African American States Vs Weak States

Weak states were conquered by stronger states in a similar manner to the “survival of the fittest” in Europe’s period of consolidation. Countries that lacked administrative power were taken over by more powerful countries with substantial administrative power and strategy. According to Herbst, strong leaders in Europe knew that the only way that they could gain power and revenue in order to develop their country was to “expend the necessary political capital [in war] and undertake the coercion to gain more revenue” (Herbst 120). Furthermore, Joseph Smaldone from Georgetown University declared, “war was the principal instrument for the establishment and extension of political authority over subject people and foreign territory…” (Herbst 121). Once the political authority of leaders was expanded, citizens of …show more content…
These countries are usually led by an “insecure, authoritarian elite” who has no intentions of breaking the Organization of African Unity in order to build state capacity and begin development. Many African countries were left with the legacies of their colonizers and failed to develop their own territorial ambitions, trained military, or thirst for development (Herbst 123). For that reason, weak countries in Africa were not conquered, and their travel along the tracks of path dependency continued. In fact, it was previously predicted that weak states will always exist in Africa, and there will be no substantial development in any African states affected by the Organization of African Unity. The leaders in Europe made strategic moves in order to prosper both economically and as a country in general, while African leaders lacked the capacity and knowledge to make intelligent and sensible administrative decisions. This distinction clearly set these two areas of the world apart in terms of capacity to endure war and hope for development in the