The Failed States Index 2007
By The Fund for Peace and FOREIGN POLICY magazine

The world’s weakest states aren’t just a danger to themselves. They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away. In the third annual Failed States Index, FOREIGN POLICY and The Fund for Peace rank the countries where the risk of failure is running high.

It is an accepted axiom of the modern age that distance no longer matters. Sectarian carnage can sway stock markets on the other side of the planet. Anarchic cities that host open-air arms bazaars imperil the security of the world’s superpower. A hermit leader’s erratic behavior not only makes life miserable for the impoverished millions he rules but also upends the world’s nuclear nonproliferation regime. The threats of weak states, in other words, ripple far beyond their borders and endanger the development and security of nations that are their political and economic opposites.

Few encouraging signs emerged in 2006 to suggest the world is on a path to greater peace and stability. The year began with violent protests that erupted from Indonesia to Nigeria over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. February brought the destruction of Samarra’s golden-domed mosque, one of Shiite Islam’s holiest shrines, unleashing a convulsion of violence across Iraq that continues unabated. After Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers last July, southern Lebanon was bombarded for a month by air strikes, sending hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing into neighboring states. And in October, the repressive North Korean regime stormed its way into the world’s nuclear club.

What makes these alarming headlines all the more troubling is that their origins lie in weak and failing states. World leaders and the heads of multilateral institutions routinely take to lecterns to reiterate their commitment to pulling vulnerable states back from the brink, but it can be difficult to translate damage control into viable, long-term solutions that correct state weaknesses. Aid is often misspent. Reforms are too many or too few. Security needs overwhelm international peacekeepers, or chaos reigns in their absence.

The complex phenomenon of state failure may be much discussed, but it remains little understood. The problems that plague failing states are generally all too similar: rampant corruption, predatory elites who have long monopolized power, an absence of the rule of law, and severe ethnic or religious divisions. But that does not mean that the responses to their problems should be cut from the same cloth. Failing states are a diverse lot. Burma and Haiti are two of the most corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International, and yet Burma’s repressive junta persecutes ethnic minorities and subjects its population to forced resettlement, while Haiti is wracked by extreme poverty, lawlessness, and urban violence. For a decade, Equatorial Guinea has posted some of the highest economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa, yet its riches have padded the bank accounts of an elite few. And in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the inability of the government to police its borders effectively or manage its vast mineral wealth has left the country dependent on foreign aid.

To provide a clearer picture of the world’s weakest states, The Fund for Peace, an independent research organization, and FOREIGN POLICY present the third annual Failed States Index. Using 12 social, economic, political, and military indicators, we ranked 177 states in order of their vulnerability to violent internal conflict and societal deterioration. The index scores are based on data from more than 12,000 publicly available sources collected from May to December 2006. The 60 most vulnerable states are listed in the rankings, and full results are available at www.ForeignPolicy.com and www.fundforpeace.org.

For the second year in a row, Sudan tops the rankings as the state most at risk of failure. The primary cause of its instability, violence in the country’s western region of Darfur, is as well known as it is tragic. At least 200,000 people—and perhaps as many as 400,000—have been killed in the past four years by janjaweed militias armed by the government, and 2 to 3 million people have fled their torched villages for squalid camps as the violence has spilled into the Central African Republic and Chad. These countries were hardly pictures of stability prior to the influx of refugees and rebels across their borders; the Central African Republic plays host to a modern-day slave trade, and rebels attacked Chad’s capital in April 2006 in a failed coup attempt. But the spillover effects from Sudan have a great deal to do with the countries’ tumble in the rankings, demonstrating that the dangers of failing states often bleed across borders. That is especially worrying for a few select regions. This year, eight of the world’s 10 most vulnerable states are in sub-Saharan Africa, up from six last year and seven in 2005.

That is not to say that all failing states suffer from international neglect. Iraq and Afghanistan, the two main fronts in the global war on terror, both suffered over the past year. Their experiences show that billions of dollars in development and security aid may be futile unless accompanied by a functioning government, trustworthy leaders, and realistic plans to keep the peace and develop the economy. Just as there are many paths to success, there are many paths to failure for states on the edge.

The year wasn’t all bad news, though. Two vulnerable giants, China and Russia, improved their scores sufficiently to move out of the 60 worst states. That is in part due to the fact that 31 additional countries were assessed this year. But some credit must be paid to the countries themselves. China’s economic engine continues to propel the country forward at a breakneck pace, but the growing divide between urban and rural, as well as continued protests in the countryside, reveals pockets of frailty that the central government is only just beginning to address. Russia’s growing economy and a lull in the violence in Chechnya have had stabilizing effects, despite fresh concerns about the country’s democratic future.

The vast majority of the states listed in the index have not yet failed; they exhibit severe weaknesses that leave them vulnerable, especially to shocks such as natural disasters, war, and economic deprivation. The power of such events should not be underestimated. The war in Lebanon last summer helped undo nearly two decades of economic and political progress. But Lebanon was vulnerable because its political and security structures lacked integrity and remained tensely divided by factionalized elites. Those vulnerabilities not only helped turn the clock back on the country’s development, but they reverberated across the region—into Israel, Jordan, and Syria. It shows again that a country’s problems are never simply its own.

That conclusion becomes especially worrisome when the weak states in question possess nuclear weapons. Today, two countries among the world’s 15 most vulnerable, North Korea and Pakistan, are members of the nuclear club. Their profiles could hardly be less similar: The former faces the very real prospect of economic collapse, followed by massive human flight, while the latter presides over a lawless frontier country and a disenchanted Islamist opposition whose ranks grow by the day.

But while these states’ failings may be frequent fodder for headlines around the world, it is obvious that there are few easy answers to their troubles. In highlighting which states are at the greatest risk of failure, we can only hope that more effective and long-term solutions emerge over time as we compare the index from year to year. In that way, positive reversals of fortune can occur for the world’s most vulnerable nations and, in the process, improve the security and prosperity of everyone.

source - http://www.foreignpolicy.com

At 60, India more stable than ever before
20 Jun, 2007 l 0058 hrs IST l Chidanand Rajghatta / TIMES NEWS NETWORK

WASHINGTON: This is one low ranking India would be happy about. Coming in at 110 in the index of failed states in the world means India is one of the stronger nations in the world where a top rank (for Sudan) spells death and disaster and a bottom rank (Norway at 177) means stability and affluence.

India has improved its ranking from 93 to 110 in the 2007 Index of Failed States issued by Foreign Policy magazine, suggesting that in its 60th year of independence, its nation-building abilities and institutional strength have gained recognition.

But the news all around India's isn't good. It is surrounded by some of the most unstable countries in the world, led by Pakistan, which comes in at 12th, Bangladesh at 16th, Nepal 21st, Sri Lanka 25th.

In contrast, Scandinavia is a haven of peace and stability with Norway, Sweden and Finland making up the bottom three. The United States is ranked 160th.

The failed state index uses 12 social, economic, political, and military indicators to rank 177 states in order of their vulnerability to violent internal conflict and societal deterioration. The index scores are based on data from more than 12,000 publicly available sources collected from May to December 2006.

India is now considered more stable than China and Russia. In 2005, India was ranked below China, at 76. In 2007, both China and Russia are ranked at 62, while India's social, economic and military metrics have propelled it to 110.

In a commentary that could well apply to India, Foreign Policy said China's economic engine continues to propel the country forward at a breakneck pace, "but the growing divide between urban and rural, as well as continued protests in the countryside, reveals pockets of frailty that the central government is only just beginning to address."

Sudan, Iraq and Somalia are ranked the top three failed states, a situation marked by "rampant corruption, predatory elites who have long monopolized power, an absence of the rule of law, and severe ethnic or religious divisions."

Pakistan and North Korea come in at 12 and 13 respectively, and their instability is compounded by their possession of nuclear weapons, says Foreign Policy . "Their profiles could hardly be less similar: The former faces the very real prospect of economic collapse, followed by massive human flight, while the latter presides over a lawless frontier country and a disenchanted Islamist opposition whose ranks grow by the day," Foreign Policy observed.

SOURCE - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Source: http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?...&Itemid=366

Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka all made it on the list. South Asia is looking pretty unstable.....well, except for one country.

I really love people who make up these silly numbers. Does poverty ever enter into this?

Just read this.

The Twelve Indicators
Click on an indicator to see some examples of measures that may be included in the analysis of that indicator. These are neither exclusive nor exhaustive. You can add more measures, as appropriate.

Social Indicators
I-1. Mounting Demographic Pressures

• Pressures deriving from high population density relative to food supply and other life-sustaining resources
• Pressures deriving from group settlement patterns that affect the freedom to participate in common forms of human and physical activity, including economic productivity, travel, social interaction, religious worship
• Pressures deriving from group settlement patterns and physical settings, including border disputes, ownership or occupancy of land, access to transportation outlets, control of religious or historical sites, and proximity to environmental hazards
• Pressures from skewed population distributions, such as a "youth or age bulge," or from divergent rates of population growth among competing communal groups

I-2. Massive Movement of Refugees or Internally Displaced Persons creating Complex Humanitarian Emergencies

• Forced uprooting of large communities as a result of random or targeted violence and/or repression, causing food shortages, disease, lack of clean water, land competition, and turmoil that can spiral into larger humanitarian and security problems, both within and between countries

I-3. Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or Group Paranoia

• History of aggrieved communal groups based on recent or past injustices, which could date back centuries
• Patterns of atrocities committed with impunity against communal groups
• Specific groups singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution or repression
• Institutionalized political exclusion
• Public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of "hate" radio, pamphleteering and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric

I-4. Chronic and Sustained Human Flight

• "Brain drain" of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents fearing persecution or repression
• Voluntary emigration of "the middle class," particularly economically productive segments of the population, such as entrepreneurs, business people, artisans and traders, due to economic deterioration
• Growth of exile communities

Economic Indicators
I-5. Uneven Economic Development along Group Lines

• Group-based inequality, or perceived inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status
• Group-based impoverishment as measured by poverty levels, infant mortality rates, education levels
• Rise of communal nationalism based on real or perceived group inequalities

I-6. Sharp and/or Severe Economic Decline

• A pattern of progressive economic decline of the society as a whole as measured by per capita income, GNP, debt, child mortality rates, poverty levels, business failures, and other economic measures
• Sudden drop in commodity prices, trade revenue, foreign investment or debt payments
• Collapse or devaluation of the national currency
• Extreme social hardship imposed by economic austerity programs
• Growth of hidden economies, including the drug trade, smuggling, and capital flight
• Increase in levels of corruption and illicit transactions among the general populace
• Failure of the state to pay salaries of government employees and armed forces or to meet other financial obligations to its citizens, such as pension payments

Political Indicators
I-7. Criminalization and/or Delegitimization of the State

• Massive and endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites
• Resistance of ruling elites to transparency, accountability and political representation
• Widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions and processes, e.g., widely boycotted or contested elections, mass public demonstrations, sustained civil disobedience, inability of the state to collect taxes, resistance to military conscription, rise of armed insurgencies
• Growth of crime syndicates linked to ruling elites

I-8. Progressive Deterioration of Public Services

• Disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation
• State apparatus narrows to those agencies that serve the ruling elites, such as the security forces, presidential staff, central bank, diplomatic service, customs and collection agencies

I-9. Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights

• Emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated
• Outbreak of politically inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence against innocent civilians
• Rising number of political prisoners or dissidents who are denied due process consistent with international norms and practices
• Widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights, including those of individuals, groups or cultural institutions (e.g., harassment of the press, politicization of the judiciary, internal use of military for political ends, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution)

I-10. Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State"

• Emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity
• Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected "enemies," or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition
• Emergence of an "army within an army" that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique
• Emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces

I-11. Rise of Factionalized Elites

• Fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along group lines
• Use of nationalistic political rhetoric by ruling elites, often in terms of communal irredentism, (e.g., a "greater Serbia") or of communal solidarity (e.g., "ethnic cleansing" or "defending the faith")

I-12. Intervention of Other States or External Political Actors

• Military or Para-military engagement in the internal affairs of the state at risk by outside armies, states, identity groups or entities that affect the internal balance of power or resolution of the conflict
• Intervention by donors, especially if there is a tendency towards over-dependence on foreign aid or peacekeeping missions

http://www.fundforpeace.org

Craps a bit complicated, but if you like Indian economic news. This site might be the best.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=540

Yes I follow Indian economic news, thanks. Btw the Failed States List is very precise and poverty has also been taken into consideration.