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

Belquis Ahmadi on the Afghan Peace Process

Belquis Ahmadi on the Afghan Peace Process

Thursday, May 16, 2019

By: Belquis Ahmadi

Reflecting on recent conversations in Doha and Kabul, USIP’s Belquis Ahmadi says that Afghans told her they want peace, but are not willing to sacrifice the hard-won gains of the last 18 years to get there. As U.S.-Taliban talks move forward, the extent of the Taliban’s evolution on issues like women’s rights remains in question. “I’ll believe it when I see it,” says Ahmadi.

Gender; Peace Processes

Amid Rising Sahel Violence, Burkina Faso Builds a Response

Amid Rising Sahel Violence, Burkina Faso Builds a Response

Thursday, May 16, 2019

By: James Rupert

A perfect storm of violence is breaking upon Africa’s Sahel. Since late 2018, communal conflicts—many over access to food, water or productive land—have produced thousands of deadly attacks. Across the region, nearly 4,800 people died in conflicts from November to March, according to the violence-monitoring group ACLED. The greatest surge in bloodshed is in Burkina Faso, where communal militias or religious extremists killed 500 people over five months. But amid the dire headlines, governments and civic groups in Burkina Faso and other Sahel countries cite progress in stabilizing communities with a basic step that simply has seldom been undertaken: broad, local dialogues among community groups, police forces and officials. Community leaders and government officials say they are now expanding those dialogues to improve national security policies to help counter the tide of violence.

Fragility & Resilience; Justice, Security & Rule of Law

Colombia Lawmakers Debate Peace Deal Challenges

Colombia Lawmakers Debate Peace Deal Challenges

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

By: Fred Strasser

The peace accord that halted a half-century of violent conflict in Colombia has reached a critical juncture. With the population almost evenly split over the terms of the 2016 agreement and a new government led by the party that opposed it, analysts and political figures see sustainable peace as increasingly endangered.

Peace Processes

Congressional Oversight for Effective Foreign Policy

Congressional Oversight for Effective Foreign Policy

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

By: USIP Staff

As leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s new panel on oversight and investigations, Representatives Ami Bera (D-CA) and Lee Zeldin (R-NY) agreed that examining the nuts and bolts of diplomacy and development work is a critical—and often unfulfilled—job for Congress.

Fragility & Resilience

View All Publications