Over the years, scholarship has attempted to identify the optimal method of institution building in developing states. As Fukuyama noted in “The Imperative of State Building”, the ability to transfer strong institutions to the entirety of a developing state’s scope has not yet been understood by world leaders (Fukuyama, 17). The difficulties of state scope and state strength balance is especially prevalent in post-colonial states; however, present day India and Pakistan have built themselves into genuine actors in global politics. The definition of state scope is best understood through Fukuyama as the breadth of the functions and goals a state may set for itself, whereas a state’s strength is reliant on the success of the state in reaching and enforcing the goals, both on paper and in reality (Fukuyama, 21-22). This definition allows for a continuum of strength and scope while also allowing states mobility over time; however, the failure of a state (i.e. Somalia 1991) could inhibit mobilization. This could give rise to the use of the tools in conjunction with Rotberg’s characteristics of a failed state, as the inability of a state to increase its strength or scope over a period of time could be an established threshold for a state’s failure: the main criticism of Rotberg’s analysis. In the case of India and Pakistan, the tools of state scope and state strength should be used to identify their success and compare each other's shortcomings for future progress, as they have established relative stability and development. This comparison is possible as India and Pakistan’s forms of government (parliamentary democracy) and cultures are nearly identical, mainly due to their joint history as a British colony, from whom they received freedom from in 1947 ("BBC - History - British History in Depth: The Hidden Story of Partition and Its Legacies"). Analysis using Fukuyama’s concepts of state scope and strength indicates that present day India and Pakistan are similar in regards to their scope and strength in the facets of military and corruption control; however, India has exhibited a lesser scope and greater strength in both the provision of public goods and economic development, contributing to their advanced development.
To analyze and compare India and Pakistan efficiently, four main areas of discussion can be identified: military, corruption control, the provision of public goods, and economics. Of the four measurements, military is the most identical with both showing expansive scope and strength, due to their perpetual conflict and arms races, which could be described as a modern-day cold war that has yet to thaw (especially after India’s abrogation of article 370 from Jammu & Kashmir). The high scope and strength are exhibited by their achievement in nuclear armament (each holding roughly 140 nuclear warheads) and expansive military expenditures: Pakistan with 4.026% of their GDP spent on their military ($11.376 Billion) and India with 2.419% of their GDP spent on their military ($66.51 Billion; "India Vs Pakistan: Military Strength And Arsenal"; "Military Expenditure (% Of GDP) | Data"). In terms of corruption, the leader of both India and Pakistan in PM Modi and PM Khan, have verbalized focus on anti-corruption efforts, however, these have largely been ineffective. Transparency international ranks Pakistan 117th and India 78th in the global corruption list for 2018 ("Corruption Perceptions Index 2018"). The list was composed through analysis of locals and foreign policy experts’ perceived notion of corruption within a state. GAN, a compliance manager for multinational corporations, indicates that companies planning to enter the Indian or Pakistani markets must be prepared deal with corruption from judiciary, police, and bureaucracy when establishing a business model (Bliss et al.).
The provision of public goods constitutes a large variety of factors, but for the focus of this paper, the quality and distribution of education and law enforcement will be discussed. In terms of education, 75.177% of Indians population had obtained the U.S. secondary school equivalent in 2011, whereas Pakistan only had 45.478% in 2018, indicating greater strength from India ("Education | Data"). In terms of scope, India spent 14.05% of its of its total government expenditure on public education in 2013 compared to Pakistan’s 13.847% in 2017, indicating similar scope ("Education | Data"). Both state’s law enforcement and security high scope, yet are exceedingly low in strength due to corruption. The U.S. Institute of Peace reports that Pakistan must overhaul its law enforcement system, starting with the development of a meritocracy, exhibiting the lack of state strength (Abbas, 20). India’s law enforcement system has been undermined through its black market, which has been estimated to be 52% ($957 Billion) of its GDP in 2013 (Sharma, 12). However, in comparison to Pakistan’s perpetual problems in ridding terrorist fronts, India has a clear strength advantage in security. Lastly, in terms of economics, India exhibits much greater strength than Pakistan, largely thanks to its strength in education. The Pakistani economy measured in GDP per capita growth was measured at 3.285% in 2018, whereas India was able to achieve 5.878% GDP per capita growth in 2018 ("Economy & Growth | Data"). In terms of scope, the Heritage fund identifies India as having the 129th and Pakistan as the 131st rank worldwide in terms of economic freedom ("Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom"). Although, India is moving towards a more laissez faire economic system through privatization and deregulation of industry (lesser scope), whereas Pakistan has tight control on its high interest rates and management of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (greater scope).
From the present analysis, it is clear that both India and Pakistan require development in regards to state strength, specifically in corruption control and law enforcement. However, India shows clear advantages in economic intervention and the provision of public goods, although it too would benefit from a consolidation of state strength in these areas. In regards to scope, neither overload themselves with too grand of a scope, allowing India and Pakistan to develop at a more sustainable rate than many of their peers and promoting themselves onto the world stage.
Works Cited
"BBC - History - British History In Depth: The Hidden Story Of Partition And Its Legacies". Bbc.Co.Uk, 2019, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/partition1947_01.shtml.
"Corruption Perceptions Index 2018". Www.Transparency.Org, 2019, https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018.
"Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings On Economic Freedom". Heritage.Org, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.
"Economy & Growth | Data". Data.Worldbank.Org, 2019, https://data.worldbank.org/topic/economy-and-growth?locations=PK-IN&name_desc=false.
"Education | Data". Data.Worldbank.Org, 2019, https://data.worldbank.org/topic/education?locations=PK-IN&name_desc=false.
"India Vs Pakistan: Military Strength And Arsenal". Aljazeera.Com, 2019, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/india-pakistan-military-strength-arsenal-190226064227556.html.
"Military Expenditure (% Of GDP) | Data". Data.Worldbank.Org, 2019, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=PK-IN.
Abbas, Hassan. "Reforming Pakistan‘S Police And Law Enforcement Infrastructure". United States Institute Of Peace Special Report, no. 266, 2011, p. 20., Accessed 25 Sept 2019.
Bliss, Bailey et al. "Country Profiles Archive | GAN Integrity". GAN Integrity, 2019, https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/#index-I.
Fukuyama, Francis. "The Imperative Of State-Building". Journal Of Democracy, vol 15, no. 2, 2004, pp. 17-31. Project Muse, doi:10.1353/jod.2004.0026.
Sharma, Chandan. "Estimating The Size Of Black Economy In India". 2016, pp. 1-16. Munich Personal Repec Archive, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/75211/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019.
Comments