CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 46Political Conflict and GovernancePeacebuilding and International SecurityGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics

Handle with care! A qualitative comparison of the fragile states index's bottom three countries: Central African Republic, Somalia and South Sudan

Open access
Glawion, Tim, de Vries, Lotje, Mehler, Andreas·2019·Development and Change
DOI 10.1111/dech.12417
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dech.12417

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The fragility index value has less robust results than an individual indicator as used in this study.

    “In panel data study observed that the fragility index value has less robust results than an individual indicator as used in this study [44,45,71].”

    From Do institutional governance and state fragility affect institutional quality in Asian economies? (2023) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Approaches and Constraints section says aggregation can distort FSI rankings, and the Conclusion says the index’s explanatory value is misleading without qualitative assessment of its indicators (page numbers unavailable). This supports caution about the aggregate index, but the paper is a qualitative comparison, not a panel-data study, and it does not report that an individual indicator produces more robust statistical results. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bradbury, M. (2008) Becoming Somaliland. Bloomington, IN, Oxford and London: African Issues.
  2. Lombard, L. (2015) 'The Autonomous Zone Conundrum: Armed Conservation and Rebellion in North-eastern CAR', in T. Carayannis and L. Lombard (eds) Making Sense of the Central African Republic, pp. 142-65. London: Zed Books.
  3. Marchal, R. (2015) 'CAR and the Regional (Dis)Order', in T. Carayannis and L. Lombard (eds) Making Sense of the Central African Republic, pp. 166-93. London: Zed Books.
  4. Marchal, R. and Z.M. Sheikh (2013) 'Ahlu Sunna Wal-Jama'a in Somalia', in P. Desplat and T. Ostebo (eds) Muslim Ethiopia: The Christian Legacy, Identity Politics, and Islamic Reformism, pp. 215-39. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  5. Wohlers, L.D. (2015) 'A Central African Elite Perspective on the Struggles of the Central African Republic', in T. Carayannis and L. Lombard (eds) Making Sense of the Central African Republic, pp. 295-318. London: Zed Books.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Glawion, T., de Vries, L., & Mehler, A.
ORCID
Venue
Development and Change
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-30
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
277-300
ISSN
  • 0012-155X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7660
DOI
10.1111/dech.12417
OpenAlex
W2808817240
Cited by
46
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2
FWCI
18.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Development and Change (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB700‐C10)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Peacebuilding and International Security
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Peace and Security Dynamics
Keywords
Fragile States Index, fragile states, Central African Republic, Somalia, South Sudan, security apparatus, external intervention, peacebuilding, intervention strategies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review