Verisoph story dossier
The Fund for Peace's fragility ranking and its uses. Scholars call the label vague, Western, and intervention-justifying; defenders call it a transparent early-warning tool.
The Fund for Peace's fragility ranking and its uses. Scholars call the label vague, Western, and intervention-justifying; defenders call it a transparent early-warning tool.
16 newly added in the last 14 days
The US National Security Strategy of 2002 stated that America was threatened less by conquering states than by failing ones. Written after the September 11 attacks, it argued that weak states like Afghanistan could shelter terrorist networks and endanger other countries. This framing put weak and failing states at the center of security policy and shaped the demand for tools that could rank them.
In a 2005 article, Morten Bøås and Kathleen Jennings argued that the failed state label said more about the interests of outside observers than about the countries it described. They wrote that the useful question was not whether a state was failing but for whom it was failing and how. Defenders of ranking tools reply that a consistent index still lets analysts compare countries and give early warning of crisis.
In the 2005 debut edition, Côte d'Ivoire ranked as the most vulnerable state. The country had been split in two by civil war between a government-held south and a rebel-held north. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Iraq also sat near the top of that first list.
The Fund for Peace, a Washington think tank, and Foreign Policy magazine published the first Failed States Index. It ranked around 75 states in its debut edition by the pressures pushing them toward breakdown, and grew to cover more than 175 countries in later years. The index appeared every year after that.
The index was built on the Fund for Peace's Conflict Assessment System Tool, known as CAST. The method scanned large volumes of news and reports with content analysis, then combined that with quantitative data and expert review to score each country. The Fund for Peace presented CAST as a transparent and repeatable way to measure state pressures.
Each country was scored on twelve indicators grouped into cohesion, economic, political, and social categories. They covered things like security, factionalized elites, group grievance, the economy, public services, human rights, and refugees. Every indicator ran from 0 to 10, for a total from 0 to 120, and countries were placed in bands from Alert at the high end down to Warning, Stable, and Sustainable.
OECD development ministers endorsed the Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations. The document treated fragility as a shared category for aid and development work and set state building as a central goal. Donor governments and agencies used indexes like this one to help decide where to direct attention and money.
In this 2008 article in Third World Quarterly, the scholar Charles Call argued that the failed state label was vague and lumped very different countries into one group. He said it mixed together states facing collapse, war, and weak institutions, which blurred more than it explained and pointed policy in the wrong direction. Supporters of the index counter that its scores are transparent and applied the same way to every country, so users can see exactly what each ranking rests on.
Somalia took the number one spot on the index in 2008 and held it every year through 2013. The country had no functioning central government for years, along with armed conflict, piracy off its coast, and repeated famine. Chad, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo were regular fixtures in the top group alongside it.
South Sudan became independent from Sudan in July 2011 after decades of civil war. It entered the index among the most fragile states almost at once, and both Sudans stayed high in the rankings. When South Sudan fell into its own civil war in 2013, its score climbed further.
The political scientist Olivier Nay argued that the failed and fragile state labels grew out of Western security thinking and tended to pathologize postcolonial states by measuring them against an idealized Western model. Critics in this line say the category can be used to justify outside intervention and to steer aid and investment. The Fund for Peace responds that it renamed the index to stress fragility as a spectrum rather than a verdict, and presents it as an early-warning and comparison tool, not a judgment on any country.
The Fund for Peace renamed the report the Fragile States Index. It said the word failed set up a false either/or, and that fragility is better seen as a spectrum that countries move along. The scoring method and the twelve indicators stayed the same.
Foreign Policy's role in presenting the index wound down over the 2010s. From 2019 the news outlet The New Humanitarian carried the annual rankings and analysis, while the Fund for Peace continued to compile and publish the data. The index kept its yearly release schedule.
The 2019 index placed Yemen at number one, with a score of 113.5. Years of civil war, foreign air strikes, economic collapse, and a large-scale hunger crisis had driven its score up sharply. Yemen held the top position in the years that followed.
The World Bank adopted a strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence and kept its own annual list of fragile and conflict-affected situations. Fragility became a formal category shaping lending, staffing, and research at major institutions. Policymakers, aid agencies, investors, and the media all drew on fragility rankings, including the Fragile States Index, to compare countries and flag risk.
The Taliban retook Kabul in August 2021 as foreign forces withdrew and the Western-backed government collapsed. The index recorded one of its largest single-year worsenings for Afghanistan in the edition that followed. The change was a clear case of a country's score moving with a real political event.