The Failed State Index

Back in 1995 I turned down an invitation to get involved in a project funded by Vice President Al Gore’s office to evaluate why states failed.  The project proved quite successful (which surprised me), and just last week the Fund for Peace released the eighth edition of their annually published Failed States Index (FSI).  [NB: Jay Ulfelder helpfully points out in a Comment below that I have conflated the State Failure project and FFP’s FSI; the latter is apparently only influenced by the former; they are distinct projects.]

Joe Young, writing at Political Violence @ a Glance, argues that FSI is conceptually dead: a binary conceptualization fails to be useful because it misses the variation across space (and over time) in government’s ability to enforce its sovereignty claim.  Young proposes the term “ungoverned space” as an alternative, One useful way for an American to wrap her head around this idea is: will the police respond to a call with only one officer, with only two; only when at least two cars are available; or not at all?  Interestingly, Young’s proposal reflects an issue that interested Ted Gurr, one of the founders of the FSI project.  In his Polity datasets Gurr produced a variable that he called Scope of Government, which was a measure of the extent to which the government was able to regulate economic, political, and social activity throughout the country (that variable was dropped for Polity III and Polity IV).  While not exactly the same as a state’s ability to enforce its sovereignty claim, the two concepts would be highly correlated. Of course Gurr’s Scope of Government did not vary sub-nationally, and today scholars are thankfully much more attentive to the value of considering sub-national variation.

The Environmental Change and Security Program at Princeton’s Wilson School also wrote about the FSI today, posting an analysis of the contribution of the components to the index.  That exercise unfortunately induces a bit of pain as the authors apparently have little familiarity with measurement theory.  This does not render their assessment entirely worthless, but it is chock full of misleading and/or inaccurate claims.  I am not feeling the energy to walk through them, so my apologies for the blanket assertion.  But the post made me think about the possibility of using a Bayesian latent measurement model constructed from the components of the index (whether the resulting measure of risk to failure would then be used as a dependent or an independent variable).  Of course, the FSI does not vary sub-nationally, and is thus evidence of the distance we have to travel on that front.

Advertisements

About Will H. Moore

I am a political science professor who also contributes to Political Violence @ a Glance and sometimes to Mobilizing Ideas . Twitter: @WilHMoo
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Failed State Index

  1. christophermsullivan says:

    I always thought the term was frustrating because it seemed to refer to two different scenarios at once. One was the situation Joe describes in which the state can’t project force across its territory. The other was akin to what Bates (one of of PITF authors) talks about, in which the state becomes so predatory that it ignores its long term interest in maintaining political stability. Of course the two situations often contribute to one another, but its a very different thing to talk about a scenario in which the state is too weak or to talk about a state that is engaging in predatory behavior against members of the polity.

  2. Jay Ulfelder says:

    From this post, I get the impression that you think the FSI is connected to the State Failure Task Force in which Ted Gurr was involved. In fact, those two projects are unrelated. FSI is produced by the Fund for Peace. The State Failure Task Force became the Political Instability Task Force and is still up and running, funded by CIA and managed by SAIC. (I was research director for PITF for 10 years.)

    • Will H. Moore says:

      Thanks. You are quite correct: I have had that belief, but I am learning that I was mistaken. Thanks for the correction!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s