A: There are 177 states included in the 2010 index, compared to only 146 in 2006 and 75 in 2005.  A handful of countries were not included because of a lack of data. The Fund for Peace (FfP) is working to improve data collection and analysis by constantly adding additional sources.  Thanks to our ability to sift through mass amount of electronic data, we are not limited (as opposed to many Indices) to countries for which statistics are available, which often means having to ignore some of the most threatened areas in the world. 

A: Only recognized sovereign states based on UN membership are included in the Failed States Index.  Thus, several territories – such as Taiwan, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Kosovo whose status is not final – will be excluded until their political status and UN membership is ratified. Also excluded are some states for which there is insufficient data.  In the case of the Palestinian Territories, they are included as part of the assessment of Israel, since international law places governance responsibilities on the occupying power. The Fund for Peace may focus on specific states or territories irrespective of recognized state boundaries in other projects, but The Failed States Index uses a consistent standard of UN membership as the basis for inclusion, and international law is used for identifying governing powers. 

A: The Fund for Peace methodology triangulates data from three primary sources and subjects them to critical review to obtain final scores for the Failed States Index. The main data collection methods are content analysis (electronic scanning), quantitative data, and qualitative input.

First, we download millions of documents, including a variety of digitized news articles, essays, magazine pieces, speeches, and government and non-government reports (we do not use blogs, twitter, or other social media.) Then, we apply our content analysis software to scan the documents using Boolean phrases on indicators within our CAST framework. The data used in each index are collected from the preceding year and stored on our servers so that we can go back to them when needed. Our search landscape has expanded from 90,000 to 115,000 online English-language publications worldwide, giving us a wide variety of data sources upon which to base our findings. Filters built into the software extract irrelevant or erroneous documents so the search can zero in on the specific subject matter defined in the Boolean phrases, and correct for false positives, pack journalism, and media drift.  

Second,  we incorporate quantitative data from reputable institutions, such as the UNHCR, WHO, UNDP, Transparency International, World Factbook, Freedom House, World Bank, and other reliable sources.   Third, the results are compared with insights from a separate qualitative review of each indicator for each country. 

Taken together, the three methods serve as  internal checks.  Aggregated data are normalized and scaled from 0-10 to obtain final scores for 12 social, economic and political/military indicators for 177 countries. These results are then critically reviewed by analysts different from those who conducted the original research. 

This multi-stage process has several layers of scrutiny to ensure the highest standards of methodological rigor,  the broadest possible information base including both quantitative and qualitative expertise, and the greatest accuracy.

Social Indicators

1.  Mounting Demographic Pressures
2.  Massive Movement of Refugees or Internally Displaced Persons
3.  Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or Group Paranoia
4.  Chronic and Sustained Human Flight

Economic Indicators

5.  Uneven Economic Development along Group Lines
6.  Sharp and/or Severe Economic Decline

Political and Military Indicators

7.  Criminalization and/or Delegitimization of the State
8.  Progressive Deterioration of Public Services
9.  Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Human Rights Abuse
10. Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State"
11. Rise of Factionalized Elites
12. Intervention of Other States or External Political Actors

For further explanation, see our Indicators page.

A: The rank order of the states is based on the total scores of the 12 indicators. For each indicator, the ratings are placed on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being the lowest intensity (most stable) and 10 being the highest intensity (least stable). The total score is the sum of the 12 indicators and is on a scale of 0-120.

In the article, the 60 countries in the Index are divided into three equal parts for easy reference: Critical (red), In Danger (orange), and Borderline (yellow). On the index's global map, additional countries that ranked higher than 60 are colored yellow. Countries with scores between 30 and 59.9 are considered Stable (dark grey). Countries that have scores lower than 30 are categorized as Most Stable (light grey).

This coloring scheme differs slightly from the original FfP methodology, which it still employs in its reports, such as the Iraq Reports and Country Profiles. FfP's original methodology breaks the countries into four colored zones based on their aggregate scores. A country in the "Alert" zone has an aggregate score between 90 and 120. A country that is colored orange, the "Warning" zone, scores between 60 and 89.9. A country colored yellow, the "Monitoring" zone, has an aggregate score between 30 and 59.9. A country colored green, the "Sustainable" zone, has an aggregate score of 29.9 or less.

It is important to note that these ratings do not necessarily forecast when states may experience violence or collapse. Rather, they measure vulnerability to collapse or conflict. All countries in the red, orange, or yellow categories display features that make significant parts of their societies and institutions vulnerable to failure. The pace and direction of change, either positive or negative, varies. Some in the yellow zone may be failing at a faster rate than those in the more dangerous orange or red zones, and therefore could experience violence sooner. Conversely, some in the red zone, though critical, may exhibit some positive signs of recovery or be deteriorating slowly, giving them time to adopt mitigating strategies. (Further insights are available when the CAST methodology is applied over different time periods.) 

A: A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. The 12 indicators cover a wide range of state failure risk elements such as extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination, severe demographic pressures, brain drain, and environmental decay. States can fail at varying rates through explosion, implosion, erosion, or invasion over different time periods. 

A: During the past decade, the CAST methodology has been peer reviewed in several different environments, including by independent scholars and experts as well as educational, government, and private-sector agencies and institutions that have evaluated it for alternative uses. In each application, CAST is refined and updated. Governments use it, among other things, for early warning and to design economic assistance strategies that can reduce the potential for conflict and promote development in fragile states. The military uses it to strengthen situational awareness, enhance readiness, and apply strategic metrics to evaluate success in peace and stability operations. The private sector uses it to calculate political risk for investment opportunities. Multinational organizations and a range of other entities find it useful for modeling and gaming, management of complex organizations, and for conflict-risk assessments. Educators use it to train students in analyzing war and peace issues by blending the techniques of information technology with social science. And the countries being rated use it for self-assessment to gauge their own stability and performance on objective criteria. 

A: It was a team effort. In addition to outside experts who helped FfP develop the methodology during its years of testing and validation, and former president Pauline H. Baker who led the project for its early years, the core FfP team consists of Kenneth C. Brill, Krista Hendry, Nate Haken, J. J. Messner, Patricia Taft and Joelle Burbank. The article on the index in Foreign Policy was done in collaboration with its editors.

A: The Failed States Index presents a diagnosis of the problem, the first step in devising strategies for strengthening weak and failing states. The more reliably policymakers can anticipate, monitor, and measure problems, the more they can act to prevent violent breakdowns, protect civilians caught in the crossfire, and promote recovery. At the same time, policymakers must focus on building the institutional capacity of weak states, particularly the "core five" institutions: military, police, civil service, the system of justice, and leadership. Policies should be tailored to the needs of each state, monitored and evaluated intensively, and changed, as necessary, if recovery is not occurring as intended. Continuous monitoring of the measures, using the same assessment methodology, can inform decision making on strategies and programs. 

A: Yes. The most dramatic ones are those that did it without outside military or administrative intervention. In the 1970s, analysts predicted dire consequences, including mass famine and internal violence in India, citing rapid population growth, economic mismanagement, and extensive poverty and corruption. Today, India has turned itself around. It is the world's largest democracy, with a competitive economy and a representative political system. Similarly, South Africa appeared headed for a violent race war in the 1980s, but it pulled back from the brink in a negotiated settlement that ushered in a new era of majority rule, a liberal constitution, and the destruction of its nuclear weapons program. In the past year, since the 2005 index, several countries that were teetering on the edge improved measurably. Indonesia, after experiencing years of internal crises, has made steady progress due in large part to President Susilo Banbamg Yudhoyono's dedication to military and political reform. The Dominican Republic, which was devastated by a 2004 hurricane and tested by refugee flows from neighboring Haiti, also managed to make steady progress in 2005. Bosnia, which for years stagnated, has also begun to recover slowly, thanks in part to significant efforts by the European Union to stabilize the country and revive its economy. 

A: The raw data are from millions of news articles and reports. As a practical matter, it is not readily transferable without the methodology and the software. However, the index values can be downloaded for free from this Web site.

A: Sometimes, it may appear that the indicator scores for a country do not add up exactly to the total score. This does not indicate an error in the data. Rather, this is due to the rounding up- or down- of scores to one decimal place. Take this example from 2011:

The sum of the original indicator scores, when rounded to one decimal point, is the same for both countries, 49.3. However, the sum of the rounded (to one decimal point) indicator scores totals 49.1 and 49.4. Why the variance?

The indicator scores are presented as numbers to one decimal place when in actuality, they are sometimes scored to many decimal places. Thus, the number that is presented in the data provided on the grids and in much of our literature is only a rounded (-up or -down) representation of a much more precise number. The total score upon which countries are ranked is actually a sum of the original multiple-decimal-place indicator scores, not the rounded-up numbers. Because of this, the total score may be one or two decimal points off of the sum of the individual rounded indicator scores due to variance introduced through rounding up or down.

Also, in this instance, even though there is a 0.0698656921792136 point difference between Estonia and Oman, we view this is statistically insignificant and therefore the two countries are considered to be tied at 140th, as their total score, rounded to one decimal point, is the same.

For a full representation of the indicator scores to multiple decimal places, please refer to the spreadsheets, which are available for download from the Failed States Index grid score pages.