The strength of the Failed States Index is its ability to distill millions of pieces of information into a form that is relevant as well as easily digestible and informative. Daily, the Fund for Peace collects thousands of reports and information from around the world, detailing the existing social, economic and political pressures faced by each of the 177 countries that we analyze.

The Fund for Peace’s software performs content analysis on this collected information. Through sophisticated search parameters and algorithms, the CAST software separates the relevant data from the irrelevant. Guided by 12 primary social, economic and political indicators (each split into an average of 14 sub-indicators), the CAST software analyzes the collected information using specialized search terms that flag relevant items. This analysis is then converted using an algorithm into a score representing the significance of each of the various pressures for a given country.

The content analysis is further triangulated with two other key aspects of the overall assessment process: quantitative analysis and qualitative inputs based on major events in the countries examined. The scores produced by the Fund for Peace’s software are then compared with a comprehensive set of vital statistics—as well as human analysis—to ensure that the software has not misinterpreted the raw data. Though the basic data underpinning the Failed States Index is already freely and widely available electronically, the strength of the analysis is in the methodological rigor and the systematic integration of a wide range of data sources.

Downloadable Pocket Guide

Download the Report in PDF Format

Rating and Ranking

Each Indicator is rated on a 1 to 10 scale with 1 (low) being the most stable and 10 (high) being the most at-risk of collapse and violence. Think of it as trying to bring down a fever, with high being dangerous and low being acceptable. To understand the ratings, it helps to draw upon obvious historical examples to guide your understanding of the 1 to 10 scale. The complete inability of the Somali government to provide public services for its citizens would warrant a score of 10 for Indicator #8. Conversely, the extensive provision of health, education and other public services by the government of Sweden would produce a 1 or 2 for that same indicator. In another example, the significant external presence of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq or a UN peacekeeping mission would garner a score of 10 for Indicator #12. In contrast, while Myanmar faces significant destabilizing factors captured in the other indicators, its relative isolation from the international community and external influences would produce a much lower score of 2 or 3 in Indicator #12. It is important not to place an extreme amount of importance on small scoring differences. The larger trends and extensive data used that provide your rationale for changes will make the most valuable contribution to expert assessment.