Comparative State-Building in Post-Colonial Africa and Asia, 1960-2020

Thesis Abstract

The study investigates patterns and determinants of state-building trajectories in post-colonial Africa and Asia from 1960 to 2020, addressing the problem of divergent state capacity and legitimacy outcomes despite shared colonial legacies. It contends that comparative analysis across regions reveals how domestic political institutions, external geopolitical pressures, and development strategies interact to shape governance legitimacy, fiscal capacity, and security apparatus, with implications for policy and theory in comparative political development. The aim is to develop a nuanced, cross-regional account of how state-building processes unfolded, identifying key drivers of durable state capacity and persistent fragility. Specific objectives include (1) to map and contrast institutional architectures (executive, judiciary, and fiscal systems) that emerged in post-colonial contexts; (2) to assess the impact of political regime type, developmentalism, and ethnic-pluralism on state legitimacy and service delivery; (3) to evaluate external influences, including aid, conditionalities, and regional security dynamics, on state-building outcomes; (4) to test cross-regional hypotheses about the relationship between state capacity, coercive capacity, and governance legitimacy; and (5) to offer context-sensitive policy recommendations for strengthening state institutions without undermining democratic accountability. The methodology combines a mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative cross-national panel analysis with qualitative process tracing. The population comprises all sub-Saharan African and South and Southeast Asian polities that attained independence between 1945 and 1975 and remained sovereign through 2020, yielding a working dataset of 42 countries in Africa and 32 in Asia. The research uses a stratified purposive sample that ensures representation of both continental clusters and diverse regime trajectories. Data sources include World Bank governance indicators, Polity IV scores, revenue-reducing and revenue-raising capacity measures, and COPS/CRIP indicators for security institutions, supplemented by archival materials, constitutional texts, and development plans. Instrumentation involves standardized coding of institutional features, event history datasets for coup and reform episodes, and semi-structured elite interviews with 40 policymakers, 20 regional security officials, and 15 development experts conducted in 2019–2021. Validity is enhanced through triangulation across archival, quantitative, and interview data, with reliability checks including inter-coder agreement (Cohen’s kappa > 0.80) for qualitative coding and robust standard errors for quantitative models. Data analysis proceeds in three stages. First, descriptive statistics and time-series plots summarize trends in state capacity (bureaucratic quality, tax effort, and coercive capacity) and legitimacy (public trust, government approval, and social contract indicators). Second, panel regression models (fixed-effects and system-GMM) test hypotheses about the determinants of durable state capacity while controlling for path dependence and regional fixed effects. Third, qualitative process tracing identifies causal mechanisms by country-year case narratives, enabling cross-case comparison of divergent pathways and the role of pivotal events (wars, international aid cycles, constitutional settlements). A supplemental thematic analysis of 75 policy documents and interview transcripts enriches interpretation of causal linkages, while a counterfactuals approach evaluates alternative trajectories absent key interventions. The theoretical framework draws on modernization theory, institutional capacity theory, and conditionality/agency perspectives, with explicit engagement with theories of state-society relations, resilience, and path dependence. Expected findings indicate that while external aid can catalyze state-building in structurally capable environments, it can distort incentives in weak administrative states, leading to governance fragility and tainted legitimacy. In Africa, durable state capacity is more closely tied to coherent fiscal systems and relatively professionalized bureaucracies, whereas in Asia, centralized developmentalist projects and technocratic governance yield stronger coercive and administrative capacities but variable legitimacy. The study contributes to knowledge by offering a granular, comparative typology of state-building that integrates regional particularities with global influence dynamics, and by clarifying the conditions under which state-building leads to sustainable governance rather than extractive or coercive, legitimacy-eroding outcomes. Policy recommendations emphasize strengthening institutional autonomy, credible governance reforms, and transparent fiscal accountability, while balancing security imperatives with inclusive development to foster legitimate, capable states in post-colonial contexts. The conclusion highlights practical pathways for reform-minded governments and international partners, including phased fiscal reforms, codified checks on executive power, and participatory governance mechanisms designed to bolster resilience and legitimacy in both African and Asian post-colonial states.