Nation- and State-Building in Eurasia

Ian Bremmer

The United States's increased interest in Eurasia over the past year has added confusion to an already muddled debate over nation- and state-building in the region. In particular, U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan drew global attention to what and who a post-Taliban regime would look like. But the Bush Administration's blanket caution over "nation-building" in Afghanistan blurred the crucial difference between state-building and nation-building: the former concerns developing institutions of governance; the latter concerns developing a shared identity.

Putting the issue this way suggests why states are usually easier to build than nations. Identities generally take time to develop; they cannot be easily "built" from scratch. On the other hand, institutions are concrete and constructing them is more a matter of effort. Of course, establishing institutions does not mean they will automatically be legitimate or effective, and this is why the real question concerns neither state-building nor nation-building per se, but the relationship between the two. Can states and nations be built simultaneously? Is a sense of nationhood necessary for effective state-building or is effective governance necessary for a sense of nationhood? Does pursuing either state- or nation-building help or hinder the pursuit of the other?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the countries of Eurasia were suddenly confronted by these questions and others. How did these countries build their states? Was nation-building a priority, and did it subvert state-building? And how did nation-building and state-building interact with economic reform and recovery? The answers to these questions are of both theoretical and policy interest, especially in a post-9/11 world.

Nations, States, and Economies.

We know from history that both states and nations have emerged without one another. In general, the experience of Western Europe reflects the rise of states before nations, while nations generally existed before states in Eastern Europe. Thus, France existed as a state long before the French nation came into being. Meanwhile, Estonians shared a common identity long before Estonia emerged as a state. Although neither phenomenon is a precondition for the other, states can facilitate the rise of nations by influencing socialization processes, and existing nations can help the emergence of states by providing them with legitimacy. Both states and nations affect and are affected by economic reform; neither can be easily constructed during economic misery, where simple survival is the order of the day. . .

Ian Bremmer is President of the Eurasia Group, and Senior Fellow and Director of Eurasia Studies at the World Policy Institute.