{"id":18,"date":"2015-08-26T12:57:50","date_gmt":"2015-08-26T12:57:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/http:\/\/carleton.ca\/install\/?page_id=18"},"modified":"2025-08-13T16:03:40","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T20:03:40","slug":"indicator-descriptions","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/conflict-risk-assessment\/indicator-descriptions\/","title":{"rendered":"Indicator Descriptions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n \n
\n
\n\n

\n Indicator Descriptions\n <\/h1>\n \n <\/header>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

\n Download indicator<\/a> descriptions and methodology\n reports in PDF format:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n CIFP Risk Assessment Indicator Definitions<\/a>\n (pdf, 205K)
\n A4<\/a>(pdf, 211K)
\n CIFP Methodology, Data Descriptions, Data Sources<\/a>\n (pdf, 237K)\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contents<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\n The purpose of this document is to provide a more detailed explanation of each\n indicator used in the risk assessment calculation and its source.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

\n

\n Table of Contents\n <\/h2>\n
\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 1.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 1. History of Armed Conflict\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 1.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n Armed Conflicts (Conflict Intensity Level) (Time\n Series: 1989-1999) (Source: Conflict Data Project and SIPRI Yearbook)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 1.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n Refugees Hosted, IDP and Others of Concern (Time Series: 1995-2000) (Source:\n UNHCR, Annual Statistical Overview Reports)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 2.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 2.   Governance and Political Instability\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 2.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n Level of Democracy (Overall Polity Score) (Time\n Series: 1985-1999) (Source: Polity IV)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 2.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n Regime Durability (Time Series: 1985-1999) (Source:\n Polity IV)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 2.3\n <\/span>\n\n \n Restrictions on Civil and Political Rights (Time\n Series: 1985-1999) (Source: Freedom House, Annual Survey of Freedom)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 2.4\n <\/span>\n\n \n Restrictions on Press Freedom (Time Series: 1994-2000)\n (Source: Freedom House, Annual Press Freedom Survey)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 2.5\n <\/span>\n\n \n Corruption Score (Single Measure: 1997-1998) (Source:\n World Governance Research Indicators Data Set)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 3.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 3. Militarization\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 3.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n Military Expenditure (% of GDP, Constant 1995 US$)\n (Time Series: 1990-1998) (Source: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 3.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n Fraction of Regional Military Expenditure (% of known\n total spending for 1990s) (Single Measure: 1990s) (Source: Calculated from\n SIPRI Military Expenditure Database)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 3.3\n <\/span>\n\n \n Total Armed Forces (Per 1000 People) (Time Series:\n 1998-2000) (Source: CIFP score based on IISS Military Balance and World\n Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 4.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 4. Population Heterogeneity\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 4.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n Ethnic Diversity Score (Single Measure: 1990s) (Source:\n CIFP score based on CIA World Factbook, Levinson’s\n Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 4.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n Religious Diversity Score (Single Measure: 1990s)\n (Source: CIFP score based on CIA World Factbook, Levinson’s Ethnic Groups\n Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 4.3\n <\/span>\n\n \n Risk of Ethnic Rebellion (Single Measure: 1990s)\n (Source: CIFP Score based on Minorities at Risk Data Set)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 5.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 5. Demographic Stress\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 5.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n Total Population (Time Series: 1985-1998) (Source:\n World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 5.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n Population Growth Rate (Annual %) (Time Series:\n 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 5.3\n <\/span>\n\n \n Population Density (People Per Sq. km) (Time Series:\n 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 5.4\n <\/span>\n\n \n Urban Population (% of Total) (Time Series: 1985-1998)\n (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 5.5\n <\/span>\n\n \n Urban Population Growth Rate (Annual %) (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 5.6\n <\/span>\n\n \n Youth Bulge (Pop. Aged 0-14 as a % of Total) (Time Series:\n 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 6. Economic Performance\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n GDP Growth Rate (Annual %) (Time Series: 1985-1998)\n (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n GDP Per Capita (PPP, Current International $) (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.3\n <\/span>\n\n \n Inflation (Consumer Prices, annual %) (Time Series:\n 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.4\n <\/span>\n\n \n Official Exchange Rate (Local Currency per US$) (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.5\n <\/span>\n\n \n Foreign Direct Investment, Net Inflows (% of GNP) (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.6\n <\/span>\n\n \n Total Debt Service (% of GNI) (Time Series: 1985-1998)\n (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.7\n <\/span>\n\n \n Trade Openness (Trade as a % of GDP)  (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 6.8\n <\/span>\n\n \n Inequality Score (GINI Coefficient) (Single Measure)\n (Source: World Income Inequality Database)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 7. Human Development\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n Access to Improved Water Source (% of Total Population)\n (Time Series: 1990, 2000) (Source: UNICEF\/WHO – Global Water and Sanitation\n Assessment Report)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n Access to Sanitation (% of Total Population) (Time\n Series: 1990, 2000) (Source: UNICEF\/WHO – Global Water and Sanitation\n Assessment Report)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.3\n <\/span>\n\n \n Life Expectancy (Years) (Time Series: 1987-1998 (87, 90,\n 92, 97, 98)) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.4\n <\/span>\n\n \n Infant Mortality Rate (Per 1,000 Live Births) (Time\n Series: 1987-1998 (87, 90, 92, 97, 98)) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.5\n <\/span>\n\n \n Maternal Mortality Rate (Per 100,000 Live Births)\n (Single Measure: 1995) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.6\n <\/span>\n\n \n HIV\/AIDS (% of Adult Population) (Time Series: 1997, 1999)\n (Source: UNAIDS Epidemic Reports)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.7\n <\/span>\n\n \n Primary School Enrollment (% of Relevant Age Group)\n (Time Series: 1985-1997) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.8\n <\/span>\n\n \n Secondary School Enrollment (% of Relevant Age Group)\n (Time Series: 1985-1997) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 7.9\n <\/span>\n\n \n Children in Labour Force (% of 10-14 Age Group)\n (Time Series: 1990-1998 (90, 95, 98)) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 8.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 8. Environmental Stress\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 8.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n Rate of Deforestation (% Change) (Single Measure:\n 1990-1995) (Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank Atlas)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 8.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n People per square kilometre of Arable Land (Single\n Measure, 1997) (Source: World Bank Development Indicators 2000)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 8.3\n <\/span>\n\n \n Freshwater Resources, cubic meters per capita (Single\n Measure, 1998) (Source: World Bank Development Indicators 2000)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 9.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Issue Area 9. International Linkages\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n 9.1\n <\/span>\n\n \n Economic Organizations (Single Measure: 2000) (Source:\n CIA World Factbook)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 9.2\n <\/span>\n\n \n Military\/Security Alliances (Single Measure: 2000)\n (Source: CIA World Factbook)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 9.3\n <\/span>\n\n \n UN Organizations (Single Measure: 2000) (Source: CIA World\n Factbook)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 9.4\n <\/span>\n\n \n Multipurpose and Miscellaneous Organizations\n (Single Measure: 2000) (Source: CIA World Factbook)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 9.5\n <\/span>\n\n \n Total International Disputes (Time Series: 1999-2000)\n (Source: CIA World Factbook)\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n \n
\n
\n \n 10.\n <\/span>\n\n \n Data Sources\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Data Sources<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issue Area 1. History of Armed Conflict<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

\n <\/a>Armed Conflicts (Conflict Intensity Level) (Time\n Series: 1989-1999) (Source: Conflict Data Project and SIPRI Yearbook)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\n The \u201cConflict Intensity Level\u201d describes the intensity of armed conflicts\n occurring within a country in a given year, based on data from the Conflict\n Data Project (CDP) at Uppsala University.  The CDP defines an armed\n conflict as a contested incompatibility that concerns government and\/or\n territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least\n one is the government of a state.  In order to be counted as an armed\n conflict, the CDP requires that there be a minimum of 25 battle-related deaths\n per year and per incompatibility.  The scale for the Conflict Intensity\n Level is as follows:\n<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\n
    \n
  1. \n
      \n
    1. \n Minor armed conflict: At least 25 battle-related deaths per year and\n fewer than 1,000 battle-related deaths during the course of the\n conflict.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. \n Intermediate armed conflict: At least 25 battle-related deaths per\n year and an accumulated total of at least 1,000 deaths, but fewer than\n 1,000 per year.\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. War: At least 1 000 battle-related deaths per year.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

      Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n Refugees Hosted, IDP and Others of Concern (Time Series: 1995-2000) (Source:\n UNHCR, Annual Statistical Overview Reports)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      \n The total number of displaced populations within a country, including Refugees\n (by Country of Asylum), Asylum Seekers, Returned Refugees,  IDPs,\n Returned IDPs, and Other Populations of Concern.  The UNHCR defines these\n categories as follows:\n<\/p>\n\n\n

      \n
      \n

      \n <\/b>Refugees (by Country of Asylum):<\/b>Persons recognized as refugees\n under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees\n or its 1967 Protocol, the 1969 Organization of African Unity (OAU)\n Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa,\n persons recognized as refugees in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons\n granted humanitarian or comparable status and those granted temporary\n protection. The data presented here have been collected through UNHCR\u2019s\n annual statistical survey of UNHCR country offices. Statistics on the\n industrialized countries are generally based directly on Government reports,\n whereas the figures for developing countries are mostly based on reports\n from UNHCR offices.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n Asylum Seekers<\/b>: Persons whose applications for asylum are pending in\n the asylum procedure or who are otherwise registered as\n asylum-seekers.  The data presented here have been collected through\n UNHCR\u2019s annual statistical survey of UNHCR country offices. Statistics on\n the industrialized countries are generally based directly on Government\n reports, whereas the figures for developing countries are mostly based on\n reports from UNHCR offices. Note that this category of displaced persons was\n not included prior to 1997.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n Returned Refugees:<\/b> Refugees who have repatriated to their place of\n origin and who remain of concern to UNHCR for a limited period after their\n return. For the purpose of UNHCR statistics, a cut-off period of two years\n has been applied. I.e. the returnee population at the end of 1999 consists\n of those who returned during 1998 and 1999.  The data presented here\n have been collected through UNHCR\u2019s annual statistical survey of UNHCR\n country offices. Statistics on the industrialized countries are generally\n based directly on Government reports, whereas the figures for developing\n countries are mostly based on reports from UNHCR offices.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n IDPs:<\/b> Persons displaced internally within their country for reasons\n that would make them of concern to UNHCR if they were outside their country,\n and who have become of concern to UNHCR as a result of a request from the\n Security Council, General Assembly or Secretary-General of the United\n Nations. The data presented here have been collected through UNHCR\u2019s annual\n statistical survey of UNHCR country offices. Statistics on the\n industrialized countries are generally based directly on Government reports,\n whereas the figures for developing countries are mostly based on reports\n from UNHCR offices. Note that for 1997, IDPs are counted within the \u201cOthers\n Displaced Populations of Concern\u201d category.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n Returned IDPs:<\/b> Persons displaced internally within their country for\n reasons that would make them of concern to UNHCR if they were outside their\n country, and who have become of concern to UNHCR as a result of a request\n from the Security Council, General Assembly or Secretary-General of the\n United Nations. As in the case of returned refugees, a cut-off period of two\n years has been applied for returned IDPs. I.e. the returned IDP population\n at the end of 1999 consists of IDPs who returned to their place of origin\n during 1998 and 1999. The data presented here have been collected through\n UNHCR\u2019s annual statistical survey of UNHCR country offices. Statistics on\n the industrialized countries are generally based directly on Government\n reports, whereas the figures for developing countries are mostly based on\n reports from UNHCR offices. Note that for 1995, Returned IDPs are counted\n within the \u201cReturned Refugees\u201d category.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n Others Displaced Populations of Concern:<\/b> Certain specific groups of\n persons not normally falling under the mandate of UNHCR, but to whom the\n Office extends protection and\/or assistance pursuant to a special request by\n a competent organ of the United Nations. This category comprises selected\n internally displaced populations, groups of war victims, certain groups that\n emerge following the dissolution of states, etc. The data presented here\n have been collected through UNHCR\u2019s annual statistical survey of UNHCR\n country offices. Statistics on the industrialized countries are generally\n based directly on Government reports, whereas the figures for developing\n countries are mostly based on reports from UNHCR offices.\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

      \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the \u201cRefugees Hosted,\n IDP and Others of Concern\u201d variable, 1 is \u201cLow number of displaced persons\u201d\n and 9 is \u201cHigh number of displaced persons.\u201d Note that whereas the \u201cRefugees\n Produced Index\u201d ranks the number of displaced persons produced by a country\n (and have sought or received asylum\/residence elsewhere), the \u201cRefugees\n Hosted, IDP and Others of Concern Index\u201d ranks the number of displaced persons\n of various types within a country.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n Back to Top<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n <\/a>Issue Area 2.   Governance and Political Instability\n<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      \n <\/a>Level of Democracy (Overall Polity Score) (Time\n Series: 1985-1999) (Source: Polity IV)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      \n The Overall Polity Score is on a 21 point scale ranging from +10 (strongly\n democratic) to -10 (strongly autocratic).  In the definition of Polity\n IV, democracy is conceived as three essential, interdependent elements. One is\n the presence of institutions and procedures through which citizens can express\n effective preferences about alternative policies and leaders. Second is the\n existence of institutionalized constraints on the exercise of power by the\n executive. Third is the guarantee of civil liberties to all citizens in their\n daily lives and in acts of political participation. Autocracy is defined\n operationally in terms of the presence of a distinctive set of political\n characteristics. In mature form, autocracies sharply restrict or suppress\n competitive political participation. Their chief executives are chosen in a\n regularized process of selection within the political elite, and once in\n office they exercise power with few institutional constraints.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n For the global rank based index (nine-point scale) of the Overall Polity\n Score, 1 is \u201cstrongly democratic\u201d and 9 is \u201cstrongly autocratic.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n <\/a>Regime Durability (Time Series: 1985-1999) (Source:\n Polity IV)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      \n The number of years since the most recent regime change (defined by a\n three-point change in the Overall Polity score over a period of three years or\n less). In calculating the Regime Durability Score, the first year during which\n a new (post-change) polity is established is coded as the baseline year \u201czero\u201d\n (value = 0) and each subsequent year adds one to the value of the Durability\n variable.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n For the Global rank based index (nine-point scale) of the Regime Durability\n Score, 1 is \u201chigh durability\u201d and 9 is \u201clow durability.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n <\/a>Restrictions on Civil and Political Rights (Time\n Series: 1985-1999) (Source: Freedom House, Annual Survey of Freedom)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      \n Restrictions on Civil and Political Rights are scored on a 2 to 14 scale,\n where 2 is the highest degree of freedom and 14 is the lowest.  The score\n is the sum of Freedom House scores for Political Rights (on a 1-7 scale) and\n Civil Liberties (on a 1-7 scale).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n In Freedom House\u2019s definition, Political rights enable people to participate\n freely in the political process, which is the system by which the polity\n chooses authoritative policy makers and attempts to make binding decisions\n affecting the national, regional, or local community. In a free society, this\n represents the right of all adults to vote and compete for public office, and\n for elected representatives to have a decisive vote on public policies.\n Freedom House\u2019s Score is based on a checklist of political rights, as follows:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. \n Is the head of state and\/or head of government or other chief authority\n elected through free and fair elections?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. \n Are the legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. \n Are there fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair\n polling, and honest tabulation of ballots?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      4. \n Are the voters able to endow their freely elected representatives with real\n power?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      5. \n Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or\n other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system\n open to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      6. \n Is there a significant opposition vote, de facto opposition power, and a\n realistic possibility for the opposition to increase its support or gain\n power through elections?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      7. \n Are the people free from domination by the military, foreign powers,\n totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies, or any\n other powerful group?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
      8. \n Do cultural, ethnic, religious, and other minority groups have reasonable\n self-determination, self-government, autonomy, or participation through\n informal consensus in the decision-making process?\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        \n In Freedom House\u2019’s definition, Civil Liberties include the freedoms to\n develop views, institutions, and personal autonomy apart from the state.\n Freedom House\u2019s Score is based on  a checklist of Civil Liberties, as\n follows:\n<\/p>\n\n\n

        \n
        \n

        A. Freedom of Expression and Belief<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. \n Are there free and independent media and other forms of cultural\n expression? (Note: in cases where the media are state-controlled but offer\n pluralistic points of view, the Survey gives the system credit.)\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. \n Are there free religious institutions and is there free private and public\n religious expression?\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          B. Association and Organizational Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          1. \n Is there freedom of assembly, demonstration, and open public discussion?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
          2. \n Is there freedom of political or quasi-political organization? (Note: this\n includes political parties, civic organizations, ad hoc issue groups,\n etc.)\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
          3. \n Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and\n is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and\n other private organizations?\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            C. Rule of Law and Human Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            1. Is there an independent judiciary?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            2. \n Does the rule of law prevail in civil and criminal matters? Is the\n population treated equally under the law? Are police under direct civilian\n control?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
            3. \n Is there protection from political terror, unjustified imprisonment,\n exile, or torture, whether by groups that support or oppose the system? Is\n there freedom from war and insurgencies? (Note: freedom from war and\n insurgencies enhances the liberties in a free society, but the absence of\n wars and insurgencies does not in and of itself make a not free society\n free.)\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
            4. \n Is there freedom from extreme government indifference and corruption?\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              D. Personal Autonomy and Economic Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n
              1. Is there open and free private discussion?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              2. \n Is there personal autonomy? Does the state control travel, choice of\n residence, or choice of employment? Is there freedom from indoctrination\n and excessive dependency on the state?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
              3. \n Are property rights secure? Do citizens have the right to establish\n private businesses? Is private business activity unduly influenced by\n government officials, the security forces, or organized crime?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
              4. \n Are there personal social freedoms, including gender equality, choice of\n marriage partners, and size of family?\n <\/li>\n\n\n\n
              5. \n Is there equality of opportunity, including freedom from exploitation by\n or dependency on landlords, employers, union leaders, bureaucrats, or\n other types of obstacles to a share of legitimate economic gains?\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the combined score for\n Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 1 is “free” and 9 is”not free.”\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Restrictions on Press Freedom (Time Series: 1994-2000)\n (Source: Freedom House, Annual Press Freedom Survey)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Freedom House\u2019s Annual Press Freedom Survey assesses the degree to which each\n country permits the free flow of information on 1-100 point scale, where\n countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having a free press,  31 to 60\n as having a partly-free press, and 61 to 100 as having a not-free press. The\n Survey assesses a number areas of concern, including: the structure of the\n news-delivery system (the laws and administrative decisions and their\n influence on the content of the news media); the degree of political influence\n or control over the content of the news systems; the economic influences on\n news content exerted either by the government or private entrepreneurs; and\n actual violations against the media, including murder, physical attack,\n harassment, and censorship.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine-point scale) of the Press Freedom Score,\n 1 is \u201cfree\u201d and 9 is \u201cnot free.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Corruption Score (Single Measure: 1997-1998) (Source:\n World Governance Research Indicators Data Set)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The World Governance Research Indicators Data Set provides a \u201cControl of\n Corruption\u201d indicator, that reflects the statistical compilation of\n perceptions of the quality of governance of a large number of survey\n respondents in industrial and developing countries, as well as\n non-governmental organizations, commercial risk rating agencies, and\n think-tanks during 1997 and 1998. The score ranges from about -2.5 to 2.5,\n with higher values corresponding to better governance outcomes.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine-point scale) of the Corruption Score, 1\n is \u201clow corruption\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh corruption.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/a>Issue Area 3. Militarization<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Military Expenditure (% of GDP, Constant 1995 US$)\n (Time Series: 1990-1998) (Source: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n SIPRI military expenditure figures as a percentage of GDP, expressed in US$\n Millions, at constant 1995 prices and exchange rates.  Where possible,\n SIPRI military expenditure include all current and capital expenditure on: the\n armed forces, including peace keeping forces; defence ministries and other\n government agencies engaged in defence projects; paramilitary forces when\n judged to be trained, equipped and available for military operations; military\n space activities.  These expenditures include: all expenditures on\n current personnel, military and civil, retirement pensions of military, social\n services for personnel and their families; operations and maintenance;\n procurement; military research and development ; military construction;\n military aid (in the military expenditures of the donor country). \n Excluded military related expenditures: civil defence; current expenditure for\n previous military activities, including veterans benefits, demobilization,\n conversion of arms production facilities, and destruction of weapons.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Total Military\n Expenditure (% of GDP, Constant 1995 US$) variable, 1 is \u201clow expenditure\u201d and\n 9 is \u201chigh expenditure.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Fraction of Regional Military Expenditure (% of known\n total spending for 1990s) (Single Measure: 1990s) (Source: Calculated from\n SIPRI Military Expenditure Database)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The Fraction of Regional Military Expenditure was calculated through totalling\n known military expenditures for the West African Region, using SIPRI Military\n Expenditure data, then dividing the sum into the total expenditure for each\n country.  The West African Region is taken to include the following\n countries, which were figured into the regional total:  Benin,\n Burkina  Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea,\n Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra\n Leone, and Togo.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Total Armed Forces (Per 1000 People) (Time Series:\n 1998-2000) (Source: CIFP score based on IISS Military Balance and World\n Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n In order to assess and compare the portion of a country\u2019s population involved\n in the operation of the military, the size of a country\u2019s Total Armed Forces\n was calculated per 1000 people, based on Armed Forces data from the IISS\n Military Balance and Population data from the World Bank\u2019s World Development\n Indicators.  Total armed forces includes both Active Forces and\n Reserves.  Active Armed Forces includes all servicemen and women on\n full-time duty, including conscripts and long-term assignments from the\n reserves. Estimates of effective reservist strength are based on the numbers\n available within five years of completing full-time service.  This number\n may include more than one category of reserves (army, navy, air force), often\n kept at varying degrees of readiness.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Total Armed Forces\n (Per 1000 People) variable, 1 is \u201cLow number of armed forces\u201d and 9 is \u201cHigh\n number of armed forces.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Issue Area 4. Population Heterogeneity\n<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Ethnic Diversity Score (Single Measure: 1990s) (Source:\n CIFP score based on CIA World Factbook, Levinson’s\n Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook<\/u>)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The Ethnic Diversity Score is calculated on the basis of Shih\u2019s D1 index of\n ethnic diversity.  This measure is based on the number of ethnic groups\n in a country weighted by the fraction of the population each group\n represents.   A primary strength of Shih\u2019s measure is that both the\n number and the sizes of ethnic groups jointly determine the degree of ethnic\n diversity.  The following formula was used to calculate the degree of\n ethnic diversity:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Where \u201cni\u201c is the size of ethnic group \u201ci,\u201d \u201cN\u201d is the total population of the\n country, and \u201cj\u201d is the number of ethnic groups.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n The primary source of data is the CIA World Factbook, but where this source\n did not provide adequate percentage breakdowns of ethnic groups, CIA data was\n supplemented with information from Levinson’s Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready\n Reference Handbook.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Ethnic Diversity\n Score variable, 1 is \u201clow diversity\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh diversity.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Religious Diversity Score (Single Measure: 1990s)\n (Source: CIFP score based on CIA World Factbook, Levinson’s Ethnic Groups\n Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The Religious Diversity Score is calculated on the basis of Shih\u2019s D2 index of\n religious diversity.  This measure is based on the number of religious\n groups in a country weighted by the fraction of the population each group\n represents.   A primary strength of Shih\u2019s measure is that both the\n number and the sizes of religious groups jointly determine the degree of\n religious diversity.  The following formula was used to calculate the\n degree of ethnic diversity:\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Where \u201cni\u201c is the size of religious group \u201ci,\u201d \u201cN\u201d is the total population of\n the country, and \u201cj\u201d is the number of religious groups.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n The primary source of data is the CIA World Factbook, but where this source\n did not provide adequate percentage breakdowns of religious groups, CIA data\n was supplemented with information from Levinson’s Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook<\/u>.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Religious Diversity\n Score variable, 1 is \u201clow diversity\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh diversity.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Risk of Ethnic Rebellion (Single Measure: 1990s)\n (Source: CIFP Score based on Minorities at Risk Data Set)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Minority Groups are identified by the Minorities at Risk Project as being \u201cat\n risk\u201d if the country in which they reside has a population greater than\n 500,000, the group itself has a population larger than 100,000 (or 1 percent\n of the country population), and it meets at least one of the four criteria for\n inclusion as a \u201cminority at risk.\u201d  These four criteria are:  that\n the group is subject to political, economic or cultural discrimination; that\n the group is disadvantaged from past political, economic or cultural\n discrimination; that the group is an politically, economically or culturally\n advantaged, and that advantage is being challenged; that the group supports\n political organizations advocating greater group rights.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n The \u201crisk of ethnic rebellion\u201d score is based on seven variables from the\n Minorities at Risk data set for each minority group identified as being \u201cat\n risk.\u201d  The selection of fields to form the composite are derived from\n Harff and Gurr’s “Systematic Early Warning of Humanitarian Emergencies,” \n where Gurr writes that the likelihood that a politically active ethnic\n identity group will initiate rebellion against the state is posited to be a\n joint function of three conditions: collective incentives, the capacity for\n joint action (2 variables), and external opportunities (1 variable). \n These factors assessed in the construction of this score are as follows:\n<\/p>\n\n\n

                \n
                \n

                \n Group Incentives:<\/strong><\/u>\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Lost Autonomy:<\/strong> The Lost Autonomy variable assesses both the\n extent of a group\u2019s historical loss of autonomy and how recently the loss\n was incurred.  The greater and more recent the loss, the higher a\n group\u2019s score on the indicator.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Political, Economic, and Cultural Discrimination:<\/strong>\n Discriminatory policies against members of an ethnopolitical group directly\n threaten group status and help perpetuate the group\u2019s disadvantages vis a\n vis the dominant society.   The MAR data set has coded information\n on the extent to which each ethnopolitical group was subject to political or\n economic discrimination, or to cultural restrictions as a matter of\n prevailing social practice or explicit state policy.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Group Capacity:<\/strong><\/u>\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Cultural Identity:<\/strong> A sense of common identity is a\n requisite for sustained collective action in any collectivity. The indicator\n used here for communal identity takes into account the extent to which a\n group differs from others with respect to language, lifeways, religious\n beliefs, and physical appearance.  The more distinct a disadvantaged\n group is with respect to these traits, the greater are the inferred strength\n and salience of group identity to its members.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Militant Mobilization:<\/strong>  The organizational framework\n for rebellion is provided by militant (illegal) parties and movements that\n act in a group\u2019s name and interests. The Minorities at Risk project profiles\n each significant political organization that acts on behalf of an\n ethnopolitical group, including approximations of the extent of their\n support.  This indicator takes into account the number of such\n organizations and the maximum estimate of their support.\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Group Opportunities: <\/strong><\/u>\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Support from Kindred Groups:<\/strong> Among the proximate causes of\n internal conflicts are provocative actions in neighbouring states. \n This indicator assesses the extent of symbolic and material support from\n kindred groups in neighbouring states, coded from information in the MAR\n data set.  Categories of support include: no kindred groups were\n identified in neighbouring states; kindred groups were politically\n quiescent; kindred groups engaged in ethnopolitical protest; kindred groups\n provided political or nonmilitary financial support; kindred groups engaged\n in armed rebellion; kindred groups provided sanctuary, material assistance,\n or military support.\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

                \n In order to calculate this index, each of the above MAR data fields was\n converted to a 0-1 scale, and totalled to form a “group ethnic risk score”\n (0-7) for each identified Minority at Risk group.  Individual “group\n ethnic risk scores” were totalled for each country to form the National Risk\n of Ethnic Rebellion Score, with an observed range of 0.273 (low risk) to\n 21.724 (high risk).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Risk of Ethnic\n Rebellion Score variable, where 1 is \u201clow risk\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh  risk.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Issue Area 5. Demographic Stress\n<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Total Population (Time Series: 1985-1998) (Source:\n World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Total population is based on the de facto definition of population, which\n counts all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship. Refugees not\n permanently settled in the country of asylum are generally considered to be\n part of the population of their country of origin.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Total Population\n variable, 1 is \u201clow population\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh population.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Population Growth Rate (Annual %) (Time Series:\n 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Annual growth rate of population from previous year.  Population is based\n on the de facto definition of population, which counts all residents\n regardless of legal status or citizenship except for refugees not permanently\n settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the\n population of the country of origin.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Population Growth\n Rate variable, 1 is \u201clow growth rate\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh growth rate.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Population Density (People Per Sq. km) (Time Series:\n 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Population density is midyear population divided by land area in square\n kilometres. Total population is based on the de facto definition of\n population, which counts all residents regardless of legal status or\n citizenship. Refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum are\n generally considered to be part of the population of their country of origin.\n Land area is a country\u2019s total area, excluding area under inland water bodies,\n national claims to continental shelf, and exclusive economic zones. In most\n cases the definition of inland water bodies includes major rivers and lakes.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Population Density\n variable, 1 is \u201clow density\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh density.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Urban Population (% of Total) (Time Series: 1985-1998)\n (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Urban population is the midyear population of areas defined as urban in each\n country and reported to the United Nations. It is measured here as a\n percentage of the total population. Data is sourced from the United Nations,\n World Urbanization Prospects: The 1998 Revision.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Urban Population\n variable, 1 is \u201clow population\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh population.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Urban Population Growth Rate (Annual %) (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Annual growth rate of urban population from previous year.  Urban\n population is the midyear population of areas defined as urban in each country\n and reported to the United Nations. Data is sourced from the United Nations,\n World Urbanization Prospects: The 1998 Revision.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Urban Population\n Growth Rate variable, 1 is \u201clow growth rate\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh growth rate.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Youth Bulge (Pop. Aged 0-14 as a % of Total) (Time Series:\n 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Total population between the ages 0 to 14. Population is based on the de facto\n definition of population, which counts all residents regardless of legal\n status or citizenship except for refugees not permanently settled in the\n country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of the\n country of origin.  Data based on World Bank staff estimates.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Youth Bulge\n variable, 1 is \u201clow growth rate\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh growth rate.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Issue Area 6. Economic Performance\n<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>GDP Growth Rate (Annual %) (Time Series: 1985-1998)\n (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Annual percentage growth rate of GDP at market prices based on constant local\n currency. Aggregates are based on constant 1995 U.S. dollars. GDP measures the\n total output of goods and services for final use occurring within the domestic\n territory of a given country, regardless of the allocation to domestic and\n foreign claims. Gross domestic product at purchaser prices is the sum of gross\n value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any taxes and minus\n any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated\n without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for\n depletion and degradation of natural resources. The residency of an\n institution is determined on the basis of economic interest in the territory\n for more than a year. Data derived from World Bank national accounts data, and\n OECD National Accounts data files.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the GDP Growth Rate\n (Annual %) variable, where 1 is \u201chigh Growth Rate\u201d and 9 is \u201clow Growth Rate.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>GDP Per Capita (PPP, Current International $) (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (PPP). GDP PPP is gross\n domestic product converted to international dollars using purchasing power\n parity rates. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP\n as the U.S. dollar in the United States. GDP measures the total output of\n goods and services for final use occurring within the domestic territory of a\n given country, regardless of the allocation to domestic and foreign claims.\n Gross domestic product at purchaser prices is the sum of gross value added by\n all resident producers in the economy plus any taxes and minus any subsidies\n not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making\n deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and\n degradation of natural resources. The residency of an institution is\n determined on the basis of economic interest in the territory for more than a\n year. Data are in current international dollars. Data derived from World Bank,\n International Comparison Programme database.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the GDP Per Capita (PPP,\n Current International $) variable, where 1 is \u201clow GDP Per Capita\u201d and 9 is\n \u201chigh GDP Per Capita.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Inflation (Consumer Prices, annual %) (Time Series:\n 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Inflation as measured by the consumer price index reflects the annual\n percentage change in the cost to the average consumer of acquiring a fixed\n basket of goods and services that may be fixed or changed at specified\n intervals, such as yearly.  Data derived from International Monetary\n Fund, International Financial Statistics and data files.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Inflation (Consumer\n Prices, annual %) variable, 1 is \u201clow inflation\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh inflation.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Official Exchange Rate (Local Currency per US$) (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Official exchange rate refers to the actual, principal exchange rate and is an\n annual average based on monthly averages (local currency units relative to\n U.S. dollars) determined by country authorities or on rates determined largely\n by market forces in the legally sanctioned exchange market.  Data derived\n from International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Official Exchange\n Rate (Local Currency per US$) variable, where 1 is \u201clow exchange rate\u201d and 9\n is \u201chigh exchange rate.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Foreign Direct Investment, Net Inflows (% of GNP) (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Foreign direct investment is net inflows of investment to acquire a lasting\n management interest (10 percent or more of voting stock) in an enterprise\n operating in an economy other than that of the investor. It is the sum of\n equity capital, reinvestment of earnings, other long-term capital, and\n short-term capital as shown in the balance of payments. Data are figured as a\n percentage of GNP.  Data are derived from International Monetary Fund,\n International Financial Statistics and Balance of Payments databases, and\n World Bank, Global Development Finance 2000.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Foreign Direct\n Investment, Net Inflows (% of GNP) variable, 1 is \u201chigh investment\u201d and 9 is\n \u201clow investment.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Total Debt Service (% of GNI) (Time Series: 1985-1998)\n (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Total debt service, figured as a percentage of Gross National Income, is the\n sum of principal repayments and interest actually paid in foreign currency,\n goods, or services on long-term debt, interest paid on short-term debt, and\n repayments (repurchases and charges) to the IMF. Data derived from World Bank,\n Global Development Finance 2000.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Total Debt Service\n (% of GNI) variable, 1 is \u201clow debt service\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh debt service.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Trade Openness (Trade as a % of GDP)  (Time\n Series: 1985-1998) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Trade is the sum of exports and imports of goods and services measured as a\n share of gross domestic product. Exports and Imports of goods and services\n represent the value of all goods and other market services provided to or\n received from the rest of the world. Included is the value of merchandise,\n freight, insurance, transport, travel, royalties, license fees, and other\n services, such as communication, construction, financial, information,\n business, personal, and government services. Labour and property income\n (formerly called factor services) is excluded. Data are in constant 1995 U.S.\n dollars. Data derived from World Bank national accounts data, and OECD\n National Accounts data files.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Trade Openness\n (Trade as a % of GDP) variable, 1 is \u201chigh openness\u201d and 9 is \u201clow openness.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Inequality Score (GINI Coefficient) (Single Measure)\n (Source: World Income Inequality Database)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The Gini index provides a convenient summary measure of the degree of\n inequality, ranging, in ideal terms, from 0 (absolute equality) to 100\n (absolute inequality).  Inequality in the distribution of income is\n reflected in the percentage shares of either income or consumption accruing to\n segments of the population ranked by either income or consumption\n (expenditure) levels. Data on personal or household income or consumption come\n from nationally representative house-hold surveys. The data included in the\n CIFP refer to different years between 1985 and 1999, and the rankings are\n based on either per capita income or consumption (expenditure). Because the\n underlying household surveys differ in method and in the type of data\n collected, the distribution indicators are not reliably comparable across\n countries.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Inequality Score\n (GINI Coefficient) variable, 1 is \u201clow inequality\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh inequality.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Issue Area 7. Human Development\n<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Access to Improved Water Source (% of Total Population)\n (Time Series: 1990, 2000) (Source: UNICEF\/WHO – Global Water and Sanitation\n Assessment Report)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Data were collected from two main sources: assessment questionnaires and\n household surveys conducted by UNICEF and WHO.  The assessment\n questionnaires defined access to water supply in terms of the types of\n technology and levels of service afforded. This included house connections,\n public standpipes, boreholes with handpumps, protected dug wells, protected\n springs and rainwater collection; allowance was also made for other\n locally-defined technologies. “Reasonable access” was broadly defined as the\n availability of at least 20 litres per person per day from a source within one\n kilometre of the user’s dwelling. Types of source that did not give reasonable\n and ready access to water for domestic hygiene purposes, such as tanker trucks\n and bottled water, were not included.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Access to Improved\n Water Source (% of Total Population) variable, 1 is \u201chigh % with access\u201d and 9\n is \u201clow % with access.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Access to Sanitation (% of Total Population) (Time\n Series: 1990, 2000) (Source: UNICEF\/WHO – Global Water and Sanitation\n Assessment Report)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Data were collected from two main sources: assessment questionnaires and\n household surveys conducted by UNICEF and WHO.  The assessment\n questionnaires defined access to sanitation in terms of the types of\n technology and levels of service afforded. This included connection to a sewer\n or septic tank system, pour-flush latrine, simple pit or ventilated improved\n pit latrine, again with allowance for acceptable local technologies. The\n excreta disposal system was considered adequate if it was private or shared\n (but not public) and if it hygienically separated human excreta from human\n contact.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Access to Sanitation\n (% of Total Population) variable, 1 is \u201chigh % with access\u201d and 9 is \u201clow %\n with access.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Life Expectancy (Years) (Time Series: 1987-1998 (87, 90,\n 92, 97, 98)) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Life expectancy at birth indicates the number of years a new-born infant would\n live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the time of its birth were to stay\n the same throughout its life. Based on World Bank staff estimates.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Life Expectancy\n (Years) variable, 1 is \u201chigh life expectancy\u201d and 9 is \u201clow life expectancy.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Infant Mortality Rate (Per 1,000 Live Births) (Time\n Series: 1987-1998 (87, 90, 92, 97, 98)) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Infant mortality rate is the number of infants who die before reaching one\n year of age, per 1,000 live births in a given year.  Based on World Bank\n staff estimates.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Infant Mortality\n Rate (Per 1,000 Live Births) variable, 1 is \u201clow mortality rate\u201d and 9 is\n \u201chigh mortality rate.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Maternal Mortality Rate (Per 100,000 Live Births)\n (Single Measure: 1995) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Maternal Mortality Rate is the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live\n births.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Maternal Mortality\n Rate (Per 100,000 Live Births) variable, 1 is \u201clow mortality\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh\n mortality.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>HIV\/AIDS (% of Adult Population) (Time Series: 1997, 1999)\n (Source: UNAIDS Epidemic Reports)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n To calculate the adult HIV prevalence rate, the estimated number of adults\n living with HIV\/AIDS at the end of each year was divided by that year\u2019s adult\n population.  UNAIDS estimates include all people with HIV infection,\n whether or not they have developed symptoms of AIDS, alive at the end of the\n year.  Adult population is defined as men and women aged 15\u201349. This age\n range captures those in their most sexually active years. While the risk of\n HIV infection obviously continues beyond 50, the vast majority of those with\n substantial risk behaviour are likely to have become infected by this age.\n Since population structures differ greatly from one country to another,\n especially for children and the upper adult ages, the restriction of “adults”\n to 15\u201349-year-olds has the advantage of making different populations more\n comparable. This age range was used as the denominator in calculating the\n adult HIV prevalence rate.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the HIV\/AIDS (% of Adult\n Population) variable, 1 is \u201clow prevalence of HIV\/AIDS\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh\n prevalence of HIV\/AIDS.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Primary School Enrollment (% of Relevant Age Group)\n (Time Series: 1985-1997) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Net enrollment ratio is the ratio of the number of children of official school\n age (as defined by the national education system) who are enrolled in school\n to the population of the corresponding official school age. Primary education\n provides children with basic reading, writing, and mathematics skills along\n with an elementary understanding of such subjects as history, geography,\n natural science, social science, art, and music. Based on the International\n Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). Data derived from United Nations\n Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Statistics.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Primary School\n Enrollment (% of Relevant Age Group) variable, 1 is \u201clow enrollment\u201d and 9 is\n \u201chigh enrollment.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Secondary School Enrollment (% of Relevant Age Group)\n (Time Series: 1985-1997) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Net enrollment ratio is the ratio of the number of children of official school\n age (as defined by the national education system) who are enrolled in school\n to the population of the corresponding official school age. Secondary\n education completes the provision of basic education that began at the primary\n level, and aims at laying the foundations for lifelong learning and human\n development, by offering more subject- or skill-oriented instruction using\n more specialized teachers. Based on the International Standard Classification\n of Education (ISCED). Data derived from United Nations Educational,\n Scientific, and Cultural Organization Statistics.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Secondary School\n Enrollment (% of Relevant Age Group) variable, 1 is \u201clow enrollment\u201d and 9 is\n \u201chigh enrollment.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Children in Labour Force (% of 10-14 Age Group)\n (Time Series: 1990-1998 (90, 95, 98)) (Source: World Development Indicators)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Children 10-14 in the labour force is the share of that age group that is\n active in the labour force. labour force comprises all people who meet the\n International Labour Organization\u2019s definition of the economically active\n population. Data is derived from International Labour Organization statistics.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Children in Labour\n Force (% of 10-14 Age Group) variable, 1 is \u201clow % of children in labour\n force\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh % of children in labour force.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Issue Area 8. Environmental Stress\n<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Rate of Deforestation (% Change) (Single Measure:\n 1990-1995) (Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank Atlas)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Definitions of forest area vary among countries. Land area is the country’s\n total area, excluding the area under inland bodies of water.  Annual\n Average Deforestation is calculated on the based of the average annual\n percentage reduction in Total Forest Coverage.  Data on land area and\n forests are from the Food and Agriculture Organization.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Rate of\n Deforestation variable, where 1 is \u201clow deforestation\u201d and 9 is \u201chigh\n deforestation.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>People per square kilometre of Arable Land (Single\n Measure, 1997) (Source: World Bank Development Indicators 2000)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Arable land includes land defined by the FAO as land under temporary crops\n (double-cropped areas are counted once), temporary meadows for mowing or for\n pasture, land under market or kitchen gardens, and land temporarily fallow.\n Land abandoned as a result of shifting cultivation is excluded.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the People per sq. km of\n Arable Land variable, where 1 is \u201clow number \u201d and 9 is \u201chigh number.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Freshwater Resources, cubic meters per capita (Single\n Measure, 1998) (Source: World Bank Development Indicators 2000)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The data on freshwater resources are based on estimates of runoff into rivers\n and recharge of ground-water, including river flows arising outside the\n country. Because the definition includes river flows entering a country but\n does not deduct river flows out of countries, it double counts the\n availability of water from international river ways. Caution: estimates are\n based on different sources and refer to different years, and the data also\n fails to distinguish between seasonal and geographic variations in water\n availability within countries.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Freshwater Resources\n variable, where 1 is \u201chigh number \u201d and 9 is \u201clow number.\u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Issue Area 9. International Linkages\n<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Economic Organizations (Single Measure: 2000) (Source:\n CIA World Factbook)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The number of organizations, based on CIA World Factbook data on memberships,\n coded by the CIFP as having a mandate focusing primarily on economic matters.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n To construct an index of membership in economic organizations, the total GDP\n represented by each organization (based on the total GDPs of all member states\n [using 1998 GDP figures at Market Prices in 1995 US$ millions]) was\n calculated. These organizational totals were summed for each country to\n provide an indication of the strength of the Economic Organizations to which\n the country belonged. Countries were sorted from highest to lowest, divided\n into nine equal categories, and then assigned numbers ranging from 1 to 9\n based on the category to which they belonged (where 1 = High Membership and 9\n = Low Membership).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Military\/Security Alliances (Single Measure: 2000)\n (Source: CIA World Factbook)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The number of organizations, based on CIA World Factbook data on memberships,\n coded by the CIFP as having a mandate focusing primarily on military and\n security matters.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n To construct an index of membership in Military\/Security Organizations, the\n total armed forces represented by each organization (based on the total armed\n forces of all member states [using 2000 Armed Forces numbers from IISS’s\n Military Balance]) was calculated. Then, these organizational totals were\n summed for each country to provide an indication of the strength of the\n Military\/Security Organizations to which the country belonged.  Countries\n were sorted from highest to lowest, divided into nine equal categories, and\n then assigned numbers ranging from 1 to 9 based on the category to which they\n belonged (where 1 = High Membership and 9 = Low Membership).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>UN Organizations (Single Measure: 2000) (Source: CIA World\n Factbook)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n The number of organizations of which a country is a member, based on CIA World\n Factbook data on memberships, which are formally part of the United Nations\n System.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n To assess each country’s stature within the United Nations (UN), the number of\n UN organizations to which a country belonged was used as the indicator of a\n country’s relative dominance. Countries were sorted from highest to lowest,\n divided into nine equal categories, and then assigned numbers ranging from 1\n to 9 based on the category to which they belonged (where 1 = High Membership\n and 9 = Low Membership).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Multipurpose and Miscellaneous Organizations\n (Single Measure: 2000) (Source: CIA World Factbook)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n Multipurpose organizations include those organizations, based on CIA World\n Factbook data on memberships, coded by the CIFP as having a mandate that\n crossed various sectors of activity. Miscellaneous organizations include those\n organizations coded by the CIFP as having a mandate focusing primarily on\n areas not included above, or otherwise not fitting into any of the above\n categories.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n A procedure similar to that of UN organizations was used to assess the\n strength of each country’s memberships in multipurpose organizations or\n miscellaneous organizations (i.e. organizations that could not be classified\n as economic, military\/security, UN, or multi-purpose.) The number of such\n organizations to which a country belonged was used as the indicator of a\n country’s relative dominance.  Countries were sorted from highest to\n lowest, divided into nine equal categories, and then assigned numbers ranging\n from 1  to 9 based on the category to which they belonged (where 1 = High\n Membership and 9 = Low Membership).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n <\/a>Total International Disputes (Time Series: 1999-2000)\n (Source: CIA World Factbook)\n<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

                \n To assess a country\u2019s relationship with its neighbours, CIFP examined the\n number of international disputes in which the country was involved. \n International disputes are defined by the CIA World Factbook to include a wide\n range of situations that range from traditional bilateral boundary disputes to\n unilateral claims of one sort of another.  The Total International\n Disputes variable counts the total annual number of international disputes\n that appear annually in the CIA World Factbook. In cases where a country\n claims a territory that is also claimed by a number of other countries,\n disputes are counted for each of the other countries individually. If a\n country has multiple disputes with another country, again these are counted\n separately.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n For the global rank based index (nine point scale) of the Total International\n Disputes variable, where 1 is \u201cno disputes\u201d and 9 is \u201cmany disputes. \u201d\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/a>Data Sources<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                \n Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)<\/strong>
                \n FAOSTAT Statistical Database
                \n                 http:\/\/apps.fao.org\/<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Freedom House<\/strong>
                \n Annual Review of Freedom
                \n                 http:\/\/www.freedomhouse.org\/ratings\/index.htm<\/a>
                \n Annual Press Freedom Survey
                \n                 http:\/\/www.freedomhouse.org\/research\/pressurvey.htm<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)<\/strong>
                \n Military Balance Annual
                \n                 http:\/\/www.iiss.org\/pub\/milbal1.asp<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Joint United Nations Programme on HIV\/AIDS (UNAIDS)<\/strong>
                \n Epidemic Updates and Reports
                \n                 http:\/\/www.unaids.org\/epidemic_update\/<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)<\/strong>
                \n Military Expenditure Database
                \n                 http:\/\/projects.sipri.se\/milex\/mex_database1.htm<\/a>l
                \n SIPRI Yearbooks
                \n                 http:\/\/editors.sipri.se\/pubs\/yearb.html<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Transparency International<\/strong>
                \n Corruption Perceptions Index
                \n                 http:\/\/www.transparency.org\/documents\/cpi\/2001\/cpi2001.html<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n United Nations Children\u2019s Fund (UNICEF) \/ World Health Organization\n (WHO)
                <\/strong>Global Water and Sanitation Assessment Reports
                \n                 http:\/\/www.who.int\/water_sanitation_health\/Globassessment\/GlobalTOC.htm<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)<\/strong>
                \n Human Development Reports
                \n                 http:\/\/www.undp.org\/hdro\/<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)<\/strong>
                \n Statistical Overviews
                \n                 http:\/\/www.unhcr.ch\/statist\/main.htm<\/a>
                \n State of the World\u2019s Refugees Reports
                \n                 http:\/\/www.unhcr.ch\/sowr2000\/toc2.htm<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n United Nations Statistical Division<\/strong>
                \n United Nations Statistical Yearbook
                \n                 http:\/\/esa.un.org\/unsd\/pubs\/<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n United Nations University (UNU) and United Nations Development Programme\n (UNDP)<\/strong>
                \n World Income Inequality Database
                \n                 http:\/\/www.undp.org\/poverty\/initiatives\/wider\/wiid.htm<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n United States Central Intelligence Agency <\/strong>
                \n World Factbook Annuals
                \n                 http:\/\/www.cia.gov\/cia\/publications\/factbook\/<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n University of Maryland, Centre for International Development and Conflict\n Management (CIDCM)<\/strong>
                \n Polity IV Project Data Set
                \n                 http:\/\/www.bsos.umd.edu\/cidcm\/polity\/<\/a>
                \n Minorities at Risk Project Data Set
                \n                 http:\/\/www.bsos.umd.edu\/cidcm\/mar\/<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n Uppsala University<\/strong>
                \n Conflict Data Project
                \n                 http:\/\/www.pcr.uu.se\/data.htm<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n World Bank<\/strong>
                \n World Development Indicators
                \n                 http:\/\/www.worldbank.org\/data\/wdi\/home.html<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n World Governance Research Indicators Data Set<\/strong>
                \n D. Kaufmann A. Kraay, and P. Zoido-Lobat\u00f3n
                \n                 http:\/\/www.worldbank.org\/wbi\/governance\/pubs\/aggindicators.htm<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n David Levinson, Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference<\/u> Handbook,\n Oryx Press, Westport, Conn., 1998.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Back to Top<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n  \u00a9 Country Indicators for Foreign Policy. All rights reserved.\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                Download indicator descriptions and methodology reports in PDF format: CIFP Risk Assessment Indicator Definitions (pdf, 205K) A4(pdf, 211K) CIFP Methodology, Data Descriptions, Data Sources (pdf, 237K) Contents The purpose of this document is to provide a more detailed explanation of each indicator used in the risk assessment calculation and its source. Data Sources Issue Area 1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":16,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_cu_dining_location_slug":"","footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"cu_page_type":[],"class_list":["post-18","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":{"cu_post_thumbnail":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2433,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/18\/revisions\/2433"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/16"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"cu_page_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cifp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cu_page_type?post=18"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}