Editing Failed state (section)

==Examples==
A relevant contribution to the field of failed states and its attributes was made by Jack Goldstone in his 2008 paper "Pathways to State Failure". He defines a failed state as one that has lost both its effectiveness and legitimacy. Effectiveness means the capability to carry out state functions such as providing security or levying taxes. Legitimacy means the support of important groups of the population. A state that retains one of these two aspects is not failed as such; however, it is in great danger of failing soon if nothing is done. He identifies five possible pathways to state failure:
# Escalation of communal group (ethnic or religious) conflicts. Examples: [[Rwanda]], [[SFR Yugoslavia]]
# State predation (corrupt or crony corralling of resources at the expense of other groups). Examples: [[Nicaragua]],  [[Philippines]]
# Regional or guerrilla rebellion. Examples: [[Colombia]], [[Vietnam]]
# Democratic collapse (leading to civil war or coup d'état). Examples: [[Nigeria]] and [[Myanmar Civil War|Myanmar]].
# Succession or reform crisis in authoritarian states. Examples: [[New Order (Indonesia)|Indonesia under Suharto]], the [[History of the Soviet Union (1982–1991)|Soviet Union under Gorbachev]].<ref>{{cite journal | last=Goldstone | first=Jack A. | title=Pathways to State Failure | journal=Conflict Management and Peace Science | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=25 | issue=4 | year=2008 | issn=0738-8942 | doi=10.1080/07388940802397343 | pages=285–296 | s2cid=153645523 |url=https://gsdrc.org/document-library/pathways-to-state-failure/}}</ref>

Larry Diamond, in his 2006 paper "Promoting democracy in post-conflict and failed states", argues that weak and failed states pose distinctive problems for democracy promotion. In these states, the challenge is not only to pressure authoritarian state leaders to surrender power but rather to figure out how to regenerate legitimate power in the first place. There are mainly two distinct types of cases, and each of these two types of cases requires specific kinds of strategies for the promotion of good governance:

# The post-conflict states that are emerging from external or civil war. A number of these countries, such as Nigeria, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Somalia, have been in Africa, while others have been in Latin America (Nicaragua, El Salvador, and much of Central America), in Asia (e.g. Cambodia), or in the Middle East (Lebanon, Algeria, and Iraq);
# Countries that are in the midst of civil war or ongoing violent conflict, where central state authority has largely collapsed, as in the [[Second Congo War|Democratic Republic of the Congo]]

Generally speaking, the order is the most important prerequisite for democracy promotion, which relies heavily on formal democratic mechanisms, particularly elections to promote post-conflict state-building. In the absence of an effective state, there are basically three possibilities. First, if there has been a civil war and a rebel force has ultimately triumphed, then the vacuum may be filled by the rebellious army and political movement as it establishes control over the state. Second, there may be a patchwork of warlords and armies, with either no real central state (as in Somalia) or only a very weak one. In this situation, the conflict does not really end, but may wax and wane in a decentralized fashion, as in Afghanistan today. The third possibility is that an international actor or coalition of actors steps in to constitute temporary authority politically and militarily. This may be an individual country, a coalition, an individual country under the thin veneer of a coalition, or the United Nations acting through the formal architecture of a UN post-conflict mission.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Diamond |first=Larry |date=2006|title=Promoting democracy in post-conflict and failed states |url=https://web.stanford.edu/%7Eldiamond/papers/PromotingDemocracy0905.htm |journal=[[Taiwan Journal of Democracy]]|volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=93–116}}</ref>

{|class="wikitable"
|+Failed states according to the [[Bertelsmann Transformation Index]]<ref name="bti-indices">{{cite web|title=BTI 2024|url=https://bti-project.org/en/methodology|website=Bertelsmann Transformation Index|publisher=Bertelsmann Stiftung|access-date=29 Sep 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240927051141/https://bti-project.org/en/methodology|archive-date=27 Sep 2024|location=Gütersloh|language=en|url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
! Country
! {{abbr|'24|2024}}
! {{abbr|'22|2022}}
! {{abbr|'20|2020}}
! {{abbr|'18|2018}}
! {{abbr|'16|2016}}
! {{abbr|'14|2014}}
! {{abbr|'12|2012}}
! {{abbr|'10|2010}}
! {{abbr|'08|2008}}
! {{abbr|'06|2006}}
|-
| {{AFG}}{{efn|Previously the [[Islamic Republic of Afghanistan]], until 2021.}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}|| || || ||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}
|-
| {{flag|CAR}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}
|-
| {{CHA}}||{{yan}}|| || || || || || || ||{{yan}}||
|-
| {{flag|DR Congo}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}
|-
| {{HAI}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}|| || ||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}|| || ||{{yan}}
|-
| {{IRQ}}|| || || || || || || || ||{{yan}}||{{yan}}
|-
| {{CIV}}|| || || || || || || || ||{{yan}}||{{yan}}
|-
| {{LBY}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}|| || || || ||
|-
| {{SOM}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}
|-
| {{SSD}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}|| || || || || ||
|-
| {{SUD}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}|| || || || || || || ||{{yan}}
|-
| {{SYR}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}|| || || ||
|-
| {{YEM}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}||{{yan}}|| || || || ||
|-
|}