Handle with Care! A Qualitative Comparison of the Fragile States Index's Bottom Three Countries: Central African Republic, Somalia and South Sudan

Abstract

For the past four years, the Fund for Peace has ranked the Central African Republic, Somalia and South Sudan as the 'most fragile states' in the world, in its annual Fragile States Index (FSI). The three countries' almost identical scores suggest comparability; however, critics raise concerns about the FSI's data aggregation methods, and its conflation of causes and consequences. This article treads the uncharted path of unpacking the empirical realities that hide behind FSI indicators. Drawing on data collected during field research in the three states, the authors investigate three security indicators (security apparatus, factionalized elites, and external intervention) and propose an alternative, qualitative appreciation. Each country's fragility is based on how security forces, elites and interventions evolved over time and installed themselves differently in each region of the country. The qualitative assessment presented here shows that not every indicator matters in all cases at all times or throughout the country. Most crucially, the authors unveil enormous differences between and within the FSI's three 'most fragile states'. Such variations call for better-adapted and more flexible intervention strategies, and for quantitative comparisons to be qualitatively grounded.

Ruptures revoked: why the Central African Republic's unprecedented crisis has not altered deep-seated patterns of governance

“…The continuities we describe are not exclusive to the CAR, but important differences remain in states that seem similar at first sight (Glawion et al 2018). In the wider region, political authority is shared, contested and divided between a wide array of actors (Debos 2011; Mehler 2013).…”

Impact of institutional governance and state determinants on foreign direct investment in Asian economies

“…The study states that a stable political environment positively impacted national growth by giving a positive sign to national and international investors (De Vaal & Ebben, 2011). A sound political environment and market progression attract foreign investment, boosting the economic cycle (Cicatiello et al, 2020;Glawion et al, 2019). Based on the literature, the study constitutes a hypothesis: H2: Political stability positive significant impacts on FDI.…”

“…The recent studies of Padmanabhan et al (2020), Bahoo et al (2020), and Cicatiello et al (2020), based on empirical analysis, validate that corruption prevalence negatively affects FDI. Other studies of Glawion et al (2019) and McKay and Thorbecke (2019) reported that a country's vulnerability plays a prominent role in refraining foreign investment country and vice versa. Because if the state environment and government policies become agile and investor-friendly, people happily invest in numerous ventures.…”

“…Because if the state environment and government policies become agile and investor-friendly, people happily invest in numerous ventures. Hayat (2019), Glawion et al (2019), andMcKay andThorbecke (2019) studied the institutional governance, state fragility, and FDI association in European and African countries by employing the application of generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation. However, the trend in Asian economies has not been studied yet by considering governance and state determinants together.…”

Impact of Domestic and Transboundary Conflicts on Militarization

“…Moreover, this indicator summarizes the social, ethnic unity and structural fragmentation. Researchers have discovered evidence that social cohesion is significantly impacted by Militarization (Baliamoune, 2009), especially in underdeveloped countries (Glawion, 2018& McKay, 2019.…”