Fragile States Index

Last updated
Fragile States according to the "Fragile States Index", 2023 .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable No Information / Dependent Territory Fragile States Index 2023.svg
Fragile States according to the "Fragile States Index", 2023
  Alert
  Warning
  Moderate
  Sustainable
  No Information / Dependent Territory

The Fragile States Index (FSI; formerly the Failed States Index) is an annual report mainly published and supported by the American think tank the Fund for Peace. The FSI is also published by the American magazine Foreign Policy from 2005 to 2018, then by The New Humanitarian since 2019. [1] The list aims to assess states' vulnerability to conflict or collapse, ranking all sovereign states with membership in the United Nations where there is enough data available for analysis. [2] Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo and Western Sahara are not ranked, despite being recognized as sovereign by one or more other nations. The Palestinian Territories were ranked together with Israel until 2021. Ranking is based on the sum of scores for 12 indicators (see below). Each indicator is scored on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest intensity (most stable) and 10 being the highest intensity (least stable), creating a scale spanning 0−120. [2]

Contents

Methodology

The index's ranks are based on 15 indicators of state vulnerability, grouped by category: Cohesion, Economic, Political, and Social. [3] The ranking is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are outweighing a state's capacity to manage those pressures. By highlighting pertinent vulnerabilities which contribute to the risk of state fragility, the Index — and the social science framework and data analysis tools upon which it is built — makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large. [4]

Scores are obtained via a process involving content analysis, quantitative data, and qualitative review. In the content analysis phase, millions of documents from over 100,000 English-language or translated sources (social media are excluded) [5] are scanned and filtered through the Fund for Peace's Conflict Assessment Systems Tool (CAST), which utilizes specific filters and search parameters to sort data based on Boolean phrases linked to indicators, and assigns scores based on algorithms. [6] Following CAST analysis, quantitative data from sources such as the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), World Factbook, Transparency International, World Bank, and Freedom House are incorporated, which then leads to the final phase of qualitative reviews of each indicator for each country. [5]

Considered together in the index, the indicators are a way of assessing a state's vulnerability to collapse or conflict, ranking states on a spectrum of categories labeled sustainable, stable, warning, and alert. Within each bracket, scores are also subdivided by severity. The score breakdown [7] is as follows:

CategoryFSI score*Brackets (2016)2015–2016 color2005–2014 color
Alert90.0–120.0Very high: 110+

High: 100–109.9

Alert: 90–99.9

RedRed
Warning60.0–89.9High: 80–89.9

Warning: 70–79.9

Low: 60–69.9

Yellow-OrangeOrange
Stable30.0–59.9Less stable: 50–59.9

Stable: 40–49.9

More stable: 30–39.9

GreenYellow
Sustainable0.0–29.9Sustainable: 20–29.9

Very sustainable: 0–19.9

BlueGreen
Not assessedN/A—Light grayLight gray

All countries in the top three categories display features that make their societies and institutions vulnerable to failure. However, the FSI is not intended as a tool to predict when states may experience violence or collapse, as it does not measure direction or pace of change. It is possible for a state sorted into the 'stable' zone to be deteriorating at a faster rate than those in the more fragile 'warning' or 'alert' zones, and could experience violence sooner. Conversely, states in the red zone, though fragile, may exhibit positive signs of recovery or be deteriorating slowly, giving them time to adopt mitigating strategies. [7]

List of countries by Fragile States Index

Indicators

Twelve conflict risk indicators are used to measure the condition of a state at any given moment. The indicators provide a snapshot in time that can be measured against other snapshots in a time series to determine whether conditions are improving or worsening. Below is the list of indicators used both in the CAST framework and also in the Fragile States Index. [8]

Criticism

Nomenclature

Years of controversy over the "failed state" terminology in the index's name contributed to change in 2014, with a shift from the Failed States Index to the Fragile States Index. Critics had argued that the term established a false binary division, or false dichotomy, between states that were salvageable and those that were beyond recovery. [9] [10] Krista Hendry, FFP's executive director, explained the change in part as a reaction to the debate the term failed state had generated, noting that "the name was negatively impacting our ability to get the right kind of attention for the FSI". [11]

Purpose

Several academics and journalists have also criticized the FSI for a lack of utility and its measurement criteria. Authors writing for The National Interest and The Washington Post have argued that the FSI sends a message that the solution to problems in the developing world is "more state-building", [12] [13] when in fact state-building could be viewed as a cause of instability or fragility. Claire Leigh, writing for The Guardian in 2012, condemned the index as a "useless policy tool" which focused only on the symptoms of struggling states, ignoring causes or potential cures. [9]

Methodology

Critics have also identified flaws with the FSI's measurement criteria, as well as the lack of transparency surrounding its base data analysis. [12] [14] For example, indicators related to refugees and human flight have allowed North Korea's score to improve as human emigration has declined; [15] while this may indicate a stronger security apparatus in the state, it should not necessarily be recognized as an improvement. [14] Additionally, analysis of the indicators has led several commentators to conclude that a combination of too many categories and a failure to distinguish between "government" and "state" (sometimes allowing political moves, such as Iran agreeing to negotiations with the West, to positively impact a score) complicates efforts to utilize findings. [12] [16] [17] Several have argued for greater transparency in scoring methods, [9] [12] a reworking of the criteria to give the index predictive value, [12] and a consolidation of indicators into umbrella groups for easier comparison. [17]

Furthermore, criticism related to the way the ranking is put together since it was first published seventeen years ago in Foreign Policy magazine, seems to be disappearing as the ranking is focused on trends and rate-of-change. In addition, it is worth mentioning that the ranking focuses on measuring a country's performance over time against itself rather than against other countries' performance. The attention is then paid to a country’s individual indicator scores instead of only its total composite score.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has based its annual Fragile States Report, now named 'States of Fragility', [18] on the FSI, as well as on data from the World Bank (which publishes its own lists of fragile states [19] ), since 2005. [20]

On a monthly basis, International Crisis Group (ICG), a transnational non-governmental organization (NGO), publishes CrisisWatch, a bulletin designed to inform readers about the development of state-based conflict across the globe. The reports indicate whether or not situations have improved, deteriorated, or remained unchanged from the previous month, and seek to highlight where there may be risks of new/escalated (or opportunities for resolution of) conflicts in the coming month. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

A failed state is a state that has lost its ability to fulfill fundamental security and development functions, lacking effective control over its territory and borders. Common characteristics of a failed state include a government incapable of tax collection, law enforcement, security assurance, territorial control, political or civil office staffing, and infrastructure maintenance. When this happens, widespread corruption and criminality, the intervention of state and non-state actors, the appearance of refugees and the involuntary movement of populations, sharp economic decline, and military intervention from both within and outside the state are much more likely to occur.

A fragile state or weak state is a country characterized by weak state capacity or weak state legitimacy leaving citizens vulnerable to a range of shocks. The World Bank, for example, deems a country to be ‘fragile’ if it (a) is eligible for assistance from the International Development Association (IDA), (b) has had a UN peacekeeping mission in the last three years, and (c) has received a ‘governance’ score of less than 3.2. A more cohesive definition of the fragile state might also note a state's growing inability to maintain a monopoly on force in its declared territory. While a fragile state might still occasionally exercise military authority or sovereignty over its declared territory, its claim grows weaker as the logistical mechanisms through which it exercises power grow weaker.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fund for Peace</span> American non-governmental organization

The Fund for Peace is an American non-profit, non-governmental research and educational institution. Founded in 1957, FFP "works to prevent violent conflict and promote sustainable security."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global Peace Index</span> Measures the relative position of nations and regions peacefulness

Global Peace Index (GPI) is a report produced by the Australia-based NGO Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) which measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness. The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories according to their levels of peacefulness. In the past decade, the GPI has presented trends of increased global violence and less peacefulness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global Hunger Index</span> Tool that measures and tracks hunger

The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool that attempts to measure and track hunger globally as well as by region and by country, prepared by European NGOs of Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe. The GHI is calculated annually, and its results appear in a report issued in October each year.

Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators has broadened in scope to include indicators that span the three pillars of sustainability. National NGOs, as well as the Government of Canada, create and maintain Sustainability indicators.

The Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI), first published in spring 2009 and updated in 2011, analyze and compare the need for reform in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries, as well as each country's ability to respond to current social and political challenges. The project is designed to create a comprehensive data pool on government-related activities in the countries considered the world's most developed free-market democracies. In addition, it uses international comparisons to provide evidence-based input for reform-related public discourse taking place in these countries. The SGI are updated every two or three years.

Canada is recognized in international rankings for a variety of reasons, ranging from its high standard of living to its strong economy and political stability. Canada ranks high on its social, legal, healthcare and education systems with its universities ranked among the best in the world. The country consistently ranks high in other various indices measuring factors such as human rights, quality of life, safety, happiness, prosperity and sustainability. This has led to Canada being recognized as one of the best countries in the world to live. Despite these facts there are varied domestic concerns, Canada ranks among the lowest of the most developed countries for housing affordability, technology affordability, healthcare accessibility, and foreign direct investment.

These are the international rankings of the Netherlands.

These are the international rankings of Kazakhstan.

Promoting recovery from conflict is not limited to simply a humanitarian, security or development issue and often involves a combination of all three. Stabilization of fragile states is an approach and a process regarding the fragility and security of said states. Hence, stabilization is an essential concept in relation to fragile and failed states, where basic institutions and services are lacking and where conflict is an influential factor. OECD uses the term from fragility to resilient to describe the process of stabilization.

The OECD Better Life Index, created in May 2011 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, is an initiative pioneering the development of economic indicators which better capture multiple dimensions of economic and social progress.

The following are international rankings of  Israel:

Here is a list of international rankings of Denmark, in terms of Economic, Environmental, Military, Political, and Social aspects.

The Financial Secrecy Index (FSI) is the report published by the advocacy organization Tax Justice Network (TJN) which ranks countries by financial secrecy indicators, weighted by the economic flows of each country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global Terrorism Index</span> Indicator for impact of terrorism

The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) is a report published annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), and was developed by IT entrepreneur and IEP's founder Steve Killelea. The index provides a comprehensive summary of the key global trends and patterns in terrorism since 2000. It is an attempt to systematically rank the nations of the world according to terrorist activity. The index combines a number of factors associated with terrorist attacks to build an explicit picture of the impact of terrorism, illustrating trends, and providing a data series for analysis by researchers and policymakers. It produces a composite score in order to provide an ordinal ranking of countries on the impact of terrorism.

Walk Free is an international human rights group based in Perth, Western Australia. Its goal is the end of modern slavery.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Happiness Report</span> Publication ranking national happiness based on respondent ratings of their lives

The World Happiness Report is a publication that contains articles and rankings of national happiness, based on respondent ratings of their own lives, which the report also correlates with various life factors.

North Korea ranks as the third least democratic country in the world in the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, while The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal's Index of Economic Freedom places the country as the one with least economic freedom. According to the Press Freedom Index, North Korea has the fourth least free press in the world.

References

  1. ↑ "Tipping points 2019 | Lessons from fragility". The New Humanitarian. 2019-04-10. Retrieved 2019-12-23.
  2. 1 2 "Failed States FAQ". the Fund for Peace. Archived from the original on 2010-11-18. Retrieved 2007-08-25.
  3. ↑ "Failed States list 2007". Foreign Policy magazine. Archived from the original on 2007-06-20. Retrieved 2007-06-19.
  4. ↑ https://fragilestatesindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/fsi2021-report.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  5. 1 2 "What Methodology Was Used for the Ratings? | The Fund for Peace". fsi.fundforpeace.org. Archived from the original on 2017-09-04. Retrieved 2017-09-02.
  6. ↑ "Methodology | The Fund for Peace". fsi.fundforpeace.org. Archived from the original on 2017-09-16. Retrieved 2017-09-02.
  7. 1 2 "What do the Colors and Categories in the Index and on the Map Signify? | The Fund for Peace". fsi.fundforpeace.org. Archived from the original on 2018-03-15. Retrieved 2017-09-02.
  8. ↑ "CAST Conflict Assessment Framework Manual | The Fund for Peace". library.fundforpeace.org. Archived from the original on 2016-01-14. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  9. 1 2 3 Leigh, Claire (2012-07-02). "Failed States Index belongs in the policy dustbin". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  10. ↑ "The Failure of the Failed States Index | World Policy Institute". www.worldpolicy.org. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  11. ↑ "From Failed to Fragile: Renaming the Index". library.fundforpeace.org. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 Beehner, Lionel; Young, Joseph (2014-07-14). "Is ranking failed or fragile states a futile business?". The Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  13. ↑ Evers, Miles M. (15 July 2014). "The Fatally Flawed Fragile States Index". The National Interest. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  14. 1 2 "Fragile is the New Failure". Political Violence @ a Glance. 27 June 2014. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  15. ↑ "North Korea | The Fund for Peace". fsi.fundforpeace.org. Archived from the original on 2016-04-14. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  16. ↑ "Why the Failed State Index is a fail". Africa Review. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  17. 1 2 "2009 Failed States Index – Disorder in the Ranks". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  18. ↑ "States of Fragility 2020 - OECD". www.oecd.org. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
  19. ↑ "Fragility, Conflict and Violence". www.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
  20. ↑ "States of Fragility Report - OECD". www.oecd.org. Retrieved 2020-09-21.
  21. ↑ "CrisisWatch - International Crisis Group". www.crisisgroup.org. Archived from the original on 2016-01-12. Retrieved 2016-01-20.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.