This report, which draws on the International Futures modeling system for its analysis, focuses on vulnerability to conflict. This meta-analysis approach seeks to help those in scholarly and policy environments understand more fully the various quantitative measures on conflict vulnerabilities.

 

peaceworks

Summary

  • Efforts by researchers to quantitatively measure vulnerabilities of countries to conflict tend to focus on four major categories: social, economic, governance, and security. Specific variables drawn on in each category vary widely.
  • Six leading studies evaluated in this report see vulnerability to conflict as a spectrum from failed or failing states to consolidated ones.
  • Four measures—emanating from the Brookings Institution, Carleton University, the Fund for Peace, and the Center for Global Policy at George Mason University—have the most similar conceptual frameworks and measurement approaches, and these studies routinely measure countries similarly. Even these four, however, differ in the variables they emphasize and the identification and ranking of states.
  • Two other measures, emanating from the Center for International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland and from the Economist Intelligence Unit, differ more from the first four and each other in what conceptually constitutes vulnerability, in their variables, correlations, and assessments. They focus more heavily on states most likely to fail.
  • It is not possible to argue that any one research effort or any combination is clearly superior in predicting vulnerability to conflict. These measures have not been systematically compared to actual outbreaks of violence, and many failed to indicate that seemingly stable authoritarian countries such as Libya were particularly vulnerable. Whether there is a relationship between rankings of states and actual subsequent conflict onsets remains to be analyzed.

About the Report

This report, which draws on the International Futures modeling system for its analysis, focuses on vulnerability to conflict. This meta-analysis approach seeks to help those in scholarly and policy environments understand more fully the various quantitative measures on conflict vulnerabilities. The analysis grew out of work done for the USIP. Nonetheless, the report was written by the authors in their personal capacities, and the views are theirs alone. The authors would like to thank Lawrence Woocher, Jonas Claes, and Abiodun Williams for their helpful comments and other assistance in preparing this report. Any errors or factual inaccuracies are solely the responsibility of the authors.

About the Authors

Barry B. Hughes is Johns Evans Professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver and director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures. Jonathan Moyer is a dissertation level PhD candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, whose research focus is on the future of international conflict, both domestic and interstate. Timothy D. Sisk is professor of international and comparative politics at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver.

Latest Publications

The Conflict Resource Economy and Pathways to Peace in Burma

The Conflict Resource Economy and Pathways to Peace in Burma

Monday, November 19, 2018

By: Kevin M. Woods

Burma’s natural resource economy is inextricably tied to the ongoing armed conflict within the country. Questions of who has what ownership rights over what resources and how these resources can be more equitably shared with the wider population loom large. This report focuses on Burma’s resource-rich ethnic states and territories near the borders with China and Thailand and suggests that a more robust, accountable, and equitable system for managing the country’s resource wealth can help lay down the pathways to peace.

Economics & Environment

Johnny Walsh on Election Season in Afghanistan

Johnny Walsh on Election Season in Afghanistan

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

By: Johnny Walsh

As Afghans wait for official results from the parliamentary polls, Johnny Walsh says that the country is already entering “high political season” in preparation for the critical April 2019 presidential election. Although the Taliban continues to carry out high-profile attacks across the country, Walsh says that many Afghans are focused on the presidential polls and its implications for the peace process.

Democracy & Governance

Providing for the Common Defense

Providing for the Common Defense

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

By: National Defense Strategy Commission

The final report of the National Defense Strategy Commission is a compilation of the assessments of the National Defense Strategy and recommendations based on its analysis related not just to defense strategy, but also to the larger geopolitical environment in which that strategy must be executed. They consulted with civilian and military leaders in the Department of Defense, representatives of other U.S. government departments and agencies, allied diplomats and military officials, and independent experts.

Global Policy

Thomas Hill on Libya

Thomas Hill on Libya

Friday, November 9, 2018

By: Thomas M. Hill

Since the fall of Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, successive U.S. administrations have watched Libya’s continuing collapse, mistakenly believing that the country’s unraveling threatens only Europe, says Thomas Hill. Ahead of the Palermo conference, which aims to find a solution to the crisis in Libya, Hill says that United States’ should play a more direct role in stabilizing the country.

Democracy & Governance; Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications