+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Failed states

  1. #1
    A Dude Peeta Mellark's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Posts
    1,028

    Default Failed states

    Are you familiar with the Failed States Index?

    It's a rather interesting breakdown of different countries, with 12 factors taken into account to see how "failed" or "sustainable" they are:
    Mounting Demographic Pressures
    Massive Movement of Refugees or Internally Displaced Persons creating Complex Humanitarian Emergencies
    Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or Group Paranoia
    Chronic and Sustained Human Flight
    Uneven Economic Development along Group Lines
    Sharp and/or Severe Economic Decline
    Criminalization and/or Delegitimization of the State
    Progressive Deterioration of Public Services
    Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights
    Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State"
    Rise of Factionalized Elites
    Intervention of Other States or External Political Actors
    The top five failed states are Somalia, Chad, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

    The top five sustainable states are Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ireland.

    The United States and the United Kingdom are lumped over in the "moderate" section, along with Germany, France, and Singapore.

    Considering the political, economic and human rights issues in all of these listed countries, does the index make sense to you or do you feel they're giving more weight to some factors than is really deserved? Is there a particular political bias present?

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Actually is does seem fair to me. The failed states are unstable states where few people can really consider themselves reasonably safe or plan well for the future. It is really sad. I wonder where Afghanistan falls on there chart? I would expect very low. I see #6.

    I am surprised Iceland is still so high. Their economy is gone but I guess overall they are still stable and sparsely populated.

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Ireland is angling up to go from the top to the bottom of that index.

  4. #4
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    Thanks for posting that; I had never actually seen a definition of "failed state" before, although it is a term I've read and used freely myself (generally in reference to Somalia or Sudan). The list of characteristics seems fairly sound, although I might remove the references to economic decline and deterioration of public services. I don't think those two problems necessarily equate to a "failed state", as a reasonably sound, democratic political apparatus could still exist, though it might be threatened if the decline was sufficiently severe. Also, I'm not sure that some of those failed states ever had much in the way of public services or a functioning economy to begin with. Something can't decline if it never existed in the first place.

    But that's just quibbling.

  5. #5
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Like Hatschepsut, I'd heard references to it before but I hadn't looked up how exactly they were indexed. That's interesting. It does match up fairly well with how I would have ranked those countries. I note Afghanistan is just below Iraq in failure.

    As for why Iceland is so high, I'm betting it's because their primary "competition" for that particular spot is Japan, which has had more than its own share of troubles recently.
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

  6. #6
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    I would say there is a left-wing bias in that selection of criteria. As an example "Progressive Deterioration of Public Services" could count heavily against right wing thinking which is to cut the public sector, whereas left wing thinking is to increase the size of the left wing sector, deterioration being that less money equals worse services.

    I would love to know what they declare "Sharp and/or Severe Economic Decline" to mean given the recent economic troubles of a lot of western countries.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  7. #7
    Member
    Registered
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Public services include clean drinking water, sewage, roads, and basic education. How the fuck can it be a left wing bias to want to provide things like that? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! Get that factory job, kid! Provide for the family, just like the good old days of the Industrial Revolution! Got your arm cut off by machinery? Guess you don't have to worry about it again and you'll learn to be faster with your remaining arm!

  8. #8
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hobbler View post
    Public services include clean drinking water, sewage, roads, and basic education. How the fuck can it be a left wing bias to want to provide things like that? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! Get that factory job, kid! Provide for the family, just like the good old days of the Industrial Revolution! Got your arm cut off by machinery? Guess you don't have to worry about it again and you'll learn to be faster with your remaining arm!
    and that's a complete misrepresentation.

    Both types of government provide public services. It's a question of how much. Consider that in several countries, the government does not supply water, electric or gas. Does that count more or less against a government if it is carried out by the private sector. Does a nationalised industry count as more of a public service than one which is privately owned.

    All governments should try to provide some public services. Take education as an example, a right leaning government would have no problems with parents paying for their own kids tuition, a left leaning government would insist all education is carried out by the public sector. However, you could say that one government is providing a bigger public service because it educates a greater proportion of the children, regardless of whether it is more effective or not.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  9. #9
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by hobbler View post
    Public services include clean drinking water, sewage, roads, and basic education. How the fuck can it be a left wing bias to want to provide things like that? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! Get that factory job, kid! Provide for the family, just like the good old days of the Industrial Revolution! Got your arm cut off by machinery? Guess you don't have to worry about it again and you'll learn to be faster with your remaining arm!
    and that's a complete misrepresentation.

    Both types of government provide public services. It's a question of how much. Consider that in several countries, the government does not supply water, electric or gas. Does that count more or less against a government if it is carried out by the private sector. Does a nationalised industry count as more of a public service than one which is privately owned.

    All governments should try to provide some public services. Take education as an example, a right leaning government would have no problems with parents paying for their own kids tuition, a left leaning government would insist all education is carried out by the public sector. However, you could say that one government is providing a bigger public service because it educates a greater proportion of the children, regardless of whether it is more effective or not.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  10. #10
    Member
    Registered
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    97

    Default

    "Progressive Deterioration of Public Services"

    To me, basic public services are what I listed above. Since you seem to be unable to grasp them and insist on adding, I'll re-list them along with explanations.

    1) Water - Basic water sanitation and purification to reduce diseases.
    2) Sewage - Allows indoor plumbing in urban environments and increases sanitation.
    3) Roads - Basic transportation. Breakdown occurs when the government is unable to maintain standards they have set.

    Water processing and sewage are often easily interchanged, as they're extremely similar. Re-processing waste water eases the environmental impact of high populations, reducing the long term cost of water.

    4) Basic education - The ability of the government to ensure basic literacy, through public or private means.

    The first three are important, as they are too large and complex to be successfully implemented by private companies. There's simply too high of a cost, with too low of a rate of return. Education is a toss up, but the government's ability to provide it should be a sign of the ability to function as a "state".

    Sorry if your right wing fantasy involves a return to the good old days of cholera. The only place cholera outbreaks usually occur are in the top "failed state" nations in the list.

  11. #11
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default

    I think you are missing the point, so I'll say it slowly for you.

    It's not whether the services are provided, it's how much money a state pours into providing these services.

    BTW in the UK, water is provided by private services, not the public sector. How does that factor for the UK on the failed state index against a country which has public owned utilities?

    I'll leave you in your left-wing fantasy where the state pays for everything until it runs out of other people's money
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  12. #12
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    Whether the state is covering those services or the private sector is, the people who actually pay for it will always be the same: the people. In a well-functioning state, the the government is an extension of the people. They're the ones who support it financially and keep it in power, either passively by not rebelling against it or actively by voting for it. If a country goes bankrupt providing public services, then there are greater issues involved than those services. A people should be able to support themselves and maintain standards of living that include roads and waste disposal.

    If there's a left-wing bias in the index, then I suppose a Stephen Colbert quote is in order: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
    So now they are just dirt-covered English people in fur pelts with credit cards.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts