It is now commonplace to describe countries facing protracted civil conflict, degrading levels of poverty and inequality, or economic or political collapse as failed states. But how do we gauge or measure such fragility?
The Fragile States Index, compiled annually by the US-based Fund for Peace, examines the risk of countries becoming “failed states” by assessing their vulnerability to various kinds of instability. The Index, with its negative ranking of countries, integrates qualitative and quantitative data sources to outline patterns and trends. Data is collected across four broad categories, each of which measure different elements of state fragility.
The first such category considers a country’s cohesion, with attention to its security context, the degree to which there are social divisions or inequalities, and the level or extent of group grievances. A Security Apparatus indicator examines both internal and external security threats; the influence or control by armed resistance groups; levels of crime; availability of weapons; as well as the degree of citizens’ trust in domestic security, including with respect to the discipline and integrity of military and police forces. A Factionalized Elites indicator assesses fragmentation of state institutions and services along ethnic, class, clan, racial, or religious lines, with attention to how such differences are politicized, for example through discrimination or exclusion. Attention also is given to power struggles, political competition and political transitions, including through credible electoral processes or by military coup or other violent means. The category also assesses resource distribution and the level of equality and equity, including concentration of wealth and distribution of assets. A country’s cohesion also is measured by the level of group grievances and the degree of either social tolerance or group hatred, including historical grudges or animosities; grievances related to thwarted ambitions of groups towards autonomy, self-determination, or political independence; as well as tensions or incidences of conflict among tribal, ethnic, religious, or other lines.
A second economic category considers negative changes in a country’s economic circumstances, with particular focus on economic decline in the formal economy or as the result of pervasive corruption or the influence of illicit trade in natural resources, narcotics, or human trafficking. Attention also is given to responses to poor or deteriorating economic conditions and their consequences, such as extreme social hardship; growing structural inequalities among different social groups or regions; and discrepancies in opportunities for groups to improve their economic status, thus exacerbating inequality. The economic category also considers the economic impact of human displacement, a matter of growing importance due to the rising number of refugees, displaced persons, and economic migrants.
A cluster of political indicators assesses the degree of a state’s legitimacy, with focus on the representativeness and openness of government and its relationship with its citizenry, including level of confidence or trust in state institutions and processes as well as the degree to which state governance is representative of the populations governed. The indicators also consider levels of transparency and accountability, including levels of corruption. Attention is given to the degree of political violence, either as the result of repressive state action or through terrorism or insurgent activity. The political category also examines the effectiveness of basic state services, such as health, education, water and sanitation, transport infrastructure, electricity, etc. as well as equity in access to such public goods. Countries also are assessed in relation to the degree to which fundamental human rights are protected and basic freedoms are observed. Particular attention is directed to violation of such rights as well as the functioning of a country’s justice and legal system.
A final category considers a country’s social context, including demographic pressures as they relate to food supply, access to safe water, and health as well as particular demographic characteristics such as soaring birth rates, gender disparities, or aging populations. Attention also is given to the impact of climate change, natural and man-made disasters, and environmental hazards. The category also measures the consequences of the forced displacement of citizens due to political, environmental, or other causes and the impact on public service delivery as well as broader humanitarian and security challenges. In addition, an assessment is made of the influence and impact that external actors play in relation to a state’s politics, economy, and overall security.
The just-released 2021 Fragile States Index ranks Yemen, followed by Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo as the world’s most fragile states. Comparing the 2021 rankings of the fifteen most vulnerable countries to those of a decade earlier, 11 countries appear on both lists – with the remaining four of those countries considered among the most vulnerable in 2011 – Cote d’Ivoire, Iraq, Niger, and Pakistan – still given a marginally higher “alert” ranking in 2021. The similarity in the two rankings illustrates how difficult it is for a country to escape the conditions or factors that lead to fragility, even for countries like Afghanistan that over the past two decades have received significant state-building support.
Interestingly, there is significant congruence between the negative ranking of the 2021 Fragile States Index and a similar ranking provided by the United Nations Development Programme’s 2020 Human Development Report. Although UNDP’s annual report features a much larger set of indicators – including an overall Human Development Index (HDI), an inequality adjusted index, a gender development index, a gender inequality index, and a multidimensional poverty index – there is high correlation between countries deemed fragile and those with poor human development indicators. Indeed, of the 15 countries with the lowest 2020 Human Development Index (HDI) rankings, six are ranked among the most vulnerable in the 2021 Fragile States Index, with a further six among those accorded “alert” status.
As conflict is a key driver of fragility, it is no surprise that countries deemed most fragile, or suffering the lowest levels of human development also appear on the International Crisis Group’s ongoing CrisisWatch. In May 2021 Crisis Group posted “Conflict Risk Alerts” for Afghanistan, Chad, and Somalia and warned of deterioration in security in six additional countries ranked lowest on the Fragile States Index.
But what do we do with these carefully prepared rankings of human development and vulnerability to state failure? Does the international community have an obligation – or, perhaps, deep self-interest – in proactively collaborating to address the root causes of state fragility? What are the linkages that bind countries in a seeming self-perpetuating state of fragility, underdevelopment, and conflict?
Next up – a further exploration of the fragility trap and the nexus of factors that enmesh the world’s most vulnerable states.
Photo by Jakub Kapusnak on Unsplash
