own military also began to create alliances based on clans. By mid-1990
Somalia had lost its ability to control its military forces, as well as its people (Scultz, 85).
This very concept puts the focus on ethnicity and ethnic-conflicts as the central factor to
state failure in post-colonial states. Ethnic conflicts have been the main problem for many post-
colonial states in Africa. It is important to note that like the case of Somalia, these ethnic
conflicts have been a result of loss in legitimacy and governance in post-colonial states
(Ikelegebe, 492). It is both ethnic conflict and loss in legitimacy that leads a state to heightened
ethnic struggles and eventually state failure. The system of governance in which the post-
colonial state operates is many times the same system that was used during the colonial era. This
system was one in policies such as Indirect Rule were used as a way for colonial powers to
maintain control over the population of their territory. Almost all colonial administrations relied
a great deal on indigenous structures of power to govern which altered the power relations
among ethnic groups (Ake, 2). As a result ethnic groups were pushed to compete against one
other for political power and influence especially in the wake of decolonization turning ethnic
groups into political players.

8. Blichar Jr. 7
In many cases the ethnic group that inherits state power at independence forms a very
oppressive government in order to maintain that power and to prevent other ethnic groups from
challenging them. Most times this control is exercised through oppression, discrimination, and
restriction of access to governmental institutions. Rather than building a national identity among
the people of the state like that of states in Europe, post-colonial states of Africa and Asia were
based on the ethnicity of the ruling group (Shultz, 86). This form of rule led to an increase in
ethnic violence and disintegration of post-colonial states from within. Somalia, serves as the
primary example of this effect. When the state was formed the population lacked a sense of
nationhood, instead identification and the basis for political contention was brought about by
Somali clans who formed political parties or led efforts at coups (Ikelegebe, 492).
For an ethnic group to push its demand for power or autonomy, the creation of ethnic
militias became essential to legitimizing an ethnic group’s claim to state power and often times
to protect itself from other ethnic militias who may attack them. The Bakassi Boys concentrated
in the Bakassi Peninsula of Nigeria which was recently turned over to Cameroon in 2008 is one
such example of an ethnic militia. The Bakassi Boys was initially an armed group of fighters
formed in Nigeria in response to the killing of ethnic Igbos in the northern part of the country.
Most of their efforts were not overtly political but rather protectionist in regards to their ethnic
group (Ikelegebe, 495). As time would go on however, attacks on their people would lead them
to demand for autonomy of the Bakassi Peninsula in response to a weak and failing government
which could no longer protect them from other insurgents.
Much of the literature would argue that this type of constant bombardment creates a
situation in which the post-colonial state and its government never has time to develop or enforce
effective control over its territory and population. As a result many of the oppressed ethnic

9. Blichar Jr. 8
groups will seek autonomy or independence from the state completely by forming their own
regional governments and controlling territory. Looking back at Somalia, by 1990 clan warfare
and ethnic conflict led to the dissolution of the Somali state itself into de facto territories like that
of Somaliland and Puntland (Shultz, 87). Essentially, the state becomes one of failure and
Somalia is only one example of many states where ethnic conflict and governmental failure has
led to dissolution of a state deeming it a “failed state”. Authors would also argue that many times
this dissolution comes about as a result of not only governmental failure but also because
minority movements form in response to fears of marginalization and domination when one
ethnic group takes power (Ake, 8).
With both dissolution and failure of the government to control its territory and people,
essentially the post-colonial state is now designated as a “failed state”. The main factor of this, as
the Intrastate Approach points to is that ethnic conflict and struggle which has its roots in the
colonial era creates the arena for post-colonial states to fall apart. The Intrastate Approach would
argue that ethnic rivalries are the main and causal factor for state failure in many post-colonial
states, like that of Somalia and Nigeria. Much of the literature would make the argument that
ethnicity and ethnic conflicts are one of the biggest threats to the success of post-colonial states
and will remain the “Achilles Heel” in many of the states of Africa and Asia (Ikelegebe, 492).
The Interstate Approach
Although many authors would point to ethnic conflicts of post-colonial states as the main
factor and source of state failure, there are many other pieces of literature that argue in the
opposite direction for causes of state failure. What the Interstate Approach tends to focus on is
the external factors that contribute the success or failure of many post-colonial states. Much of
the literature that focuses on this approach looks at the colonial legacy primarily which has many

10. Blichar Jr. 9
post-colonial states to become “failed states”. A factor than many authors point to be the colonial
legacy that the international community has left to the post-colonial states. The international
community, particularly the colonial powers created clearly defined borders which usually
revolved around geographical boundaries. Colonial powers completely ignored previous borders
based on clan groups, former empires, and ethnic groups (Herbst, 121). Most of the literature
would argue that this very disregard for ethnic identity and diversity is what has led to ongoing
conflict in many post-colonial states.
During the process of decolonization, the United Nations General Assembly, declared
that the borders of any post-colonial state upon independence would remain intact and that
sovereignty would be recognized. The international community in granting sovereignty to many
of the new African and Asian states assumed that these states would take on the features of
sovereignty that defined the colonial powers (Herbst, 121). For many of the colonial powers,
sovereignty consisted of undeniable control over a territory, administrative authority and the
willingness of the people to be governed. What the international community assumed is that
most post-colonial states would also be able to have political and economic freedom, however
they did not. Much of the literature points to this very assumption as the factor that has led post-
colonial states to failure, because there is a disregard by the international community to develop
post-colonial states. As many authors argue this ignorance was more or less an effort for the
international community to maintain the current system of nation-states and maintain an orderly
“political map”.
The United Nations was not the only international organization to enforce the
continuation of colonial boundaries for new states, The Organization of African Unity,
established in 1963, also created a strong mandate to prevent challenges to the state system by

11. Blichar Jr. 10
keeping current borders intact (Christopher, 93). Often ethnic tensions were suppressed by the
organization in cases such as the Biafra independence movement in 1967 and the Katanga
movement in 1960. Authors like Christopher would point out that continuation by the
international community to support colonial borders and halt dissolution of post-colonial states,
is the factor that contributes to state failure rather than state success. The literature argues that in
most cases decolonization happened so fast that development of post-colonial states was almost
impossible, leading to poor administration and unstable internal conditions as ethnic groups who
were already forced to share the same territory began fighting amongst one another (Herbst,
122).
Post-colonial states that have become failures have been often defined as “quasi-states”.
A quasi-state is one in which the government has lost effective control over its use of force and
its ability to govern its territory and people but is still considered to be sovereign by the
international community (Christopher, 94). Some authors would argue that lack of a central
government and political organization are not the only factors that contribute to state failure
(Baker, 132). What authors like Baker point out is that many failing post-colonial countries
maintain their internationally recognized institutions, borders, and sovereign authority. Many of
these states retain statehood primarily by being recognized in de jure terms rather than de facto,
and therefore are defined in international terms rather than empirically (Baker, 133 ). Essentially,
the international integrity of these post-colonial states are ensured by international recognition,
which prevents for the break of any post-colonial state from taking place. Inadvertently, many
authors like Baker would argue that this push by the international community to retain the clean
drawn borders results in continued conflict and upheaval in many of these states.

12. Blichar Jr. 11
Throughout much of the literature regarding the Interstate Approach, the key assumption
that most authors have made is that the neglect of the international community to develop post-
colonial states or allow them to break-up has caused more harm leading these states to failure.
The push for the international community to maintain the colonial borders, has allowed for
conflict within these states to continue and create environments where an ineffective government
and ethnic tension can persist. With that in mind it becomes clear that both approaches in the
literature review analyze both the internal factors, primarily ethnic conflict, and external factors,
primarily the international community, to understand the persistence of failing post-colonial
states.
Formulating a Theory and a Hypothesis
In regards to the factors that contribute to the failing post-colonial states of primarily
Africa and Asia, much of the literature points to two approaches that offer the factors that create
these “failed states”. The first approach deals with intrastate factors, primarily those that occur
within these states, which create an atmosphere for conflict and failure. The end result from this
approach is that ethnicity and ethnic conflict are the factors in which governments of post-
colonial states fail and lead to dissolution. The other approach that has been offered revolved
around interstate factors, primarily focusing on the international community’s commitment to
maintain the colonial borders which results in unstable and artificially constructed states.
It is important to note however, that neither of the approaches and much of the literature
does not attempt to integrate these two in any way. After analyzing what many authors on the
subject wrote, it seems that they did not make a linkage between the preservation of colonial
borders and the ongoing intrastate conflicts that may result from that forced system. This indeed
seems to present a gap in the literature and where another approach may be developed to fill in

13. Blichar Jr. 12
these gaps. The best way to truly answer the question of why do post-colonial states fail, it is
important to analyze both the internal and external factors that lead to said failure. With that, the
most logical route to take is to combine both the Intrastate Approach and the Interstate Approach
to accurately determine the overall factors that create state failure. What this suggests is that a
new approach is needed, a proposed Intersectional Approach that would connect the interstate
factors along with the intrastate factors in a cause-effect manner.
Intersectional Approach
In order to provide validity to this new approach it would be important to utilize the
literature that has been discussed to provide connections between the original two approaches. It
is important to look back at one of the earlier statements made by the literature regarding the
governance of the colonial in many parts of Africa and Asia prior to decolonization. Many times
the colonial powers often relied on indigenous power structures to govern their territories which
resulted in one particular ethnic group to wield governmental powers over other ethnic groups of
the territory (Ake, 2).
This is important to note because it speaks to the interstate approach overall by harkening
back to the creation of the colonial borders themselves. The was an event known as the Scramble
for Africa which began in the late 19th century, an event where major European powers,
including Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and others drew up the borders for
colonies. What is important to note here is that many times the borders were drawn up without
regards to ethnic and cultural composition of the area (Michalopoulos, 3). Ultimately, Africa was
divided up arbitrarily create an environment where ethnic groups that had never worked together
before had to now live under the same rule.

14. Blichar Jr. 13
Taking that very fact forward, the colonial powers reliance on a particular governance
system of one ethnic group in a region that now included various other ethnic groups allowed for
an atmosphere of animosity and struggle for equal say in colonial affairs by those who were
being colonized. When connecting this with the interstate approach one can see why the push for
the United Nations and the international community to maintain colonial borders is problematic.
However, one might ask why this then ties into the intrastate approach.
As described in the intrastate approach at the emergence of independence for these post-
colonial states in, many of the ethnic groups had to compete against one another for political
power and control over the government (Ake, 2). Other groups out of fear of oppression by the
majority ethnic group, created militias to protect the lands in which they inhabited seeking
autonomy and independence. However, according the interstate approach the push by the
international community to maintain the colonial borders as they stand prevents groups from
declaring their own sovereignty based on ethnicity. This is an almost irony as much of the

15. Blichar Jr. 14
nation-states on the European continent today were formed on the basis of ethnic backgrounds.
Take Yugoslavia for example, many of the states that broke away from the overall union were
centered on a specific ethnic group whether they be the Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina or
the Croats in Croatia.
However, sovereignty for many African and even Middle Eastern states is not based on
ethnicity but rather the colonial borders that were drawn up by the European powers themselves.
What some could argue is that this forced integration by the international community to keep
these post-colonial states together actually feeds into the instability of the state’s domestic
functions as well. As ethnic groups are unable to break off and declare nations based on ethnic
background as grounds for self-determination, they will seek to take control of the next best
option available to them. That option usually becomes the central government of the post-
colonial state itself. Infighting among these ethnic groups creates an atmosphere for a consistent
failing government to control its territory and people. Essentially now these states would fit the
definition of a failed states due to the factors that contributed to its failure. However, in this
example the forced colonial borders by the international community only accelerated the
constant ethnic conflict within these states.
What the Intersectional Approach ultimately does is take both the interstate approach and
the intrastate approach to explain a cause and effect mechanism for the factors that contribute to
state failure of post-colonial states. It is the colonial borders themselves and the support to
maintain them that contributes to the internal factors that create ethnic conflict and struggle for
either independence or state power. When first looking into the matter of why post-colonial
states fail in the first place it was important to analyze both the external and internal factors that
contribute to that failure. However, with this approach that is being proposed, it makes the

16. Blichar Jr. 15
combination of both factors important to understanding why post-colonial states fail rather than
looking at them from two different approaches.
Conclusion
To conclude, our question was to ask what factors contribute the failure of post-colonial states.
Prior analyzing the literature that would answer this question it was important to note that the
factors that would have to be analyzed were external and internal. Much of the literature
supported those very assumptions about what types of factors contributed to post-colonial state
failure. The literature offered two approaches on the subject. The Intrastate Approach, involved
the internal factors that contributed to failure of post-colonial states and argued that many of
these states were failing due to ethnicity and ethnic conflict. This ethnic conflict focused on
either attaining independence or fighting for governmental power over the territory and its
population. The second approach offered by the literature was the Interstate Approach. It
outlined the external factors that contribute to post-colonial state failure and pointed to the
international community’s commitment to maintain the colonial borders that were drawn up prior
to independence of many African, Asian, and Middle Eastern states. Much of this tied into
answering the questioning however there was a gap in the literature.
What the literature neglected is how both approaches intermingle. With the introduction
of a new approach through what was found in the literature, it was concluded that an
Intersectional Approach was necessary in order to fully grasp the factors that contribute to post-
colonial state failure. What the Intersectional Approach does is point to the arbitrary division of
Africa during colonization that created territories where ethnic groups were forced to integrate.
The struggle for these ethnic groups during the decolonization process only heightened the
tension for governmental control or self-determination, creating instability. However, at this

17. Blichar Jr. 16
point it is important to note that the factor of maintaining the colonial borders is important as it
forces already fighting ethnic groups to continue on the status quo lending to more instability.
Ultimately, the third approach points out the major flaw in the international system to keep
colonial borders and the conflict that it may inadvertently kindle domestically in these post-
colonial states that can lead them to failure.

18. Blichar Jr. 17
Bibliography
Ake, Claude. “The Problem of Ethnicities in Africa.” Transformation 22 (1993): 1-14.
Baker, Bruce. “African Anarchy: Is It the States, Regimes, or Societies That Are Collapsing.”
Politics 19.3 (1999): 131-38.
Brooks, Rosa. “Failed States, or the States as Failure?” The University of Chicago Law Review
Autumn 72.4 (2005): 1159-196.
Christopher, A. J. “’Nation-States’, ‘Quasi-States’, and the ‘Collapsed-States’ in Contemporary
Africa.” GeoJournal 43.1 (1997): 91-97.
Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. London: Penguin, 2005.
Foreign Policy. “The Failed States Index.” Foreign Policy 149 (2005): 56-65
Foreign Policy, and Fund for Peace. The Failed States Index 2011. Digital image. Fund for
Peace, 2011.
Henderson, Errol. “Civil War in the Post-Colonial World 1946-1992.” Journal of Peace
Research 37.3 (2000): 275-99.
Heraclides, Alex. “Secessionist Minorities and External Involvement.” International
Organization 44.3 (1990): 341-78.
Herbst, Jeffrey. “Responding to State Failure in Africa.” International Security 21.3 (1997): 120-
44.
Ikelegebe, Augustine. “State, Ethnic Militias, and Conflict in Nigeria.” Canadian Journal of
African Studies 39.3 (2005): 450-516.

19. Blichar Jr. 18
Jinadu, Adele. “Explaining and Managing Ethnic Conflict in Africa: Towards a Cultural Theory
of Democracy.” African Journal of Political Science 9.1 (2004): 1-26.
Michalopoulos, Stelios. The Long-Run Effects of the Scramble for Africa. Working paper no.
17620. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011. NBER Working Paper
Series.
Murdock, George. Ethnic Homelands and National Borders. Digital image. University of
Pittsburgh, 1981.
Nag, Sejal. “Nehru and the Nagas: Minority Nationalism and the Post-Colonial State.” Economic
and Political Weekly 44.49 (2009): 48-55.
Rotberg, Robert. When States Fail” Causes and Consequences. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2004.
Schultz, Richard Jr. “State Disintegration and Ethnic Conflict: A Framework for Analysis.”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 541.Small Wars
(1995): 75-88.
Smith, Dan. “Reviewed Work: Between Development and Destruction: An Enquiry into the
Causes of Conflict in Post-Colonial States.” Journal of Peace Research 35.4 (1998): 520.
Veit, Raphael. “Iraq: Failed State of Phoenix.” AQ: Australian Quarterly 76.3 (2004): 15-19.
Wade, Robert. “Failing States and Cumulative Causation in the World System.” International
Political Science Review 26.1 (2005): 17-36.