Lesson Report:
Title: Experiencing the State: Applying Effective/Weak/Failed Frameworks through Concrete Public Services
Synopsis: This session concluded the unit on “the state� by translating the effective/weak/failed typology into concrete, citizen-level experiences. Students first generated tangible touchpoints with the state (beyond police), then analyzed how each touchpoint would manifest in effective, weak, and failed states, emphasizing capacity, resources, rule-of-law, and service delivery. A planned second activity was deferred; students were assigned to solidify understanding of federal vs. unitary systems via the reading.
Attendance
– Students specifically mentioned as absent: 1
– Dustin attended the wrong seminar section and was not marked present (attendance credit possible only with medical spravka from the university medical office).
Topics Covered (chronological, with activity headers)
1) Opening announcements and outreach
– Ambassador talk: UK Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, Nicholas Buller, at 3:30 in Makerspace (CH), same day. Strong encouragement to attend and prepare a question (scholarships, UK, ambassadorial work, etc.).
– Public lecture: Tomorrow at 11:00 (topic not specified). Again, attend if free and arrive with questions.
– Assignment preview: Tuesday’s class will detail the “Field Reflection Paperâ€� (major assignment). Students must attend one public talk, ask questions connected to course topics, and use responses as evidence in an essay. Today/tomorrow’s events can serve as practice.
– Community/hiking club: AUCA Outdoor Club hike on Sunday, October 5. Route: Jannat Hotel to the mountain flagpole. Free (bring shoes/food/good mood). 15 spots available; registration via Instagram: auca.outdoor.club.
2) Partner formation and social warm-up
– Instruction: Pair with someone you have not worked with; smile, quick well-being check-in.
– Rationale: Encourage new peer interactions and collaborative analysis.
3) Recap of framework
– Revisited core question from prior class: What is a state, and how do we assess its “healthâ€�?
– Typology reaffirmed:
– Effective state (top/healthy)
– Weak state (middle)
– Failed state (bottom)
4) Activity 1 — Identify tangible interfaces with the state
– Instructions:
– With a new partner, list one concrete way you can see/feel/experience the state (must be specific and tangible; avoid abstract “vibesâ€� like “unityâ€� or “feeling safeâ€� unless tied to an actual state service).
– Police examples disallowed to push broader thinking.
– Teacher guidance and criteria:
– Prefer services/places/actions you can touch/visit/use (e.g., school, hospital, bus, court, tax filing).
– If using “safety/security,â€� anchor it to service flows (e.g., dialing 102 in Kyrgyzstan for police; ambulance and fire services).
– Protests are not the state; focus on the state’s response to civil unrest.
– Border-crossing controls largely involve international relations; not ideal for measuring internal state health.
– Examples proposed and refined in class:
– Emergency services: Dialing 102; ambulance/fire response as direct state service.
– Response to protests/civil unrest: Focus on state response quality/legality, not the protest event itself.
– Taxes: Filing or payroll withholding as a common state touchpoint. UAE/Qatar as outliers: capacity to tax matters even if not exercised.
– Public hospitals: Access, quality, cleanliness, equipment, staff professionalism, triage, and lines.
– Disability infrastructure: Ramps, elevators, accessible toilets, buses; grant administration for accessibility.
– Welfare payments: Disability/retirement/unemployment benefits as direct state-citizen interfaces.
– Bureaucracy: Medical certificates or other documents at public hospitals; define the site and steps.
– Courts: Independence, due process, enforceability of judgments.
– Public transportation: Buses and system management.
– Trash collection: Availability/placement of bins, regular pickup, fines enforcement.
– Public universities: State-funded higher education quality, staffing, fairness; not private institutions.
5) Activity 2 — Apply the effective/weak/failed framework to the chosen touchpoint
– Instructions:
– For your example, describe three specific, citizen-experienced scenarios: in an effective state, a weak state, and a failed state.
– Emphasize lived detail (what a person actually sees/does), causes (resources, staffing, budget, rule of law), and outcomes (timeliness, fairness, enforceability).
– Whole-class debrief by example (condensed from shares):
A) Hospital bureaucracy (e.g., obtaining medical documents)
– Effective: Reasonable queues; professional staff; clear steps; timely processing. Long lines can exist, but order and fairness are maintained; process works without bribes.
– Weak: Long queues due to understaffing/underfunding; limited facilities; occasional queue-jumping via informal payments; uneven professionalism; budget constraints evident.
– Failed: Facility may not exist or function; rules are nominal; “pay-to-playâ€� for documents; outcomes unreliable or meaningless.
B) Employment/minimum wage and payroll practices
– Effective: Legal minimum wage exists and is enforced; on-time payroll; legal hiring; recourse for violations.
– Weak: Late/noncompliant pay is common; under-the-table hiring to avoid taxes/benefits; minimum wage too low or ignored; weak enforcement.
– Failed: Predominantly shadow economy; no legal protections or tax collection; pay is sporadic or arbitrary; no meaningful state recourse.
C) Courts and rule of law
– Effective: Judicial independence; decisions based on law; judgments are enforced (acquittal leads to release; conviction leads to lawful sanction).
– Weak: Corruption and political influence distort outcomes; transparency low; judgments can be circumvented by money/power; enforcement is uneven.
– Failed: Courts become rubber stamps for the powerful or irrelevant; parallel “customaryâ€� systems (e.g., local jirga) supplant state courts; public has no trust in legal process.
D) Public hospitals (service quality)
– Effective: Sufficient facilities nationwide (including regions); clean environments; functioning equipment; equitable treatment; adequate staffing and sustained funding.
– Weak: Too few/poorly maintained facilities; cleanliness issues; outdated equipment; overworked/underpaid staff; bribes to skip lines; budget leakages.
– Failed: Minimal or nonfunctional service; scarce, poorly trained, and unpaid staff; disorganized and unsafe environments.
E) Disability access (infrastructure and supports)
– Effective: Widespread compliance (ramps, lifts, accessible transport/toilets); grants/administered supports present and visible; independent mobility feasible.
– Weak: Partial or token compliance; infrastructure exists but is unusable or sporadic; reliance on family/strangers persists; mis-implementation or poor maintenance.
– Failed: Little to no accessible infrastructure; mobility/participation dependent on ad hoc human assistance.
F) Trash collection and public sanitation
– Effective: Adequate bins in convenient locations; regular collection; fines for littering enforced; systems designed for usability, not revenue.
– Weak: Overflowing bins; irregular pickup; insufficient staffing/equipment/placement; enforcement largely symbolic.
– Failed: No systematic collection; trash accumulates widely; absence of workable public sanitation norms.
G) Public universities (state-funded)
– Effective: Qualified faculty; fair assessment; decent facilities and equipment; scholarships/exchanges; access not contingent on patronage; outcomes tied to merit.
– Weak: Low salaries dampen motivation; underqualification; bribery for grades/diplomas; nepotism in hiring/admissions; facilities degrade.
– Failed: Institutional collapse or near-collapse; rampant nepotism; credentials lose credibility; little learning or research capacity.
– Cross-cutting cause patterns emphasized by instructor:
– Resource sufficiency and allocation (budget size and leakage).
– Staffing (numbers, training, professionalism, pay).
– Rule-of-law and enforcement capacity (predictability, anti-corruption).
– Service design and user experience (lines, placement, accessibility).
6) Deferred content and homework alignment
– Due to time constraints, the second planned activity was not conducted.
– Reading directive: Students must read/understand federal vs. unitary systems for upcoming sessions.
7) Closing notes and policy reminders
– Students encouraged again to attend the two public events (today/tomorrow) and practice question-asking for the Field Reflection Paper.
– Section attendance policy clarified: attend your assigned seminar; only medical spravka can excuse absences/mis-section attendance.
Actionable Items (organized by urgency)
Immediate (before next class)
– Share/confirm details for the ambassador talk and tomorrow’s public lecture with all sections (time, place, expectation to ask a question).
– Prepare Tuesday’s Field Reflection Paper workshop:
– Clarify prompt, expectations, rubric, length, sourcing (speaker responses as evidence), and link to course concepts.
– Provide exemplar questions tied to “state capacityâ€� and to upcoming topics.
– Remind students that attending/engaging in a talk is required for the assignment.
– Create a quick check (exit ticket or short quiz) to assess understanding of effective/weak/failed distinctions via a new, concrete example.
– Reinforce attendance policy in LMS/email: wrong-section attendance does not count; only medical spravka excuses.
This week
– Post a concise explainer or mini-lecture notes on federal vs. unitary systems (since not covered in class) and consider a short formative activity next session to ensure uptake.
– Compile a class “example bankâ€� of tangible state touchpoints raised today (emergency services, courts, hospitals, disability access, trash, taxes, welfare, transport, universities) to reference in future lectures and assessments.
Later/Optional
– Reschedule the deferred second activity to a future class or move it online (e.g., scenario-based worksheet applying the framework to a new domain such as licensing, land registry, or utilities).
– Consider a brief policy case study (e.g., how different states handle protests or disaster response) to deepen the “state responseâ€� indicator discussion.
– Community-building: Share AUCA Outdoor Club hike info with all sections; verify no conflict with course obligations.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Federal vs. Unitary Systems — Reading and Comparison Notes
You will review the “Federal vs. Unitary� section from this week’s reading to make sure you clearly understand how authority is distributed in each system. This catches us up on the topic we didn’t reach in class and prepares you to connect state structure to the concrete experiences of the state we analyzed (hospitals, courts, taxes, welfare, public transport, disability access, trash collection, wage enforcement).
Instructions:
1) Find the correct section of the assigned reading:
– Open this week’s assigned reading and locate the section titled “Federal vs. Unitaryâ€� (or “Unitary vs. Federalâ€�).
– If the reading has headings/subheadings, navigate directly to that subsection.
2) Read and annotate:
– As you read, underline or note:
– The definition of a federal system and a unitary system.
– How constitutional authority is allocated vertically (national vs. regional/local).
– Typical examples of each system and any noted exceptions or nuances (e.g., devolution within unitary states).
3) Define in your own words:
– Write a 2–3 sentence definition, in your own words, for:
– Federal system
– Unitary system
– Immediately beneath each, list 3–5 core features (e.g., where key powers reside, how policy responsibilities are assigned, how changes to authority happen).
4) Advantages and challenges:
– For each system, list at least two potential advantages and two potential challenges (e.g., coordination vs. responsiveness; uniform standards vs. regional flexibility; policy duplication; regional inequalities).
5) Connect to Tuesday’s activity on “feeling the state�:
– Choose any two of the public-facing areas we used in class (for example: public hospitals, courts, taxes/wage enforcement, disability infrastructure, public transport, trash collection, welfare).
– For each area, write:
– In a federal system: which level(s) of government would likely be responsible, and how that might affect service delivery or consistency across regions.
– In a unitary system: how central authority would shape policy design, funding, and uniformity at the local level.
– Keep your explanations concrete, as we did in class (e.g., think about who funds hospitals, who hires staff, why lines form, who enforces anti-littering rules, who maintains ramps/elevators, who enforces minimum wage).
6) Country examples:
– Identify two countries that operate as federal systems and two that are unitary.
– For each country, write one sentence justifying your classification (e.g., constitutional structure, degree of devolved authority).
– Optional: include your home country or Kyrgyzstan if relevant.
7) Quick self-check:
– Write one clear sentence that distinguishes federal from unitary systems without referencing “effective/weak/failedâ€� (remember: those are about state health, not structure).
8) Prepare to use your notes:
– Bring your notes to our next class and be ready to:
– Share one concrete insight from Step 5.
– Ask one discussion question about how structure (federal vs. unitary) might influence the effectiveness of a state service you care about.
9) Timeline:
– Complete all steps before our next class meeting (Tuesday) so you’re ready for discussion.
– No file submission is required unless otherwise announced; keep your notes accessible in class.