YAY BIG BOOK.

To say the very least, Strong Societies and Weak States is not light reading. I’m not going to lie; in trudging through these 277 pages, I have only developed a perfunctory understanding of the intricacies of Migdal’s thesis. I don’t seriously believe any one of use can really figure what exactly what his model is and rationalize the various case studies that he has used to support his thesis.
In the most abbreviated encapsulation, this book seeks to examine why it is that a majority of Third World countries have been mired in what appears to be a constant process state disintegration following postcolonial nation building. By drawing heavily from the cases of Israel, Sierra Leone, and Egypt, and sampling liberally from countries such as Mexico, India, Nigeria, South Africa and others, Migdal develops a model centered on the relation between localized interests (power brokers, chieftains, etc.) and the state apparatus, and the struggle to define the policies of the nation-state in a way that leads to change in society as achieving greater prosperity, dignity, and equity.
In particular, I found the case studies of Israel and Sierra Leone to be particularly fascinating. Both countries were former British possessions, and were left in a state of intense fragmentation and general chaos following independence. Summarizing, it seems that an inflow of funds and resources in both countries created distinctly different results because they fell into different hands. In the case of Israel, Zionist labor leaders transferred funds into the Histradut and gave Ben-Gurion the necessary resources to unite Palestine under the Israeli flag. However, in Sierra Leone, British dismantling of traditional power arrangements and the haphazard transferring of resources to local chieftains created a society ripe for fragmentation. As such, over the course of the post-colonialism period, Sierra Leone has lacked a strong state apparatus because the national leaders have had to accommodate towards the demands of localized power brokers. This in turn has curtailed the effectiveness of the state to develop an effective bureaucracy barring some jarring social dislocation.
This I can deal with. I do have one question, however. In all the states analyzed, it seems that only Israel succeeded. What about cases such as China (you knew I would pick that)? Following the Second World War, it was not the inflow of resources from Japanese imperialists or Americans that created the climate for a strong state. In fact, for all the money that the U.S. dumped into the Nationalists, the Communists (who were comparatively underfunded by the Russians) still managed to prevail and create a strong state from a nation fragmented for over a hundred years.
All in all, I don’t disagree with Migdal’s thesis because quite frankly, I don’t understand it to the point of argument. However, I would have appreciated if he presented a couple more successful Third World models. Other than that, it’s definitely better than reading the toothpaste container in the bathroom.