Capacity Erasure and the feasibility gap
This article explains why assessments of state performance routinely exclude fiscal, administrative, and institutional limitations from their causal analysis. This operates through a mechanism Dominican Brief refers to as Capacity Erasure. The analysis focuses on structure, not intent; mechanisms, not events.
The Void in the Analysis
In standard policy analysis, an outcome is understood as the product of Intent + Capacity. To achieve Result X, an actor must want to do it and be able to do it.
However, in the international framing of the Dominican Republic, the equation is truncated. Outcomes are treated almost exclusively as the product of Intent.
If a border post is understaffed, it is interpreted as a lack of will to professionalize. If a medical database is incomplete, it is interpreted as a desire to hide data. If a deportation proceeding is chaotic, it is interpreted as a strategy of intimidation.
Capacity Erasure is the systematic removal of material constraints—budget, personnel, technology, infrastructure—from the evaluation of state conduct. It flattens a complex operational reality into a simple moral binary: the state could do better, but chooses not to.
The Mechanism of Idealized Baselines
This mechanism functions by measuring state performance against an Idealized Baseline rather than a Contextual Baseline.
- Contextual Baseline: Measures performance relative to the state’s GDP, tax base, historical institutional strength, and available resources.
- Idealized Baseline: Measures performance relative to “International Standards,” which are often derived from the capabilities of highly developed economies in the Global North.
When an evaluator applies an Idealized Baseline, material constraints are rendered invisible. The standard demands a specific outcome (e.g., “individualized biometric processing for every migrant”). The cost of that outcome (hardware, electricity, trained staff, bandwidth) is ignored.
If the state fails to meet the standard due to a lack of resources, the failure is recorded as a rights violation rather than a resource gap.
Asymmetry of Expectation
Capacity Erasure creates a profound asymmetry between the demand for services and the supply of resources.
International frameworks often demand that the Dominican Republic provide services—legal aid, healthcare access, administrative processing—that require significant recurring expenditure. Yet, the same international frameworks do not provide the resources to sustain these systems.
The mechanism essentially asserts: “The obligation is universal, regardless of whether the capacity is local.”
This separates the definition of the problem from the mechanics of the solution. The problem is defined legally (rights), but the solution is physical (money, staff, buildings). By erasing capacity from the conversation, critics can demand outcomes that are mathematically impossible given the state’s fiscal reality.
The “Political Will” Trap
The primary linguistic tool of Capacity Erasure is the phrase “lack of political will.”
This phrase serves as a catch-all explanation for any gap between promise and delivery. It is a discursive shortcut that allows analysts to bypass the messy, boring reality of public administration.
- It is harder to analyze why a procurement budget for new vehicles was cut.
- It is easier to say the state lacks the “political will” to patrol effectively.
By attributing all failures to “will,” the mechanism moralizes structural problems. It suggests that if the state simply cared enough, the material constraints would vanish. This is a form of magical thinking that pervades international reporting.
Consequence: Outcome Absolutism
The result of Capacity Erasure is Outcome Absolutism (see Article 33). The state is judged solely on the final result, with no mitigating credit given for the difficulty of the task or the scarcity of tools.
This produces a narrative where the Dominican Republic is portrayed as uniquely malevolent or negligent, simply because it shares the same logistical struggles as any developing nation. The struggle to govern with limited resources is reframed as a calculated refusal to govern justly.
Clarification
This analysis clarifies that acknowledging capacity constraints does not excuse abuse or negligence. Intentional wrongdoing exists and should be identified.
However, Capacity Erasure prevents accurate diagnosis. If a failure is caused by a lack of gas for patrol cars, but is diagnosed as a lack of human rights training, the prescribed solution (more training) will fail to solve the problem (no gas).
Dominican Brief argues that accurate analysis requires re-inserting material reality into the evaluation of state conduct.
Conclusion
Capacity Erasure systematically removes fiscal and administrative reality from the judgment of state performance. By treating outcomes as solely dependent on intent, it converts logistical challenges into moral failures.
This connects to Outcome Absolutism (Article 33) and Metric Substitution (Article 29), ensuring that the state is always found wanting, regardless of its material limitations.
⸻