Failed State Index 2009

[The Larch]

I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).

I-5, uneven economic development along group lines.  Like Throbby said.

And almost any other stat. If you check Norway, they have all ones, save for a couple of twos, while the US has plenty of threes around.

[DontSayBanana]

North Korea is red?  Their state apparatus functions very effectively.  You may or may not agree with their goals, of course.  But that should be a different matter.

Only because the populace is only exposed to government-sanctioned information. All it would really take is a prolonged interruption of communications to start shaking up N. Korea.

[Berkut]

I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).

I-5, uneven economic development along group lines.  Like Throbby said.

And almost any other stat. If you check Norway, they have all ones, save for a couple of twos, while the US has plenty of threes around.

It is hell here.

[The Larch]

I don't get it.
Why are the Scandinavians so much higher than Britain (and other western countries).

I-5, uneven economic development along group lines.  Like Throbby said.

And almost any other stat. If you check Norway, they have all ones, save for a couple of twos, while the US has plenty of threes around.

It is hell here.

It's not as if there are huge differences between the different spots at the top. One place is "really nice", another one is "really really nice".

[Valmy]

It is hell here.

We rank above most countries.  *shrug* Who cares?  We are dragged down by places like Detroit, Cleveland, and Oklahoma.

[Berkut]

North Korea is red?  Their state apparatus functions very effectively.  You may or may not agree with their goals, of course.  But that should be a different matter. 

But it isn't a different matter, which is the point. The people who do these ratings have a certain list of things they find important, but if they titled the list "Rating countries by what we think is important" nobody would care.

Instead they give it a nice title like "ZOMG FAILED STATZORS!" so everyone will pay attention, even if there ratings don't always have much to do with "failed states" except insofar as you consider more or less wealth dsitribution a potential "failure" of the state.

All that being said, you picked a rather poor example to champion.

[Berkut]

It's not as if there are huge differences between the different spots at the top. One place is "really nice", another one is "really really nice".

Indeed, and it is close enough that you can even argue about which is which. Which is why I wonder that these ratings always insist on claiming that there is really a large difference at the top by categorizing two places that are for all practical purposes identical as different.

According to the map, in broad strokes, the difference between living in Canada and the US is about the same as the difference between living in the US and Russia or Vietnam.

[Ed Anger]

It is hell here.

We rank above most countries.  *shrug* Who cares?  We are dragged down by places like Detroit, Cleveland, and Oklahoma.

I've been told by Internet sources that Oklahoma may secede.

[The Larch]

It's not as if there are huge differences between the different spots at the top. One place is "really nice", another one is "really really nice".

Indeed, and it is close enough that you can even argue about which is which. Which is why I wonder that these ratings always insist on claiming that there is really a large difference at the top by categorizing two places that are for all practical purposes identical as different.

According to the map, in broad strokes, the difference between living in Canada and the US is about the same as the difference between living in the US and Russia or Vietnam.

The point, I guess, is about the countries at the top of the "failed states ranking", the places we're checking are at the bottom of the list, we're looking at it upside down.

[Valmy]

except insofar as you consider more or less wealth dsitribution a potential "failure" of the state.

That catagory is about wealth distribution among ethnic groups, not individuals.  Obviously if one ethnic group controls all the wealth and education and so forth that creates social and political problems that can create a failed state.  It is not talking about wealth distribution among individuals.

So in that context I can see why they included it as it is a serious problem in alot of countries in the world and I do not comprehend at all your outrage over it being about socialism.  Plenty of socialist countries have ethnic underclasses.  France, which is more "socialist" ranks behind the US in that catagory, for example.

Having said that I think most of the ratings of the first world countries are nonsense.  The US gets a rather bad score for 'Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights' which gets my attention far more than the economic catagory.

[Berkut]

It's not as if there are huge differences between the different spots at the top. One place is "really nice", another one is "really really nice".

Indeed, and it is close enough that you can even argue about which is which. Which is why I wonder that these ratings always insist on claiming that there is really a large difference at the top by categorizing two places that are for all practical purposes identical as different.

According to the map, in broad strokes, the difference between living in Canada and the US is about the same as the difference between living in the US and Russia or Vietnam.

The point, I guess, is about the countries at the top of the "failed states ranking", the places we're checking are at the bottom of the list, we're looking at it upside down.

Again, I agree. The list, to the extent that it is useful, isn't about the Western democracies.

Which is why it is so odd that they insist on distracting from that by drawing these false distinctions that really are not that interesting except as a means of making some irrelevant political argument about the "failure" of some countries at not being socialist enough.

[Valmy]

The list, to the extent that it is useful, isn't about the Western democracies.

I agree

irrelevant political argument about the "failure" of some countries at not being socialist enough.

I cannot believe you latch on to this and ignore how we arbitrarily suspend and violate human rights according to them.

[Berkut]

except insofar as you consider more or less wealth dsitribution a potential "failure" of the state.

That catagory is about wealth distribution among ethnic groups, not individuals.  Obviously if one ethnic group controls all the wealth and education and so forth that creates social and political problems that can create a failed state.  It is not talking about wealth distribution among individuals.

So in that context I can see why they included it as it is a serious problem in alot of countries in the world and I do not comprehend at all your outrage over it being about socialism.  Plenty of socialst countries have ethnic underclasses.  France ranks behind the US in that catagory, for example.

Having said that I think most of the ratings of the first world countries are nonsense.  The US gets a rather bad score for 'Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights' which gets my attention far more than the economic catagory.

I don't think you can separate the two. Sure, in countries where there are truly screwed over ethnic groups, that rating is perfectly valid. But drawing distinctions at the top in order to smugly label this country as "wodnerful/green" and that country as "kinda failed/yellow" betrays a lack of objectivity on the part of the people making this silly lists.

The fact that the US gets dinged for something as patently ridiculous as "...Widespread violation of human rights" is just further evidence that there is an agenda here that goes well beyond illustrating the truly failed states.

[Berkut]

I cannot believe you latch on to this and ignore how we arbitrarily suspend and violate human rights according to them.

Shrugh. Like I said, I think we get the ratings we do on things like "human rights violations" because we don't distribute wealth in a satisfactory manner for those making lists like this. They are all tied up together. The particular rating that they massage to get the result they want isn't really all THAT interesting, except to illustrate how silly the entire thing is.

[saskganesh]

Luxembourg is a tax shelter and financial hub with very few people=very socialist.

high population and wide diversity of results seem to drag down larger countries.

.

It seems that they're measuring social, political, and economic stability more than anything else.  While I would tend to agree that in general it's legit to consider states with huge amounts of instability as "failed" I think it could be argued that those on the opposite end of the spectrum could be considered as "stagnant" rather than "sustainable".

yes, maybe stagnant. it depends on how dynamic the economy is. the USA has a fairly dynamic economy, even in a recession.

we could also question "sustainable": Oman for example  has dwindling oil reserves, and oil is its main engine. doesn't sound too sustainable to me.

like all these sorts of rankings, it comes down to values. for example here's Heritage Foundation's "Economic Freedom Index" top 10, which embodies different values:

1     Hong Kong    90
2     Singapore    87.1
3     Australia    82.6
4     Ireland    82.2
5     New Zealand    82
6     United States    80.7
7     Canada    80.5
8     Denmark    79.6
9     Switzerland    79.4
10     United Kingdom    79