Monday, March 6, 2023
WIDER Working Paper 2023/8 Aid effectiveness in fragile and conflict-affected contexts Lessons from more than two decades of research
Aid Effectiveness: Carment Samy The objective of this paper is to focus on fragility research findings and examine what works or does not work in development aid and development cooperation in fragile and conflict affected contexts. We draw on our own research findings as well as country-level studies. We examine questions of aid... More
Friday, March 19, 2021
Integrity Watch Afghanistan Research Methods Handbook
Integrity Watch Afghanistan Research Methods Handbook The handbook is designed as a practical reference for researchers in the field, covering the how, what, and when of policy-oriented research. It is neither comprehensive in scope nor does it dwell on the theories underpinning its recommendations. References with hyperlinks are included... More
Tuesday, September 8, 2020
Fragile and Conflict-Affected States in the Age of COVID 19: A 2020 Country Indicators for Foreign Policy Report
2020 CIFP Fragility Report Fragile and Conflict-Affected States (FCAS) remain more relevant than ever. After a brief period of declining fragility at the turn of the century, FCAS have become more prominent as their precarious situation worsens in a COVID 19 world. In the last decade or so, we have seen an increase in... More
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Anticipating State Failure
The euphoria that came with the end of the Cold War has been dampened by the continuing outbreak of deadly conflict throughout the world. Some of these conflicts have resulted in the complete breakdown of governments, leading to what has been dubbed "failed states." As Michael Ignatieff argued in 1993, "huge sections of the... More
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Conference on Canada’s Policy Towards Fragile, Failed and Dangerous States: Working out strategies for strengthening fragile states – the British, American and German experience
Conference on Canada’s policy Towards Fragile, Failed and Dangerous States: Working out strategies for strengthening fragile states - the British, American and German... More
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Assessing Small Island Developing State Fragility
This chapter examines Small Island Developing State (SIDS) fragility with a specific focus on identifying risk indicators for the purposes of early warning. The chapter unfolds in six parts. Following this introduction, we examine current research themes on early warning and risk assessment. In the third part of the paper we assess the linkages,... More
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Politorbis: The Fragile States Debate – Considering ways and means to achieve stronger statehood
For about a decade now, practitioners and commentators of international politics have paid increasing attention to the issue of “failed” or “fragile states”. The overall results of so-called “external interventions” - the term here is used extensively and includes both coercive and non-coercive forms – in fragile contexts are mixed.... More
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Diplomacy – A Canadian Foreign Policy Review
Canada‟s failure to obtain a seat on the United Nations Security Council last year brought much attention to how far Canada‟s reputation has fallen. The reputation of Canadian diplomacy was historically held in high regard, first as a loyal yet sensible member of the British Empire, and then as a fervent multilateralist committed to... More
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
CIFP’s Fragile States Bridging terms
CIFP's Fragile States Bridging... More
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
IPI MEETNOTE-WORKSHOP SUMMARY
On June 11 and 12, 2009, the International Peace Institute (IPI) convened an experts’ workshop as part of an ongoing project called Understanding Local Context. The project aims to improve understanding of how international actors grapple with local context and dynamics in the countries where they work. It asks two basic questions: 1. What... More
Saturday, July 26, 2008
New Tools, New Challenges Conflict Prevention Workshop
The workshop began with an introduction from David Carment to introduce the utility of fragility as an organizing concept for understanding entry points for prevention, particularly in the context of recommendations for policy making. He explained that CIFP has moved from classifying states according to degree of fragility alone, and now considers... More
About the Methodology
CIFP Fragile States reports are based on three analytical elements, adapted from CIFP’s prior conflict-oriented methodology. First, structural indicators are grouped into six clusters capturing different facets of state fragility and robustness: Governance, Economics, Security and Crime, Human Development, Demography, and Environment. Documents include up to 75 separate structural indicators providing a detailed quantitative structural assessment of the country.
This structural data is then reprocessed using what is referred to the ALC framework (Authority, Legitimacy, and Capacity.
The CIFP fragility index is based on the idea that a state needs to exhibit three fundamental properties (ALC) and that weaknesses in one or more of these dimensions will have an impact on the overall fragility of a particular country. Authority refers to the ability of the state to enact binding legislation over its population and to provide the latter with a stable and safe environment. Legitimacy refers to the ability of the state to command public loyalty to the governing regime and to generate domestic support for government legislation being passed and policies being implemented. Capacity refers to the power of a state to mobilize public resources for productive uses. Implicit in this conceptualization of state fragility is a recognition that states become fragile and fail for different reasons, that they are qualitatively different from one another, with unique problems that often require novel policy responses. Our findings from this multivariate analysis indicate that state fragility is a result of a myriad of factors, of which the level of development seems to be more important.
A second level of analysis draws on event monitoring data compiled by CIFP researchers over a six month period extending from November 2006 to May 2007. Collected from a variety of web-based sources, including both international and domestic news sources in English and Spanish, the events are quantitatively evaluated and systematically assessed to identify general trends of relevance to state stability and fragility. Highly significant events are also qualitatively analyzed to highlight their specific causes and consequences.
Third, the report includes a series of analytical exercises, including stakeholder analysis and scenario generation. Future iterations of the report may include detailed consultations with country and subject experts located in-country as well as in Canada and abroad. This multi-source data structure enables more robust analysis than any single method of data collection and assessment.
The fragility index employs a methodology of relative structural assessment. The analysis begins with a structural profile of the country, a composite index that measures overall country performance along six dimensions listed above. CIFP thus adopts what might be termed an inductive approach, identifying areas of relative strength and weakness across a broad range of measures related to state fragility.
In ranking state performance on a given indicator, global scores are distributed across a nine-point index. The best performing state receives a score of one, the worst a score of nine, and the rest are continuously distributed between these two extremes based on relative performance. As country performance for some types of data can vary significantly from year to year – as in the case of economic shocks, natural disasters, and other externalities – averages are taken for global rank scores over a five-year time frame. Once all indicators have been indexed using this method, the results for a given country are then averaged in each subject cluster to produce the final scores for the country.
In general, a high score – 6.5 or higher – indicates that a country is performing poorly relative to other states. Such a score may be indicative of an arbitrary and autocratic government, a history of non-transparent government, the presence of significant barriers to political participation, the absence of a consistently enforced legal framework, or a poor human rights record.
A low score – in the range of 1 to 3.5 – indicates that a country is performing well relative to others, or that a country’s structural conditions present little cause for concern. Values in the moderate 3.5 to 6.5 range indicate performance approaching the global mean.
Events Monitoring Methodology
The purpose of CIFP event monitoring is to observe and report on events within a country to better understand the dynamic trends affecting the country. This data, when combined with structural data, provides a more comprehensive analysis of both the underlying conditions and recent developments, thereby informing a more nuanced and ultimately policy-relevant analysis. The six-month monitoring period demonstrated in these reports is an integral part of the proof of concept. Subsequent reports will include systematic and long term monitoring for more complete and accurate forecasting and policy-relevant diagnosis. Ongoing monitoring that allows the production of easy-to-interpret context-specific briefings would integrate shifting stakeholder interests, changes in baseline structure and of course event dynamics.
In the CIFP event monitoring methodology, events are all coded using a number of criteria. First, each event is assigned to the specific cluster area to which it is most directly related. This assigned cluster acts as the dependent variable; the event will be coded with respect to its effect on that particular aspect of fragility. Second, the event is coded as being either positively or negatively related to the assigned cluster. The event score is then determined by answering the following three questions:
- How direct is the impact of the event on the cluster stability?
- How broad is the impact of the event?
- How intense is the event, in comparison with past events in the country?
Each question is answered quantitatively using a three-point scale; thus the highest score for a single event is 9. The answers to these questions are added together to generate a composite indicator for each event, thereby determining its net impact on fragility. The composite indicator is used to create time-series regression lines, as event data is plotted over a defined time period. These trends are analysed both in aggregate and disaggregated by cluster, in an effort to understand the current trajectory of the country. This trajectory is referred as the event ‘tendency’ during the period observed, to emphasize its role as an indicative piece of information rather than a deterministic extrapolated trend line. This analysis in turn provides some indication of the potential developments in state performance over the short- to medium-term.
Components of Composite Event Score
- Event is relevant, but with no clearly delineable causal linkage to state stability or fragility (e.g. a funding announcement or an international soccer friendly).
- Event is relevant, with a delineable, though indirect causal linkage to state stability or fragility (e.g. New legislation enhancing minority rights is passed, or a bomb detonates within an ethnically divided region).
- Event is relevant with delineable and direct causal linkage to state stability or fragility. (e.g. Declaration of a ceasefire or assassination of a government minister.)
- Event affects less than 25% of political stakeholders.
- Event affects 25% – 75% of political stakeholders.
- Event affects more than 75% of political stakeholders.
- Event is comparable to others experienced in the state in the previous six months.
- Event is more intense than others experienced in the state in the previous six months.
- Event is more intense than others experienced in the state in the previous five years.
The analysis occurs in both aggregate (all events) and disaggregate (events analysed by cluster) by using quantitative data in two ways. First, summary statistics provide the analyst with an overview of the average event scores. Positive average event scores are indicative of an environment that experiences more or more significant positive events than negative events. Negative average scores indicate the opposite.
The second avenue of analysis is via regression lines to observe whether the events demonstrate any positive or negative tendency over time. The composite indicators are plotted over a defined period of time – usually six months – and trend lines are generated using ordinary least squares regression. The trend line uses a weekly aggregate in order to capture the changing magnitude of events as well as any increase or decrease in the total number of events; both phenomena are deemed important to the analysis. When numbers associated with the trend line are included in the report, they refer to the slope of the trend line. In general, the greater the magnitude of the slope, the more significant the trend. In general, slopes greater than (+/-0.1) are considered to be significant; those falling between this range are considered indicative of continuing status quo.
Thus, a rapid increase in the number of positive events may result in a positive trend line, as might an increase in the average score per event. This trend analysis provides an overview of general event-driven developments over the months under consideration. On the other hand, a negative slope denotes a deteriorating situation one in which there is an increase in the number or significance of negative events relative to positive ones during the time period under observation.
The report includes scenarios for the country over the short term, normally up to 18 months. The analysis includes three scenarios: a best-case, worst-case and most likely case, with each based on an analysis of basic structural data, recent trends in fragility-related events, as well as a consideration of the role likely to be played by significant stakeholders within the country. The best-case assumes that the strongest positive trends will dominate over any negative trends in the near future. Conversely, the worst-case scenario assumes the opposite. These two scenarios are intended to highlight different facets of the situation for the reader. The best and worst cases consider the strongest trends among stabilizing and destabilizing events, drawing attention both to dominant threats and potential points of entry. Finally, the most likely case scenario extrapolates future tendencies based on the strongest overall trends present within the state. To begin with, it identifies dominant trends – those most likely to continue in each of the six subject clusters over the short term. These trends are then combined to form an overall portrait of the country over the near term, providing a baseline “likely” scenario.
Taken together, these three scenarios define the universe of developments that may occur in the country in the near term, and give some sense of what may reasonably be expected in the same period. Such insights may inform contingency planning processes in both the domestic government and international partners, and provide some assistance when setting benchmarks with which to evaluate the success of initiatives intended to improve state performance.
As part of the initial country profile, the analyst compiles a list of stakeholders. Stakeholders are those individuals or groups that possess an identifiable, broadly similar political agenda and either have an effect on or are affected by state stability or fragility. They often have an organizational structure in addition to sufficient resources to pursue explicitly or implicitly articulated goals.
© Country Indicators for Foreign Policy. All rights reserved.