Failed States Index 2007
by Jason Godesky
Foreign Policy’s 2007 Failed States Index is an excellent proxy for tracking the extent of global collapse. Only countries in green have not yet collapsed.
Foreign Policy has significant coverage of this year’s Failed States Index. The rankings systematically ignore some cases of collapse—New Orleans, for example, or the examples Jared Diamond cites in Collapse of Montana and Australia—but as a general map to show the extent of collapse, the Failed States Index certainly reflects many aspects of it. The methodology for formulating the list shows precisely what factors the Index looks at. It’s an imperfect map of collapse, to be sure, but probably the best one could ask for.
Interesting that they list Argentina as “stable” as well: didn’t they have a significant brush with collapse already?
Comment by Vashti — 19 June 2007 @ 10:22 AM
I’d say. Which is one of the reasons I like the FSI—where it goes wrong, it’s always underestimating the extent of collapse.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 June 2007 @ 10:27 AM
Wow, Africa is hurtin’.
Comment by venuspluto67 — 19 June 2007 @ 12:03 PM
So what do you think of the “Global Peace Index” that also just came out? Looks like the most peaceful states juch as Japan, and Northern Europe are also the most civilized.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 19 June 2007 @ 1:55 PM
Here is the top ten:
1 Norway 1.357
2 New Zealand 1.363
3 Denmark 1.377
4 Ireland 1.396
5 Japan 1.413
6 Finland 1.447
7 Sweden 1.478
8 Canada 1.481
9 Portugal 1.481
10 Austria 1.483
Would you say these are civilized nations?
Comment by Ted Heistman — 19 June 2007 @ 1:58 PM
“Most civilized”—what does that mean? 76% of Mexico’s population is urban. What could be a better measure of civilization—literally, life in cities—than that? The U.S. is just a little bit ahead of that, at 80%.
Or do you, by “most civilized,” simply mean “richest”? In that case, that’s precisely what you’d expect.
Empire is the means by which violence and poverty are exported to the periphery, in order to have peace and prosperity for the imperial core. Northwestern Euorpe (I assume that’s what you mean by “Northern Europe,” since Estonia, for example, doesn’t quite fit your characterization), Japan, Australia, the United States and Canada make up the imperial core. We’re the ones propping up global complexity, and keeping everyone else caught between an inability to maintain civilization, and an inability to fully collapse, either.
So, what do I think of that correlation? I think that’s exactly what you’d expect, exactly what imperialism is all about.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 June 2007 @ 2:30 PM
Of course they’re civilized. What country isn’t? Civilization conquered every last inch of the globe a century ago. I’m not sure how a culture can be “more” or “less civilized.” You’re either civilized or you’re not.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 June 2007 @ 2:32 PM
How did Sweden become part of the imperial core? Does Sweden have troops and bases ringing the planet like the US?
Comment by J — 19 June 2007 @ 3:50 PM
Also, in Argentina’s brush with collapse Argentinians temporarily formed social structures similar to what pro-civilization anarchists advocate - neighborhood assemblies, self-managed factories, etc. How likely do you think it is that the collapse will stimulate a similar response? Is it possible that a pro-civilization anarchist revolution would be a phase in the collapse? How would that fit in with your theories?
Comment by J — 19 June 2007 @ 3:54 PM
Sweden became part of the imperial core back in the 800’s, when Swedish kings first formed from the network of Norse jarls. Today, Sweden may not do a lot of the direct military work, but it’s still part of NATO. Much of the wealth that Europeans enjoy, including the ability to spend so much on social welfare programs, comes precisely because of U.S. military expenditures. An invasion like Iraq is something that the U.S. pays for, but opens up oil extraction for the entire Western market, including Sweden. So yes, Sweden is definitely part of the imperial core, and has been for quite some time. Not having any actual troops abroad at the moment doesn’t change the pattern of imperial extraction from which Sweden is able to derive its lifestyle. Without that pattern of exploitation, the modern Swedish lifestyle would be impossible.
Pro-civilization anarchists espouse many contradictory ideas. Neighborhood assemblies and self-managed factories are precisely what you’d expect from collapse. Collapse is the loss of an established order of complexity. When the Roman imperial government fell apart in Britain and the civitates took over, that was also collapse. It’s not just possible, I would say that it’s downright likely that anarchist revolutions will be part of the process of collapse. Of course, such social structures will quickly turn to the easiest ways of providing for what they need, and that will eventually lead them to hunting, gathering and permaculture, whether they recognize it or not.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 June 2007 @ 4:02 PM
I was wrong—Sweden is not part of NATO, as Norway and Denmark are. Even so, the larger point stands, because Sweden is still protected by a kind of politico-social “herd effect,” as in epidemiology. Sweden may not contribute much, but it would be difficult for the rest of the neo-colonial center to extract what it needs without also benefitting Sweden. All in all, Sweden enjoys an incredible niche: the benefits of imperial extraction, without the direct involvement or cost (financially or morally) incurred by their neighbors. Even so, do you really think life in Sweden would continue as it is, without a neocolonial pattern of global extraction?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 June 2007 @ 4:06 PM
How would this map compare historically, say — 50, 100 and 200 years ago.
Would it show a similar pattern of collapse, or is there evidence that the trend is increasing?
Comment by Shaej — 19 June 2007 @ 5:11 PM
50 years ago you’re looking at when most of these countries were gaining their independence. The civil wars came after that, so 50 years ago, there would have been a lot more green. Consider, for example, what color the former USSR would have been 50 years ago, versus today.
100 years ago, there were 57 countries in the entire world. So the map would have been made up of just a few big patches, and most of them green as they were all colonies of prospering European empires.
200 years ago, and you’d find the map still open, with plenty of areas where civilization had not yet even penetrated.
But there is plenty of evidence that the trend is increasing.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 June 2007 @ 5:23 PM
I pretty much agree with your analysis, Jason.
the US is way down the peace list because basically, we play the heavy and provide an international police force.
But, yes, all these countries are sustained mostly by imports exploiting from the periphery. I don’t think any of thesse countries have sustaniable local economies, least of all Japan.
But still though, these countries have achieved peaceful societies, democratic values equality etc.
At first blush it would seem like an argument for civilization.
I will say this though Gas is $7.oo a gallon in Norway, so some of these scandanavian countries are in a better position to deal with peak oil than the US. They still would have to develop locally sustainable economies.
Another factor to consider is their low population growth.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 19 June 2007 @ 10:00 PM
The geographic concentration of the modern elite doesn’t change the social relationship between elites and peasantry. The imperial core enjoys a comfortable existence bought at the expense of the misery and suffering of a much larger periphery. In the Pax Romana, Italy was the core and essentially everything else in the Mediterranean world was the periphery. Today, the U.S., Canada and Europe make up most of the imperial core, and the “global south,” including the overwhelming majority of the world’s population, is the periphery. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of civilization; the same logic would enshrine the Middle Ages as a great achievement, because if you ignored all the serfs, the nobility lived fairly well.
The term “Noble Savage” came from the observation that “savages” could afford “luxuries” that in Europe only the nobility could afford. The difference between civilization and beyond civilization is whether you reserve a reasonably good life for 10% of your population, or 100%.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 June 2007 @ 10:14 PM
Highly resembles the the Fund for Peace’s failed states index; I don’t understand why all these darn peace organizations don’t simply push for a govt. department of home world peace. Or better yet create one independently; we’re pouring funding into all these separate organizations globally, it makes no sense, why not simply allow them to be greatly organized by placing them under one banner. Doing so would allow for increased intelligence capabilities, communications, faster response time during times of crisis, and cooperation of world governments ( seeing as this would be an independent global organization ) in times of need.
In retrospect the entire planet is based upon foreign policy, promoting peace, and advancing humanity. Working towards joining peace agencies, think tanks, and several selected non-government organizations (i.e. red cross, FERN) could greatly increase humanities capabilities to attaining stability throughout the majority of the world.
…all just a thought.
Comment by Gunshard — 19 June 2007 @ 10:22 PM
I’d hope that there’s a resemblance; the Index is done by Foreign Policy with the Fund for Peace. It’s the same Index.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 June 2007 @ 10:47 PM
You say that “Only countries in green have not yet collapsed”. That’s pretty strong. You could also say that “only countries in red have collapsed”. On the other hand, most of the world seems to be on the borderline, so.. And of course, it depends on your definition of collapse.
Comment by Jay — 20 June 2007 @ 3:03 AM
Jason writes: “The imperial core enjoys a comfortable existence bought at the expense of the misery and suffering of a much larger periphery.”
Comparing a map of the world’s known oil reserves with the failed states map illustrates this point pretty well, IMO.
Comment by Paula — 20 June 2007 @ 3:33 AM
Jay, you couldn’t also say that. Collapse is well-defined. It isn’t vague or open to a lot of interpretation. Definitions do not vary. Collapse is the sudden loss of an established order of complexity. See Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies. Only the states in green have not collapsed.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 June 2007 @ 10:26 AM
But wait, what’s Mongolia doing in there coloured green. Landlocked by failing states ‘Outer Mongolia’ is surely the antithesis of a core state.
Is it simply the case that Mongolia has had so little development that there is nothing there that can actually collpase?
Does anyone even know?
Comment by Aaron — 21 June 2007 @ 10:37 PM
*shrug* I can’t say much about Mongolia. Maybe things are pretty stable in Ulan Bator?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 June 2007 @ 11:30 PM