Failed state

"Failed states" redirects here. For the Propagandhi album, see Failed States (album). For the Noam Chomsky book, see Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy.

"Failed government" redirects here. It is not to be confused with government failure.

A failed state is a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government. There is no general consensus on the definition of a failed state. The definition of a failed state according to the Fund for Peace is often used to characterize a failed state:

• loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein
• erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions
• an inability to provide public services
• an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline.

The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities. Furthermore, the declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.

Definitional issues

A state could be said to "succeed" if it maintains, according to sociologist Max Weber, a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (e.g., through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state. The difficulty of determining whether a government maintains "a monopoly on the legitimate use of force", which includes the problems of the definition of "legitimate", means it is not clear precisely when a state can be said to have "failed." The problem of legitimacy can be solved by understanding what Weber intended by it. Weber clearly explains that only the state has the means of production necessary for physical violence (politics as vocation). This means that the state does not require legitimacy for achieving monopoly on having the means of violence (de facto), but will need one if it needs to use it (de jure).

Typically, the term means that the state has been rendered ineffective and is not able to enforce its laws uniformly because of (variously) high crime rates, extreme political corruption, an impenetrable and ineffective bureaucracy, judicial ineffectiveness, military interference in politics, and cultural situations in which traditional leaders wield more power than the state over a certain area. Other factors of perception may be involved. A derived concept of "failed cities" has also been launched, based on the notion that while a state may function in general, polities at the substate level may collapse in terms of infrastructure, economy and social policy. Certain areas or cities may even fall outside state control, becoming a de facto ungoverned part of the state.

The spread of the term "failed state" has been criticized by policy researchers for being arbitrary and sensationalist. William Easterly and Laura Freschi have argued that the concept of state failure "has no coherent definition", and only serves the policy goals of Western states to militarily intervene in other states. The British writer Anatol Lieven draws a distinction between the "genuinely failed and failing" states of Sub-Saharan Africa with the states of South Asia, whose rulers he says "have not traditionally exercised direct control over... most of their territory and have always faced continual armed resistance somewhere or other". Although he concedes that Pakistan might be considered "failed" when compared to the industrialized states of Western Europe, he criticizes how commentators use the War in North-West Pakistan to brand Pakistan as "failed", while not doing the same for the proportionally more serious Naxalite insurgency in India or the Sri Lankan Civil War.

Transnational Crime, Terrorism & Failed or Failing States

The international community is confronted with an increasing level of transnational crime in which criminal conduct in one country has an impact in another or even several others. Drug trafficking, human trafficking, computer crimes, terrorism, and a host of other crimes can involve actors operating outside the borders of a country which might have a significant interest in stemming the activity in question and prosecuting the perpetrator. Research by James Piazza of the Pennsylvania State University finds evidence that states suffering from state failure experience and produce more terrorist attacks. Contemporary transnational crimes take advantage of globalization, trade liberalization and exploding new technologies to perpetrate diverse crimes and to move money, goods, services and people instantaneously for purposes of perpetrating violence for political ends.

Moreover, problems of weakened states and transnational crime create an unholy confluence that is uniquely challenging. When a criminal operates outside the territory of an offended state, the offended state might ordinarily appeal to the state from which the criminal is operating to take some sort of action, such as to prosecute the offender domestically or extradite the offender so that he or she may face punishment in the offended state. Nonetheless, in situations in which a government is unable (or unwilling) to cooperate in the arrest or prosecution of a criminal, the offended state has few options for recourse.

Failed States Index

See also: List of countries by Failed States Index

Since 2005, the United States think-tank Fund for Peace and the magazine Foreign Policy have published an annual index called the Failed States Index. The list only assesses sovereign states (as determined by membership in the United Nations). Several territories are excluded until their political status and UN membership is ratified in international law. For example, Taiwan, the Palestinian Territories, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, and Western Sahara are not included in the list, even though some are recognized as sovereign states by some nations. Ranking is based on the total scores of the 12 indicators (see below.) 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.

Indicators of state vulnerability

The index's ranks are based on twelve indicators of state vulnerability - four social, two economic and six political. The indicators are not designed to forecast when states may experience violence or collapse. Instead, they are meant to measure a state's vulnerability to collapse or conflict. All countries in the red (Alert, FSI of 90 or more), orange (Warning, FSI of 60 or more), or yellow (Moderate, FSI of 30 or more) categories display some features that make parts of their societies and institutions vulnerable to failure. 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.

Social indicators

1. Demographic pressures: including the pressures deriving from high population density relative to food supply and other life-sustaining resources. The pressure from a population's settlement patterns and physical settings, including border disputes, ownership or occupancy of land, access to transportation outlets, control of religious or historical sites, and proximity to environmental hazards.
2. Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced persons: forced uprooting of large communities as a result of random or targeted violence and/or repression, causing food shortages, disease, lack of clean water, land competition, lack of public housing, and turmoil that can spiral into larger humanitarian and security problems, both within and between countries.
3. Legacy of vengeance-seeking group grievance: based on recent or past injustices, which could date back centuries. Including atrocities committed with impunity against communal groups and/or specific groups singled out by state authorities, or by dominant groups, for persecution or repression. Institutionalized political exclusion. Public scapegoating of groups believed to have acquired wealth, status or power as evidenced in the emergence of "hate" radio, pamphleteering and stereotypical or nationalistic political rhetoric.
4. Chronic and sustained human flight: both the "brain drain" of professionals, intellectuals and political dissidents and voluntary emigration of "the middle class." Growth of exile/expatriate communities are also used as part of this indicator.

Economic indicators

5. Uneven economic development along group lines: determined by group-based inequality, or perceived inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status. Also measured by group-based poverty levels, infant mortality rates, education levels.
6. Sharp and/or severe economic decline: measured by a progressive economic decline of the society as a whole (using: per capita income, GNP, debt, child mortality rates, poverty levels, business failures.) A sudden drop in commodity prices, trade revenue, foreign investment or debt payments. Collapse or devaluation of the national currency and a growth of hidden economies, including the drug trade, smuggling, and capital flight. Failure of the state to pay salaries of government employees and armed forces or to meet other financial obligations to its citizens, such as pension payments.

Political indicators

7. Criminalization and/or delegitimisation of the state: endemic corruption or profiteering by ruling elites and resistance to transparency, accountability and political representation. Includes any widespread loss of popular confidence in state institutions and processes.
8. Progressive deterioration of public services: a disappearance of basic state functions that serve the people, including failure to protect citizens from terrorism and violence and to provide essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation. Also using the state apparatus for agencies that serve the ruling elites, such as the security forces, presidential staff, central bank, diplomatic service, customs and collection agencies.
9. Widespread violation of human rights: an emergence of authoritarian, dictatorial or military rule in which constitutional and democratic institutions and processes are suspended or manipulated. Outbreaks of politically inspired (as opposed to criminal) violence against innocent civilians. A rising number of political prisoners or dissidents who are denied due process consistent with international norms and practices. Any widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights, including those of individuals, groups or cultural institutions (e.g., harassment of the press, politicization of the judiciary, internal use of military for political ends, public repression of political opponents, religious or cultural persecution.)
10. Security apparatus as "state within a state": an emergence of elite or praetorian guards that operate with impunity. Emergence of state-sponsored or state-supported private militias that terrorize political opponents, suspected "enemies," or civilians seen to be sympathetic to the opposition. An "army within an army" that serves the interests of the dominant military or political clique. Emergence of rival militias, guerilla forces or private armies in an armed struggle or protracted violent campaigns against state security forces.
11. Rise of factionalised elites: a fragmentation of ruling elites and state institutions along group lines. Use of aggressive nationalistic rhetoric by ruling elites, especially destructive forms of communal irredentism or communal solidarity (e.g., "ethnic cleansing", "defending the faith").
12. Intervention of other states or external factors: military or Paramilitary engagement in the internal affairs of the state at risk by outside armies, states, identity groups or entities that affect the internal balance of power or resolution of the conflict. Intervention by donors, especially if there is a tendency towards over-dependence on foreign aid or peacekeeping missions.

Failed states list

2012

177 states were included in the list, of which 33 were classified as "alert", 92 as "warning", 39 as "moderate", 13 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rank from 2011 is shown in parentheses.

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2012" of Foreign Policy

  Alert

  Warning

  No Information / Dependent Territory

  Moderate

  Sustainable

1. Somalia (0)
2. Democratic Republic of the Congo (+2)
3. Sudan (0)
4. Chad (-2)
5. Zimbabwe (+1)
6. Afghanistan (+1)
7. Haiti (-2)
8. Yemen (+5)
9. Iraq (0)
10. Central African Republic (-2)
11. Ivory Coast (-1)
12. Guinea (-1)
13. Pakistan (-1)
14. Nigeria (0)
15. Guinea-Bissau (+3)
16. Kenya (0)
17. Ethiopia (+3)
18. Burundi (-1)
19. Niger (-4)
20. Uganda (+1)

2011

177 states were included in the list, of which 35 were classified as "alert", 88 as "warning", 40 as "moderate", 11 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rank from 2010 is shown in parentheses. There was a tie between Myanmar and Guinea Bissau for 18th.

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2011" of Foreign Policy

  Alert

  Warning

  No Information / Dependent Territory

  Moderate

  Sustainable

1. Somalia (0)
2. Chad (0)
3. Sudan (0)
4. Democratic Republic of the Congo (+1)
5. Haiti (+6)
6. Zimbabwe (-2)
7. Afghanistan (-1)
8. Central African Republic (0)
9. Iraq (-2)
10. Ivory Coast (+2)
11. Guinea (-2)
12. Pakistan (-2)
13. Yemen (+2)
14. Nigeria (0)
15. Niger (+5)
16. Kenya (-3)
17. Burundi (+6)
18. - Guinea-Bissau (+4)
19. - Burma (-2)
20. Ethiopia (-3)

2010

177 states were included in the list, of which 37 were classified as "alert", 92 as "warning", 35 as "moderate", 13 as "sustainable". The lowest 20 states are shown below. For the entire ranking see List of countries by Failed States Index. Change in rank from 2009 is shown in parentheses. There was a tie for 19th place between North Korea and Niger.

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2010" of Foreign Policy

  Alert

  Warning

  No Information / Dependent Territory

  Moderate

  Sustainable

1. Somalia (0)
2. Chad (+2)
3. Sudan (0)
4. Zimbabwe (-2)
5. Democratic Republic of the Congo (0)
6. Afghanistan (+1)
7. Iraq (-1)
8. Central African Republic (0)
9. Guinea (0)
10. Pakistan (0)
11. Haiti (+1)
12. Ivory Coast (-1)
13. Kenya (+1)
14. Nigeria (+1)
15. Yemen (+4)
16. Burma (-3)
17. Ethiopia (-1)
18. East Timor (+2)
19. - North Korea (-2)
20. - Niger (+4)

2009

177 states were included in the list, of which 38 were classified as "alert", 93 as "warning", 33 as "moderate", 13 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rank from 2008 is shown in parentheses.

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2009" of Foreign Policy

1. Somalia (0)
2. Zimbabwe (+1)
3. Sudan (-1)
4. Chad (0)
5. Democratic Republic of the Congo (+1)
6. Iraq (-1)
7. Afghanistan (0)
8. Central African Republic (+2)
9. Guinea (+2)
10. Pakistan (-1)
11. Ivory Coast (-3)
12. Haiti (+2)
13. Burma (0)
14. Kenya (+12)
15. Nigeria (+3)
16. Ethiopia (0)
17. North Korea (-2)
18. Yemen (+3)
19. Bangladesh (-7)
20. East Timor (+5)

2008

177 states were included in the list, of which 35 were classified as "alert", 92 as "warning", 35 as "moderate", 15 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rank from 2007 is shown in parentheses.

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2008" of Foreign Policy

  Alert

  Warning

  No Information / Dependent Territory

  Moderate

  Sustainable

1. Somalia (+2)
2. Sudan (-1)
3. Zimbabwe (+1)
4. Chad (+1)
5. Iraq (-3)
6. Democratic Republic of the Congo (+1)
7. Afghanistan (+1)
8. Ivory Coast (-2)
9. Pakistan (+3)
10. Central African Republic (0)
11. Guinea (-2)
12. Bangladesh (+4)
13. Burma (+2)
14. Haiti (-3)
15. North Korea (-2)
16. Ethiopia (+2)
17. Uganda (-1)
18. Lebanon (+10)
19. Nigeria (-1)
20. Sri Lanka (+5)

2007

177 states were included in the list, of which 32 were classified as "alert", 97 as "warning", 33 as "moderate", 15 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rank from 2006 is shown in parentheses.

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2007" of Foreign Policy

  Alert

  Warning

  No Information / Dependent Territory

  Moderate

  Sustainable

1. Sudan (0)
2. Iraq (+2)
3. Somalia (+4)
4. Zimbabwe (+1)
5. Chad (+1)
6. Ivory Coast (-3)
7. Democratic Republic of the Congo (-5)
8. Afghanistan (+2)
9. Guinea (+2)
10. Central African Republic (+3)
11. Haiti (-3)
12. Pakistan (-3)
13. North Korea (+1)
14. Burma (+4)
15. Uganda (+6)
16. Bangladesh (+3)
17. Nigeria (+5)
18. Ethiopia (+8)
19. Burundi (-4)
20. Timor-Leste (N/A)

2006

146 states were included in the 2006 list, of which 28 were classified as "alert", 78 as "warning", 27 as "moderate", 13 as "sustainable". The worst 20 states are shown below. Change in rank from 2005 is shown in parentheses.

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2006" of Foreign Policy

  Alert

  Warning

  No Information / Dependent Territory

  Moderate

  Sustainable

1. Sudan (+2)
2. Democratic Republic of the Congo (0)
3. Ivory Coast (-2)
4. Iraq (0)
5. Zimbabwe (+10)
6. Chad (+1)
7. Somalia (-2)
8. Haiti (+2)
9. Pakistan (+25)
10. Afghanistan (+1)
11. Guinea (+5)
12. Liberia (-3)
13. Central African Republic (+7)
14. North Korea (-1)
15. Burundi (+3)
16. Yemen (-8)
17. Sierra Leone (-11)
18. Burma (+5)
19. Bangladesh (-2)
20. Nepal (+15)

2005

2005 was the first year that the Fund for Peace published the list. 76 states were analyzed, of which 33 were classified as "alert" and 43 as "warning" (ratings better than "warning" were not done in this year). The worst 20 are shown below.

Failed States according to the "Failed States Index 2005" of Foreign Policy

  Alert

  Warning

  Moderate / Sustainable / No Information / Dependent Territory

1. Ivory Coast
2. Democratic Republic of the Congo
3. Sudan
4. Iraq
5. Somalia
6. Sierra Leone
7. Chad
8. Yemen
9. Liberia
10. Haiti
11. Afghanistan
12. Rwanda
13. North Korea
14. Colombia
15. Zimbabwe
16. Guinea
17. Bangladesh
18. Burundi
19. Dominican Republic
20. Central African Republic

See also

• List of countries by Failed States Index
• Rogue state
• Ochlocracy
• Fragile state
• Crisis States Research Centre
• Violent non-state actor
• Pariah state
• Banana republic

External links

• The "failed State" and international law - Daniel Thürer, International Review of the Red Cross (December 12, 1999)
• Real-Time Event Monitoring for Failed States