This paper proposes an approach to empirically identify country groupings that are each characterised by a distinct constellation of state fragility. It builds upon a theoretical framework that distinguishes three dimensions of statehood: authority, legitimacy and state capacity. The study argues that current approaches towards measuring fragility do not properly account for the diversity of fragile situations. By assigning countries to certain problem constellations, this approach aims to lead to a better understanding of challenges in these countries; this approach is beyond the reach of one-dimensional approaches represented by many indexes on fragility. Such a differentiation of fragile states resonates with recent debates that have taken place in the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding and during the IDA16 replenishment process (International Development Association).
The methodology presented in the paper is based on an empirical data-driven typology of state fragility that lends itself towards ‘modestly generalizable policy implications’. It is geared towards identifying types of groups, but does not seek to assess exactly which group a certain country belongs to. The methodology is based on the assumption that the distribution of dimension scores is normal within each group. Using multivariate algorithm tests, the study tries to identify groups within the sample by looking at the sample’s shape of distribution.
Key Findings:
- The findings suggest that state fragility should be considered as a multi-dimensional concept, because policy-relevant information is lost when the three dimensions are collapsed into one. The assumption of many policy-makers that fragile countries differ and that they need separate approaches is justified. However, total idiosyncrasy is not justified.
- The results show nicely that it is not recommendable to measure a multi-dimensional concept such as fragility with a one-dimensional index score: Group D is worse than Group B in authority, but better in capacity. They are ‘non-comparable’ when considering authority and capacity simultaneously because nobody can tell how much authority could compensate for how much capacity. With the clustering approach, these non-comparable groups are distinguishable.
Recommendations:
- Tools should be further developed to identify clusters of fragility (or statehood more generally) and link them with an evaluation of the impact of different policy responses for each of these groups. This could serve as a better starting point for country-specific programming than what general notions of “fragility” have provided.
- The methodology presented in the study still needs some technical improvements. The sample size should be expanded to further refine the cluster results. The current results do not yet allow for a comparison over time. In order to make this comparison possible, certain aspects of the model would have to be changed to make results more stable and interpretable.
- The typology developed could potentially be used to sort policy approaches which tend to be more promising in some groups than in others. This would not be to substitute detailed in-case analysis, but to quickly grasp the manoeuvring space and reduce complexity for macro-analyses.
