The Failed States Index

Transcription

1 The Failed States Index 2010 THE FAILED STATES INDEX THE FUND FOR PEACE

2 Copyright 2011 The Fund for Peace All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Fund for Peace. The Fund for Peace 1720 I Street NW 7th Floor Washington, D.C T: F: The Fund for Peace Publication CR FS (11-03G) Circulation: PUBLIC

3 Contents. Background 4 What is the Failed States Index? 5 The Failed States Index 2010 in Brief 6 Performance by Region 7 Performance by Indicator 11 The Big Movers for How is the Failed States Index Composed and Applied? 18 Who Uses the Failed States Index? 19 Beyond the Failed States Index 21 About The Fund for Peace The Failed States Index

4 Background W eak and failing states pose a serious threat to the entire world. In today s world, with is highly globalized economy, information systems and interlaced security, pressures on one fragile state can have serious repercussions not only for that state and its people, but also for its neighbors and other states halfway across the globe. Witness in recent times, for example, the negative ripple-effects from weak and failing states such as Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Haiti and the Balkan states. Since the end of the Cold War, a number of states have erupted into mass violence stemming from internal conflict. Some of these crises are ethnic conflicts. Some are civil wars. Others take on the form of revolutions. Many result in complex humanitarian emergencies. Though the dynamics may differ in each case, all of these conflicts stem from social, economic, and political pressures that have not been managed by professional, legitimate, and representative state institutions. Fault lines emerge between identity groups, defined by language, religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, clan or area of origin. Tensions can deteriorate into conflict through a variety of circumstances, such as competition over resources, predatory or fractured leadership, corruption, or unresolved group grievances. The reasons for state weakness and failure are complex but not unpredictable. It is critically important that the international community understand and closely monitor the conditions that create weak and failed states and be prepared to take the necessary actions to deal with the underlying issues or otherwise mitigate the negative effects of state failure. To have meaningful early warning, and effective policy responses, assessments must go beyond specialized area knowledge, narrative case studies and anecdotal evidence to identify and grasp broad social trends. An interdisciplinary combination of qualitative research and quantitative methodologies is needed to establish patterns and acquire predictive value. Information is critical. Without the right data, it is impossible to identify problems that may be festering below the radar. Decision makers need access to this kind of information to implement effective policies. The Failed States Index, produced by The Fund for Peace, is a critical tool in highlighting not only the normal pressures that all states experience, but also in identifying when those pressures are pushing a state towards the brink of failure. By highlighting pertinent issues in weak and failing states, The Failed States Index and the social science framework and software application upon which it is built makes political risk assessment and early warning of conflict accessible to policy-makers and the public at large. 4 The Failed States Index

5 What is The Failed States Index? T he Failed States Index is an annual ranking of 177 nations based on their levels of stability and capacity. First published in 2005, the Failed States Index continues to be a globally recognized, frequently cited and widely Failed States Index 2010 Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable praised research product of an independent nongovernmental organization that addresses key 21st century international security challenges. Leaders and thinkers from government, international organizations, NGO, academia and the media use and refer to the Failed States Index because it is empirically based and has proven to be objective and relevant. Perhaps the most telling barometer of its credibility is the steady increase in the number of governments that respond to it, by seeking ways to improve their standing in the Failed States Index or using it as a component in making decisions related to foreign assistance. The Failed States Index is based on The Fund for Peace s proprietary Conflict Assessment Software Tool (CAST) analytical platform. Based on comprehensive social science methodology, data from three primary sources is triangulated and subjected to critical review to obtain final scores for the Failed States Index. Millions of documents are analyzed every year, and by applying highly specialized search parameters, scores are apportioned for every country based on twelve key political, social and economic indicators and over 100 sub-indicators that are the result of years of painstaking expert social science research. 5 The Failed States Index

6 Failed States Index 2010 Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable 1. Somalia Colombia Jordan Barbados Chad Togo 88.1 = Morocco 77.0 = Latvia Sudan Syria Peru U.A.E Zimbabwe Egypt Benin Costa Rica D.R. Congo Bhutan 87.3 = Dominican R Qatar Afghanistan Philippines Vietnam Estonia Iraq Comoros Mexico Hungary C.A.R Bolivia Sao Tome Poland Guinea Israel/W Bank Gabon Slovakia Pakistan Azerbaijan Senegal Oman Haiti Papua N G Namibia Malta Cote d Ivoire = Zambia Armenia Lithuania Kenya Moldova Guyana Greece Nigeria Angola Kazakhstan Argentina Yemen Bosnia & Herz = Macedonia Italy Myanmar Indonesia Suriname Mauritius Ethiopia China Paraguay Spain Timor-Leste Swaziland Samoa Czech Rep Niger Madagascar Micronesia South Korea 41.3 = North Korea Nicaragua Ukraine 69.5 = Uruguay Uganda 97.5 = Turkmenistan Malaysia Chile Guinea-Bissau Lesotho Libya Slovenia Burundi Djibouti Belize Germany Bangladesh Ecuador Botswana United States Sri Lanka 95.7 = Mozambique Cyprus France Cameroon Algeria Seychelles Singapore 34.8 = Nepal Guatemala 81.2 = South Africa U.K Malawi 93.6 = Tanzania Brunei Portugal 33.1 = Sierra Leone Fiji Tunisia Belgium Eritrea The Gambia Brazil Japan Congo (Rep.) Honduras 80.0 = Jamaica Iceland Iran Cuba Albania Canada Liberia Mali 79.3 = Ghana 67.1 = Netherlands Lebanon India Grenada Australia Burkina Faso Russia Trinidad 66.1 = Luxembourg Uzbekistan Thailand Kuwait Austria Georgia Belarus Bulgaria New Zealand Tajikistan 89.2 = Venezuela Antigua Denmark Mauritania Maldives Romania Ireland Rwanda El Salvador Mongolia Switzerland 21.8 = Cambodia Serbia/Kosovo Panama Sweden 20.9 = Laos Saudi Arabia Croatia Finland Solomon Is Cape Verde The Bahamas Norway Eq. Guinea Turkey Bahrain Kyrgyzstan Montenegro The Failed States Index

7 Performance by Region T he Fund for Peace divides the world into four regional groupings encompassing twelve smaller regional sub-groupings in order to better analyze and understand the implications of the Failed States Index for Performance by Region Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable Ratings based on an average of the total Index scores of countries within each region. every country relative to their neighborhood. No regional grouping is ever perfect. Nevertheless, the regional groupings reinforce the general scores of the 2010 Failed States Index: Western Europe is currently the most stable region in the world whilst South Asia, closely followed by East Africa, provides the most concern. Average Index Scores by Region If each region was adjudged by the same scale that the Failed States Index assesses countries, then 9 of the world s 12 regions would fall within the Warning category whilst two regions would fall within the Alert category South Asia East Africa West and Central Africa Central Asia and the Caucasus Southern Africa Maghreb and Middle East East and Southeast Asia Central and South America North America and the Caribbean Oceania Eastern and Southeast Europe Western Europe 7 The Failed States Index

8 Regional Performance North America and the Caribbean The Best Performers 166. Canada United States 35.3 The Worst Performers 11. Haiti Cuba Dominican Republic Mexico 76.1 South and Central America The Best Performers 155. Chile Uruguay Argentina 45.8 The Worst Performers 46. Colombia Bolivia Nicaragua 82.5 Western Europe The Best Performers 177. Norway Finland Sweden Switzerland Ireland 22.4 The Worst Performer 149. Italy 45.7 South, Central and Eastern Europe The Best Performers 156. Slovenia Czech Republic Greece 45.9 The Worst Performers 60. Bosnia & Herzegovina Russia Belarus The Failed States Index

9 Regional Performance Western and Central Africa The Best Performer 121. Ghana 67.1 The Worst Performers 2. Chad Central African Republic Guinea Cote d Ivoire Nigeria Eastern Africa The Best Performer 115. Seychelles 67.9 The Worst Performers 1. Somalia Sudan Kenya Ethiopia Uganda 97.5 Southern Africa The Best Performers 115. South Africa Botswana 68.6 The Worst Performers 4. Zimbabwe D.R. Congo Malawi Republic of Congo 92.5 Middle East and North Africa The Best Performer 144. Oman 48.7 The Worst Performers 7. Iraq Yemen Iran Lebanon Mauritania The Failed States Index

10 Regional Performance Central Asia and the Caucasus The Best Performer 103. Kazakhstan 72.7 The Worst Performers 36. Uzbekistan Georgia Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan Azerbaijan 84.4 South Asia The Best Performer 84. Maldives 78.3 The Worst Performers 6. Afghanistan Pakistan Bangladesh Sri Lanka Nepal 95.4 Southeast and East Asia The Best Performers 164. Japan Singapore South Korea 41.3 The Worst Performers 16. Myanmar Timor-Leste North Korea 97.8 Oceania The Best Performers 171. New Zealand Australia 27.3 The Worst Performers 43. Solomon Islands Papua New Guinea Fiji The Failed States Index

11 Performance by Indicator T he Failed States Index scores for every country are based on twelve key indicators, the result of years of social science research. The analysis of the individual indicators is just as important as the overall ranking. Social Indicators Mounting Demographic Pressures Pressures on the population such as disease an natural disasters that make it difficult for the government to meet its social obligations. Massive Movement of Refugees or IDPs Pressures associated with population displacement. This strains public services, and has the potential to pose a security threat as groups are susceptible to politicization. Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance When tension and violence exists between groups, it undermines the state s ability to provide security. When security is not guaranteed, violence and fear may ensue. Chronic and Sustained Human Flight When there is little opportunity, people migrate, leaving a vacuum of human capital. Economic Indicators Uneven Economic Development When there are ethnic, religious, or regional disparities, the governed tend to be uneven in their commitment to the social contract. Poverty, Sharp or Severe Economic Decline Poverty and economic decline strain the ability of the state to meet its social obligations. Includes such things as inflation and unemployment. Political and Military Indicators Legitimacy of the State Corruption and a lack of representativeness in the government directly undermine the social contract. Progressive Deterioration of Public Services The provision of health, education, and sanitation services are a key aspect of the social contract. Violation of Human Rights and Rule of Law When human rights are violated or unevenly enforced, the social contract is weakened. Security Apparatus The security apparatus should have a monopoly on the use of legitimate force. When the security apparatus is fractured or when competing or parallel groups exist, this weakens the social contract. Rise of Factionalized Elites When local and national leaders engage in deadlock and brinksmanship for political gain, this undermines the social contract. Intervention of External Actors When the state cannot meet its obligations under the social contract, external actors often intervene to provide services or to manipulate the internal affairs for economic and political gain The Failed States Index

12 Performance by Indicators Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable Social Economic Political and Military 6 Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Costa Rica Cote d'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic D.R. Congo Denmark The Failed States Index

13 Performance by Indicators Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable Social Economic Political and Military 68 Djibouti Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel/West Bank Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho The Failed States Index

14 Performance by Indicators Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable Social Economic Political and Military 33 Liberia Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of the Congo Romania Russia Rwanda Samoa The Failed States Index

15 Performance by Indicators Alert Warning Moderate Sustainable Social Economic Political and Military 97 Sao Tome & Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia/Kosovo Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe The Failed States Index

16 Performance by Indicators Best and Worst Performers by Indicator 1. D. R. Congo 1. Sudan 1. Sudan 2. Somalia 2. Chad 2. D. R. Congo Demographic Pressure 3. Niger 4. Afghanistan 5. Chad Best Performer Group Grievance 3. Somalia 4. Afghanistan 5. Sri Lanka Best Performer Uneven Development 3. Zimbabwe 4. Chad 5. Nigeria Best Performer 177. Iceland 177. Iceland 177. Finland 1. Somalia 1. Zimbabwe 1. Zimbabwe 2. Sudan 2. Iraq 2. North Korea Refugees and IDPs 3. D. R. Congo 4. Chad 5. Sri Lanka Best Performer Human Flight 3. Sudan 4. Haiti 5. Guinea Best Performer Poverty and Decline 3. Somalia 4. Haiti 5. Malawi Best Performer 177. Singapore 177. United States 177. Sweden 1. Somalia 1. Somalia 1. Somalia 2. Afghanistan 2. Sudan 2. Sudan Legitimacy of the State 3. North Korea 4. Chad 5. Sudan Best Performer 177. Finland Human Rights and Rule of Law 3. Chad 4. North Korea 5. Guinea Best Performer 177. Denmark Factionalized Elites 3. Chad 4. Iraq 5. Pakistan Best Performer 177. Finland 1. Niger 1. Somalia 1. Afghanistan 2. Chad 2. Chad 2. Chad Public Services 3. Somalia 4. North Korea 5. Haiti Best Performer Security Apoparatus 3. Sudan 4. D. R. Congo 5. Afghanistan Best Performer External Intervention 3. D. R. Congo 4. Somalia 5. Sudan Best Performer 177. Norway 177. Finland 177. New Zealand Why Are Some Countries Missing? Not every nation is included in the Failed States Index, which only measures nations recognized by the United Nations and, in some cases, excludes tiny nations due to a dearth of data. Hence, some countries are not included: UN Member States excluded due to lack of data Andorra Monaco Dominica Nauru Kiribati Palau Liechtenstein St. Kitts & Nevis Marshall Islands St. Lucia St. Vincent San Marino Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Non-UN Members Greenland Somaliland Taiwan Vatican City Western Sahara 16 The Failed States Index

17 The Big Movers for 2010 E very year, a number of countries improve their score and ranking in the Failed States Index; similarly, other countries worsen their score and position. Below is a list of the major movers between 2009 and Improving (by Position) Improving (by Score) 2010 Score 2009 Score Move 2010 Position 2009 Position Move +16 Belarus 66th 82nd +12 Albania 109th 121st +9 Syria 39th 48th +9 Russia 71st 80th +8 Serbia/Kosovo 78th 86th +6 Egypt 43rd 49th +6 Turkmenistan 59th 65th +6 Brazil 113th 119th -3.8 Zimbabwe Belarus Albania Lebanon Uzbekistan Myanmar Bangladesh Bahamas Worsening (by Position) Worsening (by Position) Move 2009 Position 2010 Position -14 Honduras 90th 76th -9 Cambodia 49th 40th -8 Fiji 82nd 74th -8 India 87th 79th -7 Mauritania 46th 39th -7 South Africa 122nd 115th -6 Eritrea 36th 30th -6 Iran 38th 32nd -6 Djibouti 74th 68th Move 2009 Score 2010 Score +3.0 Eritrea Honduras Guinea-Bissau Iran Yemen Italy Fiji Sierra Leone Oman El Salvador 91st 85th 17 The Failed States Index

18 How is the Failed States Index Composed and Applied? T he strength of the Failed States Index is its ability to distill millions of pieces of information into a form that is relevant as well as easily digestible and informative. Daily, the Fund for Peace collects thousands of reports and information from around the world, detailing the existing social, economic and political pressures faced by each of the 177 countries that we analyze. The Fund for Peace s software performs content analysis on this collected information. Through sophisticated search parameters and algorithms, the CAST software separates the relevant data from the irrelevant. Guided by 12 primary social, economic and political indicators (each split into an average of 14 subindicators), the CAST software analyzes the collected information using specialized search terms that flag relevant items. This analysis is then converted using an algorithm into a score representing the significance of each of the various pressures for a given country. The content analysis is further triangulated with two other key aspects of the overall assessment process: quantitative analysis and qualitative inputs based on major events in the countries examined. The scores produced by the Fund for Peace s software are then A screenshot of the CAST software content analysis. compared with a comprehensive set of vital statistics as well as human analysis to ensure that the software has not misinterpreted the raw data. Though the basic data underpinning the Failed States Index is already freely and widely available electronically, the strength of the analysis is in the methodological rigor and the systematic integration of a wide range of data sources The Failed States Index

19 Who Uses The Failed States Index? T he Failed States Index and the CAST framework are used extensively by a variety of governments, institutions and corporations around the world. The Failed States Index itself is an annual snapshot of the entire world and provides an important overview of the relative stability of countries throughout the world. Beyond the Failed States Index, the underlying framework is also a useful tool for country-, region and indicator-specific analysis. The Failed States Index is featured annually in Foreign Policy magazine and gets wide attention in the U.S. and global media. It also attracts attention from governments, academics, international organizations, businesses and civil society groups. The Failed States Index enjoys global reach. The edition was cited in 150 publications in 13 languages within its first week of being posted on The Fund for Peace website. In 2009, the Failed States Index was covered in 317 media outlets in 73 countries. The Failed States Index is noticed and used by the people who matter. It has been cited by the U.S. Secretary of State in Congressional testimony and by the Secretary of Defense in the Quadrennial Defense Review. The Failed States Index has been the catalyst for a cabinet-level review of state institutions and capacity in Moldova and as a call to attention by the political opposition in Egypt. The Failed States Index and the CAST framework is frequently used by agencies from the World Bank to oil and mining companies, from government agencies in the United States and around the globe. Some Fans of the Failed States Index Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA and 2005 Nobel Peace Prize Winner, said in 2010, Egypt's presence near the top of The Failed States Index is a disaster that demands the urgent attention of the Egyptian people. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton s November 2010 presentation to Congress of her strategic planning initiative for the State Department included a slide drawn from the Failed States Index. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates presentation of the Defense Department s Quadrennial Defense Review in 2010 contained material based on the Failed States Index. In response to his country s position in the 2007 Failed States Index, Moldovan Prime Minister Vasile Tarleve formed a task force to study the causes for Moldova s scores. USAID requested that the Failed States Index be made an integral part of their Country Analytic Support project, The staffs of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund use the Failed States Index in their analysis of regional and national developments The Failed States Index

20 Who Uses the Failed States Index? The strength of the Failed States Index is that it is more than a list of countries. Certainly, the ranking of states from 2010 s most stable, Norway, to the least stable, Somalia draws substantial press attention and comment. But what policy makers, international institutions, corporations, academics and analysts focus on most is the underlying data from the 12 indicators and the many more sub-indicators. This is the kind of information that not only explains the rankings themselves, but also key areas that need to be addressed to mitigate problems and improve state functioning and stability. It can also help in the consideration of public and private sector investment priorities as well as help private sector firms better identify and manage political and economic risk. As we have seen in several countries, this underlying data can also be used as a report card on how a government is meeting key challenges. They All Use the Failed States Index International Institutions World Bank International Monetary Fund United Nations NATO African Union U.S. Government Agencies U.S. Agency for International Development U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Pacific Command (PACOM) U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency U.S. Department of State U.S. Marine Corps Foreign Government Agencies Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation & Development), Germany Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Netherlands Academic and Research Institutions Council on Foreign Relations National Defense University U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) Corporate Sector Multinational oil and mining companies use the Failed States Index as an integral part of their development of global security strategy The Failed States Index

21 Beyond The Failed States Index T he Failed States Index itself is just one of the many capabilities of The Fund for Peace s content analysis software. The software has many other applications including specific risk assessment, and in-depth national-, regional- and provincial-level analysis. Along with the Failed States Index, The Fund for Peace s Conflict Assessment Software Tool (CAST) has been the foundation of the Fund for Peace s Country Assessments Reports Service and Country Profiles Program, using the content analysis to provide indepth assessments country-by-country. Regional Analysis: Sindh Province, Pakistan Below: Demographic pressures differentiated regionally throughout Pakistan, pre-flood (left) and post-flood (right). Balochistan Sindh N.W.F. Punjab Balochistan Sindh N.W.F. Punjab CAST has been used to perform analysis at a subregional level, from providing an assessment following the floods in Pakistan s Sindh province to demonstrating how the situations in Mindanao in the south of the Philippines and Luzon in the north can be significantly different. Such regional-level analysis is critical in properly understanding state instability. As nations vary greatly from one another, often the regions within countries will also vary greatly. A country with a significant amount of instability in one region may be perceived as itself unstable overall, although the rest of the country is not experiencing instability. Instances such as these may include countries like Colombia (where although the FARC insurgency continues deep in the jungles and along the frontiers, the major cities such as Bogota, Medillin, Cali and Cartagena enjoy relative calm) or the Philippines (where the situation in the capital Manila is significantly different to that experienced in the southern island of Mindanao). This regional analysis can not only further expand the understanding of a country s situation, but can also be used to highlight precisely where the pressure points exist for a country, and under precisely what conditions. Above: An analysis of various indicators applying to Sindh province, pre-flood (left) and post-flood (right) This analysis, coupled with regional contextualization, provides a unique informational tool for policy-makers to identify serious pressures and to enact sensible, wellinformed policies The Failed States Index

22 About The Fund for Peace T he Fund for Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational organization that works to prevent violent conflict and promote sustainable security. We promote sustainable security through research, training and education, engagement of civil society, building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy makers. A leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, the Fund for Peace focuses on the problems of weak and failing states. Our objective is to create practical tools and approaches for conflict mitigation that are useful to decision-makers. What Makes Us Unique The Fund for Peace adopts a holistic approach to the issues stemming from weak and failing states. We work at both the grassroots level with civil society actors and at policy levels with key decision makers. The Fund for Peace has worked in over 50 countries with a wide range of partners in all sectors: governments, international organizations, the military, nongovernmental organizations, academics, journalists, civil society networks, and the private sector. Combining social science techniques with information technology, we have produced the patented Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST), a content analysis software product that provides a conceptual framework and a data gathering technique for measuring conflict risk. We produce The Failed States Index, an annual ranking of 177 countries across 12 indicators, that is published by Foreign Policy magazine. Our Approach The Fund for Peace offers a wide range of initiatives focused on our central objective of promoting sustainable security, the ability of a state to solve its own problems peacefully without an external military or administrative presence. Our activities relate to six interconnected themes: Conflict Assessment; Early warning and State Building; Peace and Stability Operations; Foreign Policy; Civil Society & Human Rights; and Sustainable Development The Failed States Index

23

24 CR FS