I had suggested in an earlier post that Malaysia is heading towards a failed state. In the discussions that followed, we realised that defining failed states can be a challenge. Foreign Policy (FP) has a cool way to define and measure failed states. The Failed States Index of course is a subjective measure but it provides a context for cross-country comparison.
The FSI defines a failed state and interprets its scores as follows:
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 elements of the risk of state failure, such as extensive corruption and criminal behaviour, 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.
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.
The higher the score, the more likely that it is a failed state. Hence, above 100 is Critical, 90 – 99 is In Danger, and 60 to 89 to be in Borderline. Countries with scores between 30 and 59.9 are considered Stable . Countries that have scores lower than 30 are categorised as Most Stable.
How did the ASEAN member states perform and where is Malaysia? Somalia provides the benchmark.
If we cannot base an argument on theoretical concepts (or don’t want to make these explicit), we construct an index. Such an index is usually neither based on theoretical grounds nor empirical data, but looks convincing and precise, especially if we use at least two decimal places. Thereby we can hide that it is in contradiction to logic and statistical basics, but perhaps we can sell it to organisations, media etc.
Concerning the logical faults: What, f.e. is the sum of three apples, two durian, one red snapper and three diamonds? Such sums are calculated in the failed states (and similar) index’! No theoretical argument is given, why these indicators have been selected. No information is given, why these indicators are scaled in such interval scales. No information is given why all distances between the intervals and indicators as well as all cases are equal. In short, the index is pure nonsense. May be it has a propaganda and ideological value, but it should not be used in any “scientific” argumentation, where we have to maintain at least the basic laws of logic!
Quality comment or not?
11 
1
Wow, Burma is “In Danger” of becoming a failed state and Thailand is a “Borderline” failed state.
I think I prefer anecdotal indicators to statistics.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
@ HRK – agree with you that indexes are not scientific. Also agree with you that indexes can be used for propaganda. Hence the note that it is subjective. As for how this particular index is constructed, the FSI website has all the details.
What is of importance, from my perspective, is how do we anticipate the causes that will lead to state failure. Are there ways we can predict them? What are the theories?
As example – consider and compare the ongoing London riots with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the triple disaster in Japan (Tsunami, earthquake & nuclear meltdown). What is it about societies that make them behave in certain ways?
And in relation to Malaysia, what I would like to know is how will Malaysians react to say (i) the shooting of a citizen – which provided the catalyst for the riots in London; (ii) to subsidy cuts, rising cost of living & social disconnect which has been suggested by some quarters as the deeper reason for the youths that are leading these riots; (iii) to government corruption – an issue which is endemic in Malaysia.
If you could share your opinion on these, I’m sure NM readers and I would really appreciate it.
Quality comment or not?
2 
3
Quoted from the article:
“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”
Surely if these criteria are used, the USA is a failed state?
Quality comment or not?
4 
2
Indexes are fairly blunt tools to describe the nuances of society.
I live in PNG and on most of those criteria this place must score very high indeed. Yet when I travel to Malaysia or Thailand they do not seem to me to be anywhere near to failure in comparison. They actually have a legal system that functions, even if not perfectly. They have far lower levels of violent crime. Social services that reach a majority of citizens. [Health care, education, transport infrastructure]. The government is in control of most of its territory, and corruption does not waste a majority of the national budget.
So it would seem that there is a whole world of difference between a score of say 68 or 78 and state failure.
Quality comment or not?
2 
1
Indexes can be applied in useful ways, as long as we use the index as it is, that is a simulacrum or hyper-reality, not as representation of reality.
@ Greg Lopez (3). If I would have the proper model to explain the questions you raise and for predictions, I would work as consultant for int. organizations and governments and earn a lot of money to retire in a villa in the Tessin.
The cases you list are of a quite different quality. The Tsunami as well as the earthquake etc. are cases of disasters, while the riots in UK are just that: riots. Disasters happen when institutions regulating everyday life lost their resilience, i.e. the disastrous event is outside of the scope of these institutions. Obviously, in New Orleans as well as in Japan we have institutional failures on the local and national level, probably due, in both cases, to economic and political interests as well as “informal” influences.
Barrington Moore and more recently James Scot follow the question why people revolt. Marx makes the important distinction, which I think is relevant for the UK, between revolts aiming at changes of society (like in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and to some degree Libya) and brief riots (like a few years ago in Paris and now in the UK). In revolts states and elites have lost their legitimacy, alternative views exist and a level of organization exists that allows to push forward institutional change. Riots in contrast do neither challenge legitimacy, elites or institutions.
Turning to the case of Malaysia and Thailand, between which I see many similarities, we have a situation in which the post-colonial political-economic system and associated elites that evolved and consolidated after the 1960th is still struggling with the Asia crisis. The post-colonial political system was widely accepted not the least because it provided quite a lot of opportunities for social mobility, general improvement of living standard, consumption etc. The possibilities for personal achievements and enrichment limited interests in collective organising for enhanced political participation. The economic crisis indicated that the promises of improvement and mobility remain limited. The elites could maintain their riches, while others fell into decline. Thereby the crisis indicated that the political (and institutional) system is one-sided, favouring only the elites. Kind of “sacred” state-ideologies (only we can provide security, unity and order) lost their meanings, not the least because contradictions between the ideologies and what is happening became too obvious and could not be ignored even by the petty-bourgeoisie. Like, f.e. speaking of “law and order” while using the courts as means for political (and economic) interests. Nevertheless, the “states” remain quite strong, not the least because 1. the “repressive apparatus” still works quite well, 2. most people regard individual (not collective) strategies as best for them, and 3. riots bear a lot of individual risks, especially when we have a police and military that is less constricted as in the UK.
The similarity to disasters is that institutions can not fully cope with what is happening. The big difference is that neither in Malaysia nor in Thailand we can (yet) speak of complete failures. However, institutional change is necessary, as the post-colonial system does not work anymore. But, institutional change can have many different forms.
Concerning predictions J.M.Keynes once remarked: “In the long run we are all dead”.
Quality comment or not?
7 
0
@ HRK #6. Excellent inputs. Much appreciated.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1