Measuring state fragility: a review of the theoretical groundings of existing approaches

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Measuring state fragility : a review of the theoretical groundings of existing approaches. / Ferreira, Ines.

I: Third World Quarterly, Bind 38, Nr. 6, 20.12.2016, s. 1291-1309.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Ferreira, I 2016, 'Measuring state fragility: a review of the theoretical groundings of existing approaches', Third World Quarterly, bind 38, nr. 6, s. 1291-1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1257907

APA

Ferreira, I. (2016). Measuring state fragility: a review of the theoretical groundings of existing approaches. Third World Quarterly, 38(6), 1291-1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1257907

Vancouver

Ferreira I. Measuring state fragility: a review of the theoretical groundings of existing approaches. Third World Quarterly. 2016 dec. 20;38(6):1291-1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1257907

Author

Ferreira, Ines. / Measuring state fragility : a review of the theoretical groundings of existing approaches. I: Third World Quarterly. 2016 ; Bind 38, Nr. 6. s. 1291-1309.

Bibtex

@article{c27c6d49a0994442b3974d20b41e7d00,
title = "Measuring state fragility: a review of the theoretical groundings of existing approaches",
abstract = "State fragility has become a resonant term in the development discourse over the past decade. In its early days it served as a catch-all phrase used by donor organisations to draw attention to the need to assist {\textquoteleft}fragile states{\textquoteright}. In response to the call for a better understanding of how to deal with these countries, there was a surge in measures of fragility. However, it was not long before academics pointed to the murkiness and fuzziness of the term, and identified several caveats to most of the proposals for quantification. This paper reviews existing approaches to operationalise this concept, distinguishing between those that offer no ranking or only partial rankings of fragile states, and those providing ordinal lists of countries. The examination of their theoretical underpinnings lends support to the critical view that most existing approaches are undermined by a lack of solid theoretical foundations, which leads to confusion between causes, symptoms and outcomes of state fragility.",
keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, Fragile states, fragility, measurement, index, ranking",
author = "Ines Ferreira",
year = "2016",
month = dec,
day = "20",
doi = "10.1080/01436597.2016.1257907",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "1291--1309",
journal = "Third World Quarterly",
issn = "0143-6597",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measuring state fragility

T2 - a review of the theoretical groundings of existing approaches

AU - Ferreira, Ines

PY - 2016/12/20

Y1 - 2016/12/20

N2 - State fragility has become a resonant term in the development discourse over the past decade. In its early days it served as a catch-all phrase used by donor organisations to draw attention to the need to assist ‘fragile states’. In response to the call for a better understanding of how to deal with these countries, there was a surge in measures of fragility. However, it was not long before academics pointed to the murkiness and fuzziness of the term, and identified several caveats to most of the proposals for quantification. This paper reviews existing approaches to operationalise this concept, distinguishing between those that offer no ranking or only partial rankings of fragile states, and those providing ordinal lists of countries. The examination of their theoretical underpinnings lends support to the critical view that most existing approaches are undermined by a lack of solid theoretical foundations, which leads to confusion between causes, symptoms and outcomes of state fragility.

AB - State fragility has become a resonant term in the development discourse over the past decade. In its early days it served as a catch-all phrase used by donor organisations to draw attention to the need to assist ‘fragile states’. In response to the call for a better understanding of how to deal with these countries, there was a surge in measures of fragility. However, it was not long before academics pointed to the murkiness and fuzziness of the term, and identified several caveats to most of the proposals for quantification. This paper reviews existing approaches to operationalise this concept, distinguishing between those that offer no ranking or only partial rankings of fragile states, and those providing ordinal lists of countries. The examination of their theoretical underpinnings lends support to the critical view that most existing approaches are undermined by a lack of solid theoretical foundations, which leads to confusion between causes, symptoms and outcomes of state fragility.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - Fragile states

KW - fragility

KW - measurement

KW - index

KW - ranking

U2 - 10.1080/01436597.2016.1257907

DO - 10.1080/01436597.2016.1257907

M3 - Journal article

VL - 38

SP - 1291

EP - 1309

JO - Third World Quarterly

JF - Third World Quarterly

SN - 0143-6597

IS - 6

ER -

ID: 201900260