Lesson Report:
Title
Assessing State Health through the Monopoly on Force: Comparing Police in Mexico City and Tokyo; Building Indicators of Effective, Weak, and Failed States
This session shifted from the binary question “is it a state?� to the qualitative question “how healthy is the state?� Students analyzed two police images (Mexico City vs. Tokyo) to infer differences in the state’s monopoly on force and then used the course reading to extract indicators that distinguish effective, weak, and failed states. The objective was to build a working toolkit of indicators students will apply in Thursday’s lab to assess state health across cases.
Attendance
– Students mentioned absent: 7
– Names explicitly marked absent: Arslanbek; Dastan; Tolkunbek; Soybeguim; Begaim (Tolimushiva); Kauhar; Nur Islam
– Note: Some students approached after class to discuss prior absences and corrections; one (Arslanbek) may have arrived late today—verify final status when updating records.
Topics Covered (chronological)
1) Reorientation to course goals (Week 5 kickoff; review of prior session)
– Prompt: Move from “What is a state?â€� to “How and why do states differ in health?â€�
– Brief recap of statehood criteria from last week: territory, population, recognition, sovereignty, and especially monopoly on force/violence.
– Framed the day’s guiding question: What do observable differences in policing tell us about the underlying health of the state?
2) Visual analysis warm-up: Police as the face of the state (Mexico City vs. Tokyo)
– Materials: Two projected images—top: heavily armed, militarized police unit in Mexico City; bottom: unarmed-looking, conversational street police in Tokyo.
– Student task (3 minutes, notebooks): List similarities and differences between the two police forces.
– Whole-class share-out (selected observations):
– Similarities: Both are municipal/city police; both represent the state in daily life.
– Differences (key themes noted on board):
– Uniforms/appearance: Color, hats, gear.
– Equipment: Mexico photo shows long guns, tactical truck; Japan photo shows no visible firearms.
– Interaction style: Mexico—no direct engagement in the image, readiness posture; Japan—active conversation with a scooter rider, approachability.
– Context/location: Mexico scene reads as higher-security posture; Tokyo scene reads as routine civil enforcement.
– Implied goals/responsibilities: Mexico—countering high-threat actors (e.g., cartels); Japan—administrative enforcement and public assistance.
3) Notebook reflection: From police differences to state differences
– Prompt (2 minutes, notebooks): “What do these policing differences imply about each state? Why might their roles and approaches diverge if both are ‘city police’ within the same departments?â€�
– Clarification: Both images are regular city police in their capitals (Mexico City and Tokyo); these are not special forces vs. traffic police by design choice in the exercise.
4) Guided discussion: Linking observations to “state health�
– Key concepts elicited from students and scaffolded by instructor:
– Stability and security: Perceived instability and higher crime in Mexico vs. higher safety in Japan.
– Crime rate and threat environment: Organized crime (cartels) as a competing coercive force in Mexico.
– Priorities and responsibilities: Militarized posture signals different task environment; administrative/law-and-order emphasis in Japan signals routine compliance and trust.
– Legitimacy/trust (noted to return to formally): Citizens’ willingness to accept state authority and cooperate.
5) Partner discussion: Assessing the monopoly on force in each case
– Setup: Students paired up (with late partner matching as needed).
– Prompt (3 minutes): “Based solely on the images, how healthy is the monopoly on force in Mexico vs. Japan, and why?â€�
– Key takeaways from report-out:
– Japan:
– Indicators of a healthy monopoly on force: Respectful distance and non-contact; communication-centered engagement; low aggressiveness; approachability; absence of visible weapons; public trust/legitimacy implied.
– Interpretation: The state does not need to project overt force to secure compliance; routine policing suffices.
– Mexico:
– Indicators of a strained monopoly on force: Heavy weaponry and armored vehicles; visible force projection; posture signaling high-threat environment (cartels).
– Interpretation: The need to visibly project substantial force suggests competition for coercive control; state capacity is pressured in certain regions or functions.
6) Mini-lecture: From statehood criteria to state health
– Transitioned from “Does the state have a monopoly on force?â€� (yes/no) to “How healthy is that monopoly?â€� and to overall state health.
– Introduced the three-tier framework from the reading:
– Effective state (high health)
– Weak state (moderate/uneven health)
– Failed state (collapsed/near-collapsed health)
– Introduced the term “indicatorâ€�: a specific, observable sign that points to a state’s level of health.
7) Reading-based jigsaw (paired work with assigned numbers 1–3)
– Group assignments:
– 1 = Effective state
– 2 = Weak state
– 3 = Failed state
– Task (10 minutes): From the week’s reading, identify at least two indicators for your assigned state type (what you can observe that would tell you a state belongs in that category).
8) Whole-class synthesis: Indicator lists (from group reports)
– Effective state (Group 1):
– Law compliance and enforceability: Laws are implemented and broadly obeyed.
– Low corruption: Minimal diversion of public resources; processes work without bribes.
– Tax capacity: The state can collect taxes across its territory reliably.
– Strong legitimacy/trust: Citizens broadly accept the state’s authority; institutions are seen as rightful.
– Economic performance often correlates (but is not determinative): Effective states tend to have healthier economies; exceptions noted (e.g., resource dependence does not preclude effectiveness).
– Example references by students: Japan, United States, Western Europe (used illustratively).
– Weak state (Group 2):
– Low/contested legitimacy and trust: Significant segments doubt the state’s authority or effectiveness.
– High corruption: Bribery and rent-seeking are common; public money benefits elites over public goods.
– Weak service provision: Education and healthcare quality uneven or poor; basic services unreliable.
– High crime and politicized criminality: Crime rates are higher; criminal networks penetrate political/economic life.
– Weak law enforcement and limited security control: The state struggles to enforce its laws in some areas; tax collection may be spotty.
– Failed state (Group 3):
– Extreme corruption and pay-to-play governance: Bribes expected for routine services; government functions break down.
– Severely degraded social services: Little to no effective welfare, health, or education provision.
– Fragmented territorial control: De facto authority split among multiple actors; government cannot manage or administer large areas.
– Inability to enforce law/stop crime: Rule by force (guns) predominates; law on paper is not operative.
– Human rights at risk: Low protection and frequent violations linked to state incapacity or predation.
– Student anecdote: Being asked to pay for services that should be free—used as a concrete example of systemic corruption.
9) Wrap and forward look
– Thursday lab: Students will apply the indicator framework to real cases to assess state health (spectrum thinking encouraged).
– Reading reminder: Complete this week’s reading before Thursday and bring indicator notes.
– After-class Q&A example: Brief exchange on Iran’s placement in the framework—tentative instructor position that Iran likely ranks relatively high in state effectiveness on control and services, with legitimacy more mixed; observation that routine police in the capital may be unarmed, suggesting a healthier monopoly on force.
Actionable Items
Urgent (before Thursday’s lab)
– Reading compliance: Remind students to finish the week’s reading; ask them to bring a list of at least 2–3 indicators per state category with one country example each.
– Lab prep:
– Prepare rubric/checklist for indicators (effective/weak/failed) with guiding questions and suggested data sources (e.g., tax-to-GDP, homicide rates, Transparency International, service coverage metrics).
– Curate short case packets (e.g., Mexico, Japan, Iran, and 1–2 additional contrasts) and reprint police images.
– Pre-assign pairs/triads and roles (1–3) to save in-class time.
– Attendance reconciliation:
– Verify today’s 7 absentees and update if late arrivals changed status (especially Arslanbek).
– Process after-class correction requests (e.g., student claiming absence on Sept 11; confirm via records).
Short-term follow-ups
– Clarify concepts next session:
– Distinguish “separation of powersâ€� (institutional design) from “state capacity/healthâ€� indicators to avoid conflation.
– Reiterate that both images depicted city police; discuss how function specialization within a department can still reflect broader state conditions.
– Emphasize that visible force projection can indicate competition over coercion, not necessarily greater state strength.
Administrative
– Fix sign-in/attendance method: Previous self-sign forms were misused; continue roll call or adopt verified digital check-in to prevent proxy sign-ins.
– Section change: Confirm the reported seminar section change approval and update rosters accordingly.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Finish the week’s reading on state health (effective, weak, failed)
You will complete the assigned reading that defines the three levels of state health—effective, weak, and failed—and their indicators, so you are prepared to apply this framework (especially the monopoly on force lens we used when comparing Mexico City and Tokyo police) in Thursday’s lab.
Instructions:
1) Locate this week’s assigned reading (the same reading referenced in class that outlines effective, weak, and failed states and their key indicators).
2) Read the entire piece carefully before Thursday’s lab.
3) As you read, create a clear set of notes that lists at least two indicators for each category:
– Effective state
– Weak state
– Failed state
For each indicator, include a one-sentence description in your own words that captures how the reading defines or illustrates it.
4) Highlight indicators connected to the monopoly on force (for example, control of territory, ability to enforce laws, crime penetration), since this was our focus today and will be central to Thursday’s work.
5) Use our in-class discussion to anchor your notes:
– Recall how the Japan vs. Mexico City police images signaled different levels of state health and priorities; connect those observations to the indicators the reading lists.
6) Bring your notes to class on Thursday and be ready to use them in the lab to evaluate how healthy a given state is. If you already finished the reading, review and refine your indicator list so you can apply it quickly in class.