Table 1
Categorization of state types and corresponding grouping criteria based on the scores of state authority (A), legitimacy (L), and capacity (C); note that FI represents the average of A, L, and C. The selection priority begins with I and B states, and if no states meet their selection criteria, then they are grouped according to the selection criteria for H, M, S, and F states.20
| Type | A-L-C or FI Thresholds | Description | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | A < 6.5 | L < 6.5 | C > 6.5 | Impoverished state with weak capacity |
| B | A < 6.5 | L > 6.5 | C < 6.5 | Brittle state with weak legitimacy |
| H | FI < 3 | Highly functional state | ||
| M | 3 < FI < 4.6 | Moderately functional state | ||
| S | 4.6 < FI < 6.5 | Struggling functional state | ||
| F | 6.5 < FI | Fragile state | ||
Figure 1
Scatterplot of the average A (authority), L (legitimacy), and C (capacity) scores of all 178 states allocated in their respective categorizations (H = highly functional, M = moderately functional, I = impoverished, B = brittle, S = struggling functional, F = fragile).
Table 2
Categorization of Fragile States Overall state status based on the average A, L, C, and FI scores from 2002 through 2013 inclusive, annual state status (for blank fields, refer to previous year), years of intrastate conflict and integrated score (Sc) of conflict intensity × duration, and 12-year average net Official Development Assistance received per capita. (I = impoverished, B = brittle, S = struggling functional, F = fragile).
| State | Average Status | Annual Status by Year | Conflict | Net ODApc | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | L | C | FI | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | Yrs | Sc | ||
| Afghanistan | 8.41 | 8.22 | 7.28 | 7.97 | F | 1 | 1 | 166.9 | |||||||||||
| Bangladesh | 6.84 | 7.01 | 5.82 | 6.56 | F | S | 2 | 2 | 10.6 | ||||||||||
| Burundi | 7.49 | 7.41 | 8.57 | 7.82 | F | 6 | 7 | 51.5 | |||||||||||
| Cambodia | 6.30 | 7.43 | 7.04 | 6.92 | F | 47.1 | |||||||||||||
| Central African Rep. | 7.80 | 7.57 | 8.10 | 7.83 | F | 4 | 4 | 40.4 | |||||||||||
| Chad | 7.50 | 8.00 | 7.01 | 7.50 | F | 8 | 9 | 35.3 | |||||||||||
| Comoros | 7.11 | 6.62 | 8.45 | 7.39 | F | 68.2 | |||||||||||||
| Congo, Dem. Rep. | 8.29 | 8.25 | 7.16 | 7.90 | F | 4 | 4 | 44.3 | |||||||||||
| Congo, Rep. | 7.07 | 7.53 | 6.47 | 7.02 | F | 102.6 | |||||||||||||
| Cote d’Ivoire | 7.35 | 7.60 | 6.30 | 7.08 | F | 4 | 4 | 48.6 | |||||||||||
| Djibouti | 6.06 | 6.99 | 7.84 | 6.96 | F | 145.1 | |||||||||||||
| Equatorial Guinea | 6.95 | 8.75 | 5.38 | 7.03 | F | 44.0 | |||||||||||||
| Ethiopia | 6.78 | 7.29 | 7.15 | 7.08 | F | 12 | 12 | 33.1 | |||||||||||
| Gambia, The | 5.45 | 6.92 | 8.33 | 6.90 | I | F | 60.9 | ||||||||||||
| Guinea | 7.39 | 7.60 | 7.76 | 7.58 | F | 25.6 | |||||||||||||
| Guinea-Bissau | 7.00 | 7.40 | 8.40 | 7.60 | F | 68.2 | |||||||||||||
| Haiti | 7.49 | 7.68 | 7.34 | 7.50 | F | 1 | 1 | 100.6 | |||||||||||
| Iraq | 8.25 | 8.12 | 5.35 | 7.24 | F | 2 | 3 | 191.8 | |||||||||||
| Kyrgyz Republic | 6.46 | 7.38 | 7.54 | 7.12 | F | 64.1 | |||||||||||||
| Lao PDR | 6.51 | 8.23 | 7.42 | 7.38 | F | 61.8 | |||||||||||||
| Liberia | 7.38 | 6.72 | 8.74 | 7.61 | F | 2 | 3 | 151.7 | |||||||||||
| Libya | 6.65 | 8.16 | 4.83 | 6.55 | F | B | F | 1 | 2 | 15.1 | |||||||||
| Mauritania | 6.04 | 6.79 | 7.41 | 6.75 | I | F | 1 | 1 | 95.4 | ||||||||||
| Nepal | 6.80 | 6.77 | 7.16 | 6.91 | F | 5 | 9 | 24.4 | |||||||||||
| Niger | 6.16 | 6.54 | 7.71 | 6.80 | F | I | F | I | F | 2 | 2 | 39.5 | |||||||
| Nigeria | 7.37 | 7.27 | 5.37 | 6.67 | F | S | F | 3 | 3 | 17.9 | |||||||||
| Pakistan | 7.01 | 7.32 | 5.49 | 6.61 | F | S | F | 8 | 15 | 13.2 | |||||||||
| Papua New Guinea | 6.38 | 6.58 | 6.92 | 6.62 | I | F | I | 60.8 | |||||||||||
| Rwanda | 5.84 | 6.66 | 7.70 | 6.73 | F | I | 1 | 1 | 79.2 | ||||||||||
| Sierra Leone | 6.64 | 6.64 | 7.92 | 7.07 | F | I | F | 76.8 | |||||||||||
| Sudan | 7.94 | 8.40 | 6.14 | 7.50 | F | 11 | 17 | 37.0 | |||||||||||
| Swaziland | 5.89 | 7.00 | 6.78 | 6.56 | F | S | F | S | 55.3 | ||||||||||
| Tajikistan | 7.04 | 7.78 | 7.72 | 7.51 | F | 2 | 2 | 40.9 | |||||||||||
| Timor-Leste | 6.82 | 6.13 | 8.26 | 7.07 | F | I | F | 229.0 | |||||||||||
| Togo | 6.65 | 7.49 | 7.78 | 7.31 | F | 37.4 | |||||||||||||
| Turkmenistan | 7.27 | 8.84 | 6.15 | 7.42 | F | 7.5 | |||||||||||||
| Uganda | 5.96 | 6.82 | 7.03 | 6.60 | F | S | F | 5 | 7 | 47.6 | |||||||||
| Uzbekistan | 7.33 | 8.48 | 6.51 | 7.44 | F | 1 | 1 | 7.5 | |||||||||||
| West Bank/Gaza27 | 6.68 | 7.04 | 6.79 | 6.84 | F | I | F | 12 | 12 | 515.7 | |||||||||
| Yemen, Rep. | 7.23 | 7.56 | 6.42 | 7.07 | F | 20.4 | |||||||||||||
| Zimbabwe | 7.88 | 8.21 | 7.27 | 7.79 | F | 38.8 | |||||||||||||
| min | 5.45 | 6.13 | 4.83 | 6.55 | 0 | 0 | 7.5 | ||||||||||||
| max | 8.41 | 8.84 | 8.74 | 7.97 | 12 | 17 | 515.7 | ||||||||||||
| average | 6.96 | 7.44 | 7.09 | 7.17 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 73.7 | ||||||||||||
Figure 2
Mean (±95% confidence interval) fragility index (FI), integrated duration × intensity of violent intrastate conflict (Conflict), and per capita ODA shown for each state type (H = highly functional, M = moderately functional, I = impoverished, B = brittle, S = struggling functional, F = fragile).
Figure 3
Block diagram depicting improvements and deteriorations in state status between 2002 and 2013 (H = highly functional; M = moderately functional; I = impoverished; B = brittle; S = struggling functional; F = fragile). Improvements and deteriorations are noted by the solid and dashed arrows, respectively, and the numbers attached to these arrows indicate the total number of states in transition.
Figure 4
Plots of authority (A), legitimacy (L), and capacity (C) for various states against year showing examples of transitions in state status (H = highly functional; M = moderately functional; I = impoverished; B = brittle; S = struggling functional; F = fragile) denoted by ▲. The arrows adjacent to A, L, and C indicate a significant change over the 12 year period from 2002 to 2013. States that improved are shown on the left-hand side of the figure and those that deteriorated are shown on the right-hand side.
Table 3
Comparison of state status between FSI and FI of the current state categorization model. Rank indicates worst to best in ascending order. FSI ranges from 0 to 120 (best to worst) and FI ranges from 1 to 9 (best to worst) (M = moderately functional, I = impoverished, B = brittle, S = struggling functional, F = fragile).
| State | FSI 2013 | FI 2012 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Index | Label | Rank | Index | Type | |
| Russia Turkmenistan | 80th 81st | 77.1 76.7 | Warning | 86th 16th | 5.59 7.24 | B F |
| Guyana Namibia | 107th 108th | 70.8 70.4 | Warning | 46th 114th | 6.45 4.91 | I S |
| Belize Cyprus | 114th 115th | 67.2 67.0 | Warning | 83rd 150th | 5.62 3.51 | I M |
| Mexico Vietnam | 97th 97th | 73.1 73.1 | Warning | 119th 64th | 4.65 6.10 | S B |