Abstract
Motivation
The measurement of the fragility of countries continues to be a growing field, although there is less and less consensus on the definition of fragility. Moreover, quantifying highly complex concepts such as state fragility involves assumptions that differ substantially across indices. Yet, interest in advancing the ways of capturing fragility remains high. Therefore, it raises the question of why the fragility community remains invested in the concept despite the notable challenges and how we can make sense of the different fragility measures available today.
Purpose
This article considers why there are so many fragility indices and how they can be most useful to scholars and the international community. We contribute to a growing debate on this issue by explaining why multilateral organizations and donors are still invested in expanding the concept and by carrying out a stocktake of the current indices as well as offering suggestions about how to make sense of them.
Approach and methods
We identify the most widely used measures of state fragility and evaluate them according to the basic criteria for developing such indices as set out in the literature. We unpack the underlying source indicators to understand what the fragility indices ultimately tell us. We then briefly compare some of the current classifications as an example of how different definitions can result in inconsistent rankings.
Findings
A review of the available indices reveals that they can be sources of useful signals. However, there is also extraneous noise due to sourcing problems, problems of double-counting, or data time-lags.
Policy implications
Beyond reliance on composite indices, policy-makers can leverage publicly available indicators to define their own vision of an optimal state and identify targeted areas for improvement, fostering more context-specific and actionable strategies. Such an approach enables better use of underlying data for strategic planning and sustainable development, while ensuring that policies are reflective of the actual needs of fragile states.