Strong vs. Weak States

What would you say is the correct characterization of the typical MENA state?

The correct characterization is neither of the given definitions. A MENA state is not strong because they are heavily securitized and are capable of utilizing force to repress dissent. Many of these authoritarian regimes have large military or security forces that are often relatively unregulated and unchecked. Owen considers it an essential job of an authoritarian government to destroy groups that it cannot control through such forces. But this does not lead to strength since the strength of a state is determined by its international status and leverage. If a state is not stable and is run by fear, it will struggle to negotiate and trade internationally. Furthermore, such regimes do not create domestic stability. Instead, those actions spark dissent.

The definition by Anderson characterizes MENA states better. According to Anderson, states can be characterized as either strong or weak. Strong states have modern administrative structures that are well-established and stable. Weak states have administrations that are either incapable of consistently reaching the major part of the population in order to extract resources and provide services or are characterized by patrimonial patterns of recruitment and operations.

MENA states have historically been politically tumultuous, and this trend continues to this day. The administrative powers are not well-established, they are constantly shifting and changing. They are also not widely supported by their constituencies.  Anderson argues that there is a separation of politics and administration, resulting in low population participation. Owen highlights the fact that in MENA states, there is often a lack of powerful institutions, as while as a shrinkage of the legal system which also leads to lower participation. This lack of support is founded in people's loyalty to non-state ideologies above nationalism such as ethnicity, ideology, and religion rooted in post World War II state boundaries that were not congruent with indigenous social formations or economic systems. This split and potential disloyalty creates cracks in public opinion and support weakening state power and legitimacy.

Furthermore, most MENA states have a large amount of power with their president or leader. Administration and military positions, according to Anderson, are often distributed by patronage and personal ties. This leads to further disconnect and conflict within the state, weakening its foundation. It also fits into the second definition of a weak state.

In the study of MENA political dynamics (or political dynamics anywhere for that matter) what are the implications of differing conceptualizations of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ states?

Every state is unique, which leads to a great challenge when trying to label states' relative strength. I think it all depends on what area you are focusing on. For example, some states are "strong" in the sense that they are able to provide health care or education to most of its population. But that same state can be considered "weak" due to its government structure that is filled with corruption. Other states, such as Saudi Arabia, can be considered strong internationally because they have natural resources that they can use for leverage. But domestically, they can be very weak in other areas, especially if the natural resources are privately controlled instead of state controlled. Therefore, each philosophy can be used for a certain, limited purpose, but no definition should be considered over-arching. Ignoring that fact can lead to confusion, cultural misconceptions, and mislabeling of a state.