Not long ago, I discussed the idea of a coming wave of microstates. One of the objections of some to independence for small areas like Kosovo or Abkhazia not to mention huge obstacles, is a lack of qualified people to run a new government. Montenegro, for example, was largely independent from Serbia before declaring official independence. It already had a functioning bureaucracy. Yet, for some small areas, even already running unrecognized governments like South Ossetia in Georgia, that doesn’t always mean that they would have enough skilled and qualified people to run all branches of government and provide the necessary government services, especially considering all these potential new states are largely impoverished. Citizens don’t have reliable drinking water or electricity, much less education.
So what to do? First of all, let me note that there are a number of interesting options on the table for these various regions, most all of which don’t grant full independence. This post aims to discuss the situation for newly independent small states and to the extent that it’s transferable, also the implications for autonomous areas.
Since we aren’t talking about armed intervention and the UN isn’t a very realistic or efficient and effective answer, where does that leave us? In his recent book The Savage Wars of Peace, Max Boot writes about limited US intervention in the Dominican Republic. In 1903, a new Domican government entered office and stopped payment of foreign debt, some owed to Americans and most to Europeans. Teddy Roosevelt feared that like in other cases, the Europeans would resort to force and intervene in the island. The following is taken from page 137:
In order to preserve order and keep the Europeans out, the president agreed to assume a customs receivership. Under a treaty signed in 1905, a retired U.S. army colonel took over customs collection for the Dominican Republic. The agreement called for 55 percent of the revenues to be turned over to foreign bondholders, but because the American collectors were more honest than their predecessors, the Domican government actually received more money than ever before.
While all of the Caribbean could surely benefit from something similar today, it shows the big difference such a small program can make. Returning to newly emerging states who just as the Caribbean did and does, lack the people to efficiently, effectively and honestly run a government, who should one turn to? Why the private sector of course.
There has been much discussion about Private Military Contractors with regard to Iraq but if you’re a small emerging country and are looking to build institutions your options are the US, Europeans or the UN. While the US has bigger fish to fry at the moment, might we see companies offering government type services to countries? PMC’s would surely be useful building and running the new military. There are enough ex-government employees and highly skilled private sector people to run any nascent government.
Readers, could the private sector be used in future nation building exercises? When a lack of international support exists and/or a lack of domestic political will or willingness, why not call in the private sector?
NOTE: Don’t forget that Blackwater, for example, offered to intervene in Darfur.

Comments to this entry
Kirk H. Sowell
June 26, 2006
2:22 am
But I do see merit here, since these small vacuums of power aren't going away and may get worse. The British empire certainly would never have been formed, much less maintained, without private companies doing a lot of the work. The new global order (or disorder, as some on this site might prefer) will be hard to manage with states and regular NGOs as the only actors.
Sperwer
June 26, 2006
2:56 am
Jay
June 26, 2006
5:01 am
Lexington Green
June 26, 2006
2:36 pm
Dan tdaxp
June 26, 2006
7:09 pm
Kenneth
June 28, 2006
4:29 am
Couldn't have said it better myself. The government would save enormous amounts of money if it just hired private contractors to do its jobs rather than having established bureaucracies- just look at how much more cost efficient PMCs are than governments- they must be, otherwise they wouldn't be thriving.
John
June 29, 2006
3:51 pm
Large American companies have consistantly shown that they can't run the pensions and health benifits of their own employees in the private sector. Their goal of ever bigger profits and serving the shareholder has lead to "holes" in pension funds "cuts" in health care and lest we forget some of them are so scared of any negative results that they hide them. In the most extreme circumstances the company collapses. The SEC has even gone so far as to change the way that companies expense stock options for employees (especially senior management) in an effort to clamp down on the self serving corporate culture to prevent it from bankrupting itself through greed.
The grand examples of the British east india trading company were shining examplyes in the 18th century. When the British crown realised that half the known world was under the control of a company steps were taken to bring it into check that eventually brought an end to the company. I suppose it was a good 100 years while it lasted. The east india trading company didn't really have to deal with pensions and health care while it was annexing ever larger areas of India while keeping the French at bay at the same time.
In the absense of state control and regulation corporations run amok. That's why we have regulators and anti-trust investigators to keep them in check. That won't happen if a company goes in to run a country changes the law re-registers itself under it's own law and kicks out any and all competition.
The modern civil service in western countries may be bloated and inefficient but at least it is guaranteed jobs for the population. This is essential in times of economic down turns. At least with overspending in the civil service the money ends up back in the economy and not in the back pockets of the super rich who just sit on it and accumulate more.
IJ
June 29, 2006
4:51 pm
sun bin
June 29, 2006
5:14 pm
Ultimate it is the question of 'scale', not the question of management.
however, some others points.
1) does it make sense for UN to continue its one state one vote policy? shouldn't it introduce a house in addition to the senate? UNSC may be the house but many changes would be required if it si going to do that job
2) trend to =re-coalescent. e.g. EU
3) some conflict of interests for those in the US. :) further fragmentation of the world benefits the sole hegemone today, the US. So US should steer clear (or at least very carefully) in such says.
This is the reason many countries view US' support of separatism in other countries not so 'pure', and one of the main reason for SCO's establishment -- but it doesn't have to be that way.
sun bin
June 29, 2006
5:20 pm
1) yes, govt services could (and should) be outsourced. esp when scale is required.
2) but most of the core functions are not scale issues, i.e. the core job for a microstate head is no different from that of a small town mayor
3) outsourced services would be more appealing if they are from neutral or trusted parties -- a few caveats need to be remembered
IJ
June 29, 2006
6:39 pm
Kenneth
June 29, 2006
8:41 pm
Nope. Chile's private pension system is accredited with the country's explosive growth during the early nineties, as it substantially raised the savings rate. Besides, you don't need a formal pension for a retirement fund, all you have to do is invest in the stock market. Moreover, South America's system isn't capitalist- it's mercantalist. There is a lot of red tape and government granted monopolies. If corporations are so myopically greedy, then how come only 10-20 out of 20,000+ publicly traded companies in the US have been convicted of malpractice? That's a failure rate far lower than what we've seen thus far among politicians, presidents, and bureaucrats. The reason is that corporations, being self-interested, must consider long term as well as short term cost. If you ruin your reputation, nobody will buy from you or invest in you. Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument also implies that we should nationalize the entire economy. We all know how well such ideas worked in the Soviet Union, China, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, and every other socialist backwater that has ever disgraced the surface of the Earth.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive »
December 31, 2006
3:10 am