J. Peter Pham
12 September 2008
guest column
The Failed States Index (FSI) for 2008 is out. The annual report by Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund for Peace, now in its fourth year, uses twelve social, economic, and political indicators to rank the countries of the world for their state vulnerability or risk of violence; the higher the score, the greater the risks of being labeled a "failed state".
However, a closer examination of this year's results—and a review of those reported in previous years—raises the question of whether the index forecasts failure or, however unintentionally, precipitates it. This is particularly germane in the case of African countries working to generate jobs and much-needed income through trade and investment.
As a scholar of Africa, I was not in the least bit surprised that more than half of the twenty countries in the FSI's red "alert zone" were on the African continent. That Somalia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe should be ranked first, second, and third, respectively, in terms of danger of collapse is unremarkable. Somalia, for example, having had no effective government for about 17 years, has degenerated into a Hobbesian state of nature where life is indeed "poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
In contrast, some of the other index rankings are downright puzzling. Each year Israel has slid in the rankings and now appears among the 60 weakest states. Côte d'Ivoire's total score for "indicators of instability" has remained virtually unchanged despite a peace agreement and considerable progress toward national reconciliation the last two years. Ironically, Kenya, which was racked by violence following last December's presidential election which took some 1,500 lives and left at least a quarter of a million people homeless, was ranked 18 places higher than Côte d'Ivoire which has seen virtually no violence in 18 months.
Such disconnect indicates that the problem may not be with some countries so much as with the index itself. The authors of the annual assessment have fallen into that trap whereby political and other social scientists try to appear more "scientific" by aping their counterparts in the natural sciences. While everything in nature is quantifiable, human societies are more complex and do not as readily lend themselves to having numbers assigned.
But the designers of the Failed States Index nonetheless give it the old college try. What they basically do is run software that indexes and scans thousands of articles and other reports, usually in the last six months of the year before the index is published. The software scores these articles on twelve social, economic and political indicators. The ranking of the countries is based on a total combined score (this year, first-ranked Somalia scored 114.2, while 177th-ranked Norway scored 16.8).
While this method may be useful for taking a one-time "snapshot," its fatal flaw is its failure to account for the fact that the index itself can end up driving the reports on which its next edition draws, becoming, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.
Take the case of Uganda, which is now listed in the index as more unstable than in the past: it ranks 16th out of 177 countries in terms of indicators of instability in the current index, compared to 27th when the FSI was unveiled in 2005. That conclusion contradicts the reality of the East African country which, far from being a candidate for failure, has been one of the most successful cases of a state turning itself around in the world, not just Africa.
Since the late 1980s, Uganda has rebounded through a combination of determined political will and willingness to adapt. Economic reforms introduced under President Yoweri Museveni, including privatization of state enterprises, restructuring the financial sector, liberalization of the coffee industry and increased public investment in health and education, have more than tripled Uganda's GDP in real terms and encouraged private investment.
The improving economy has lifted the income of all Ugandans—the poverty rate has been slashed nearly in half even as the population has nearly doubled to 28 million—and the overall standard of living has improved considerably when one considers measures like infant mortality, access to clean water, adult literacy and school enrollment.
While there have been concerns about the government's handling of some of its political opponents, the reality is that Uganda is an island of freedom and stability when compared with larger neighbors like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. On the security front, one of Africa's longest-running conflicts, the two-decade long rebellion in northern Uganda by the Lord's Resistance Army, is winding down. Uganda currently also contributes military personnel to six United Nations peacekeeping operations in addition to the 1,600 troops who currently make up two-thirds of the African Union mission to Somalia.
Not surprisingly, last year Uganda qualified for funding through the Millennium Challenge Account, the United States government program which provides assistance to countries on the basis of their commitment to policies that promote political and economic freedom, investments in education and health, control of corruption and respect for civil liberties and the rule of law.
Despite this abundant evidence of Uganda's significant qualitative progress in recent years, the FSI reports a steady quantitative decline since the index's inception: from a score of 91.7 in 2005 to 96.1 in 2008.
Moreover, since the publication of the current rankings, Uganda has been the subject of a number of negative press reports, many by media outlets which rarely cover Africa but which may have been influenced by the "potential failed state" tag to cast a look at the country in search of flaws allegedly indicative of its vulnerability to implosion. And because of the index's methodology, these multiplying reports will, in turn, further adversely impact the country's ranking in next year's index.
Unfortunately, the adage that bad news is better than no news may be true in Hollywood, but it certainly does not apply on the international stage. In transitioning societies, loose talk about state collapse being "just one disaster away" can heighten political tensions and scare away much-needed investment capital, bringing about the very failure that tools like the FSI are supposed to serve as timely alerts against. And for countries like Uganda, which has achieved considerable results despite the obstacles in its path, to be undercut like that would be doubly tragic.
J. Peter Pham is Director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University and a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2008 allAfrica.com. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
This may be a case of statistics being manipulated to advance agendas of one kind or another. I don't know much about countries like Isreal, but doesn't Israel have some kind of instability in that their governements are changing so frequently ? The prime ministership is almost a revolving door. And they have the palestinian state demands with its ever pulpable attendant violence to contend with.
This is an African forum so I will comment on Africa and Uganda in particular. Uganda is probably a case of garbage in garbage out. The index or the inferences one can derive from the index don't bear out on what is happening on the ground. The quality of life for most Ugandans is worse not better. I will rattle off a few. Elemetary schooling is free, but the quality of education is laughable if it wasn't sad, because the schools are graduating pupils who can hardly read or write let alone do mathematics. Moreover the parents can't afford to pay for the minimum requirements that aren't free, like lunches and books or uniforms even though the school tuition is of course free. The medical services are basically non-existent; there are no hospitals with doctors and nurses, just as there are no medicines to dispense. The level of corruption is going through the roof and it is so endemic it has become a sub-culture to be defended in public; and sometimes by a head of state himself. The economic indicators they are using are misleading because a corrupt environment only drives away any would be investors and their capital. It not only makes it costly to do business, but it is also distrustful since it doesn't inspire confidence. There is not any market-capitalist Ugandan or otherwise willing to invest in a corruption ridden environment. The infrastructure is non existent; it is hard find a good road, clean water, and so on and so forth. To top it all the political climate is deteorating fast. It is an autocratic government where all decisions are made solely by the head of state; including sometimes amending the constitution in middle of the night with his cohorts. Now the government is holding a tight lid on the security situation so you get this misleading impression of a peace on the surface when in reality there is a lot of discontent and resentment simmering below, ready to burst and explode any moment.There is not a statistical parameter that can capture and reflect such a rather nuanced and cloudy scenario like that. So you have this false indices reflecting and presentig an erroneous state of favorable ratings on economic growth, say. This could probably make sense if you surveyed the seat of government where the ruling elite reside, beyond its environs you would be hard pressed to find this rosy picture that is constantly being portrayed or reported by these international instutions who more likely than not have their own agendas to advance. In the Uganda's case the international institutions are so much hungry to present a success story, they will to incredible lengths creat a success story largely to account for their exploits and win more funding next time around. And it doesn't hurt that they have found will good pupils in the rulers of countries like Uganda, who have never met any internationally sponsored study or project they didn't like. In the final analysis it is only statistics the true MATHEMATICS doesn't add up.