"What makes for states that are well consolidated, with high levels of capacity for engaging in the kinds of actions essential for governing and legitimacy? Is there a general formula, or at least a common set of patterns, that distinguish states that are relatively successful in these ways, and conversely, is there a comparable core of problems and institutions that are widely shared by states that are not well consolidated with high levels of capacity? To what extent, if any, do subjective "soft" factors like norms, ideology, and the prior existence of traditions of governance render it easier or more difficult for those involved in state making to create, stabilize, or transform state institutions? Does the way in which chosen policies are implemented matter for the institutionalization of the state organizations that are doing the implementing?"--