Editing Failed state (section)

== Measurement ==
The measurement methods of state failure are generally divided into the quantitative and qualitative approach.

===Quantitative approach===
Quantitative measurement of state failure often focuses on the developmental level of the state (e.g. the ''Freedom House Index'' (FHI), the ''Human Development Index'' (HDI), or the ''World Bank Governance Indicators''). Additionally, regional evaluation might give concrete details about the level of democracy such as the Report of Democratic Development in Latin America (''Informe de desarrollo democrático de América Latina'').<ref>see: Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation & Polilat 2013, [http://www.idd-lat.org/2013/downloads/idd-lat-2013.pdf see Report for Latin America].</ref>

==== Fragile States Index ====
{{main|Fragile States Index}}
[[File:Fragile States Index 2023.svg|thumb|Countries according to the 2023 Fragile States Index
{{div col|colwidth=12em|style=vertical-align:top; text-align:left;}}
{{Legend|#6a0900|Very high alert (111–120)}}
{{Legend|#c01e00|High alert (101–110)}}
{{Legend|#ff5500|Alert (91–100)}}
{{Legend|#ff8201|High warning (81–90)}}
{{Legend|#ffba00|Elevated warning (71–80)}}
{{Legend|#f5ff00|Warning (61–70)}}
{{Legend|#c8ff00|Less stable (51–60)}}
{{Legend|#88d100|Stable (41–50)}}
{{Legend|#128200|More stable (31–40)}}
{{Legend|#005203|Sustainable (21–30)}}
{{Legend|#003602|Very sustainable (0–20)}}
{{Legend|#d9d9d9|Data unavailable}}
{{div col end}}|upright=2.2]]
The Fragile States Index, first published in 2005, measures "failed state" qualities more explicitly. Edited by the magazine ''[[Foreign Policy]]'', the ranking examines 178 countries based on analytical research of the Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST) of the Fund for Peace.<ref>{{cite web | title=The Methodology Behind the Index | website=ffp.statesindex.org | date=2013-09-27 | url=http://ffp.statesindex.org/methodology | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150310030433/http://ffp.statesindex.org/methodology | archive-date=2015-03-10 | url-status=dead}}</ref> In the 2015 report, written by the [[Fund for Peace]], there are three groupings: social, economic, and political with overall of twelve indicators.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/indicators|title=Indicators {{!}} The Fund for Peace|website=fsi.fundforpeace.org|access-date=2016-01-25|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160113011106/http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/indicators|archive-date=2016-01-13}}</ref>

Social indicators:
* Demographic pressures
* Refugees or internally displaced persons
* Group grievance
* Human flight and brain drain

Economic indicators:
* Uneven economic development
* Poverty and economic decline

Political and military indicators:
* State legitimacy
* Public services
* Human rights and rule of law
* Security apparatus
* Factionalized elites
* External intervention

In the 2015 Index, South Sudan ranked number one, Somalia number two, and the Central African Republic number three. Finland was the most stable and sustainable country in the list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/rankings-2015|title=The Fund for Peace|access-date=25 January 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150627191325/http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/rankings-2015|archive-date=27 June 2015}}</ref>

While the FSI is used in many pieces of research and makes the categorization of states more pragmatic, it often receives much criticism for several reasons:
# It does not include the Human Development Index to reach the final score but instead focuses on institutions to measure what are often also considered human aspects for development.
# It parallels the fragility or vulnerability of states with underdevelopment. This comparison firstly assumes that underdevelopment (economic) creates vulnerability, thus assuming that if a state is "developed" it is stable or sustainable.
# It measures the failure (or success) of a state without including the progress of other areas outside the sphere of the 12 indicators, thus excluding important measures of development such as the decline in child mortality rates, and increased access to clean water sources and medication, amongst others.

FSI is used by governments, organizations, educators and analysts, sometimes to highlight the issues that cause threats.

=== Qualitative approach ===

The qualitative approach embraces theoretical frameworks. Normally, this type of measurement applies stage models to allow the categorization of states. In three to five stages, researchers show state failure as a process. Notable researchers, inter alia, are [[Robert I. Rotberg]] in the Anglo-American and Ulrich Schneckener in the German sphere.

Ulrich Schneckener's (2006) stage model defines three core elements, [[monopoly of violence]], legitimacy, and rule of law. The typology is based on the ''security first'' logic and thus, shows the relevance of the monopoly of violence in comparison to the other two while at the same time acting as the precondition for a functioning state. His four statehood types are: (1) consolidated and consolidating states, (2) weak states, (3) failing, and (4) collapsed/failed states. The first type is directed towards functioning states; all core functions of the state are functioning in the long term. In weak states, the monopoly of force is still intact, but the other two areas show serious deficits. Failing states lack the monopoly of force, while the other areas function at least partially. Finally, collapsed or failed states are dominated by parastatal structures characterized by actors trying to create a certain internal order, but the state cannot sufficiently serve the three core elements.<ref>{{cite book |last=Schneckener |first=Ulrich |year=2004 |chapter=States at Risk – zur Analyse fragiler Staatlichkeit. Welcome back – Staatszerfall als Problem der internationalen Politik |title=States at Risk. Fragile Staaten als Sicherheits- und Entwicklungsproblem |publisher=SWP Studie Berlin |url=http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/studien/2004_S43_skr_ks.pdf}}</ref>

Both research approaches show some irregularities. While the quantitative approach lacks transparency concerning its indicators and their balancing in the evaluation process of countries, the qualitative approach shows a diversity of different foci. One of the major discrepancies is the question of whether all the stages have to be taken continuously or if a state can skip one phase. Schneckener stresses that his model should actually not be interpreted as a stage model as, in his opinion, states do not necessarily undergo every stage. Robert I. Rotberg's model underlies an ordinal logic and thus, implies that the state failure process is a chronological chain of phases.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Rotberg |first1=Robert I. |year=2004 |chapter=The Failure and Collapse of Nation-States: Break-down, Prevention, and Repair |chapter-url=http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7666.pdf |editor1-last=Rotberg |editor1-first=Robert I. |title=When States Fail: Causes and Consequences |location=Princeton |publisher=Princeton University Press }}</ref>