TOWARDS A MEASURABLE AND INCLUSIVE THEORY OF STATE FRAGILITY: CROSS‑REGIONAL INSIGHTS FROM CHINA, PORTUGAL, BRAZIL, AND BOTSWANA

Abstract

This study advances a more contextually grounded understanding of state fragility by integrating a wide range of institutional indicators within a neoclassical realist framework, while deliberately moving beyond the narrow epistemic assumptions that have traditionally guided dominant assessments of state performance. Rather than drawing on uniform models derived primarily from Euro‑Atlantic institutional experiences, the analysis adopts a cross‑regional comparative approach that is sensitive to diverse political cultures, historical trajectories, and governance practices. The selected cases - China, Portugal, Brazil, and Botswana - constitute a deliberately heterogeneous set of political regimes and developmental trajectories. Methodologically, the study conceptualizes, operationalizes, and measures state fragility through a multidimensional indicator framework that captures variations in institutional capacity, societal resilience, and policy adaptability. The analysis specifies the scoring rules, weighting schemes, and aggregation procedures applied to each indicator, and addresses issues of construct validity and cross‑case comparability in the context of cross‑regional analysis. By reframing state fragility as a condition that cannot be meaningfully assessed through universalized or externally imposed benchmarks, this study contributes to a more inclusive and context-sensitive theoretical framework. It advances scholarly debates on state performance and international relations while also offering policy-relevant insights for decision‑making processes that require attentiveness to regional specificities, historical trajectories, and locally articulated governance priorities within a changing global order. The study nonetheless acknowledges important methodological limitations. Meaningful comparison across the selected cases remains challenging due to their fundamentally different historical contexts and developmental starting points. In addition, several indicators are necessarily calibrated based on analytical judgment in order to capture variation across dimensions, which introduces a degree of subjectivity into the evaluative process. Within this framework, a strong state is defined as one characterized by institutional robustness and a demonstrated capacity to respond effectively to domestic challenges. Conversely, a weak state is conceptualized as a political system marked by systemic failure and institutional incapacity across multiple dimensions of the analytical framework.