迷失在聚合中:在测量状态脆弱性时导航噪声和信号

IF 1.4 3区 经济学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Gulzhan Asylbek kyzy, Gary Milante, Zina Nimeh, Kaj Thomsson
{"title":"迷失在聚合中:在测量状态脆弱性时导航噪声和信号","authors":"Gulzhan Asylbek kyzy,&nbsp;Gary Milante,&nbsp;Zina Nimeh,&nbsp;Kaj Thomsson","doi":"10.1111/dpr.70041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Motivation</h3>\n \n <p>The measurement of the fragility of countries continues to be a growing field, although there is less and less consensus on the definition of fragility. Moreover, quantifying highly complex concepts such as state fragility involves assumptions that differ substantially across indices. Yet, interest in advancing the ways of capturing fragility remains high. Therefore, it raises the question of why the fragility community remains invested in the concept despite the notable challenges and how we can make sense of the different fragility measures available today.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This article considers why there are so many fragility indices and how they can be most useful to scholars and the international community. We contribute to a growing debate on this issue by explaining why multilateral organizations and donors are still invested in expanding the concept and by carrying out a stocktake of the current indices as well as offering suggestions about how to make sense of them.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Approach and methods</h3>\n \n <p>We identify the most widely used measures of state fragility and evaluate them according to the basic criteria for developing such indices as set out in the literature. We unpack the underlying source indicators to understand what the fragility indices ultimately tell us. We then briefly compare some of the current classifications as an example of how different definitions can result in inconsistent rankings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>A review of the available indices reveals that they can be sources of useful signals. However, there is also extraneous noise due to sourcing problems, problems of double-counting, or data time-lags.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\n \n <p>Beyond reliance on composite indices, policy-makers can leverage publicly available indicators to define their own vision of an optimal state and identify targeted areas for improvement, fostering more context-specific and actionable strategies. Such an approach enables better use of underlying data for strategic planning and sustainable development, while ensuring that policies are reflective of the actual needs of fragile states.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51478,"journal":{"name":"Development Policy Review","volume":"43 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dpr.70041","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lost in Aggregation: Navigating noise and signals in measuring state fragility\",\"authors\":\"Gulzhan Asylbek kyzy,&nbsp;Gary Milante,&nbsp;Zina Nimeh,&nbsp;Kaj Thomsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dpr.70041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Motivation</h3>\\n \\n <p>The measurement of the fragility of countries continues to be a growing field, although there is less and less consensus on the definition of fragility. Moreover, quantifying highly complex concepts such as state fragility involves assumptions that differ substantially across indices. Yet, interest in advancing the ways of capturing fragility remains high. Therefore, it raises the question of why the fragility community remains invested in the concept despite the notable challenges and how we can make sense of the different fragility measures available today.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>This article considers why there are so many fragility indices and how they can be most useful to scholars and the international community. We contribute to a growing debate on this issue by explaining why multilateral organizations and donors are still invested in expanding the concept and by carrying out a stocktake of the current indices as well as offering suggestions about how to make sense of them.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Approach and methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We identify the most widely used measures of state fragility and evaluate them according to the basic criteria for developing such indices as set out in the literature. We unpack the underlying source indicators to understand what the fragility indices ultimately tell us. We then briefly compare some of the current classifications as an example of how different definitions can result in inconsistent rankings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Findings</h3>\\n \\n <p>A review of the available indices reveals that they can be sources of useful signals. However, there is also extraneous noise due to sourcing problems, problems of double-counting, or data time-lags.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Policy implications</h3>\\n \\n <p>Beyond reliance on composite indices, policy-makers can leverage publicly available indicators to define their own vision of an optimal state and identify targeted areas for improvement, fostering more context-specific and actionable strategies. Such an approach enables better use of underlying data for strategic planning and sustainable development, while ensuring that policies are reflective of the actual needs of fragile states.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Development Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"43 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dpr.70041\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Development Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.70041\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.70041","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

衡量国家脆弱性继续成为一个不断发展的领域,尽管对脆弱性的定义的共识越来越少。此外,对状态脆弱性等高度复杂的概念进行量化,涉及的假设在不同指数之间存在很大差异。然而,人们对推进捕捉脆弱性的方法的兴趣仍然很高。因此,它提出了一个问题:尽管面临着显著的挑战,为什么脆弱性社区仍然对这一概念进行投资,以及我们如何理解目前可用的不同脆弱性衡量标准。本文探讨了为什么会有这么多脆弱性指数,以及它们如何对学者和国际社会最有用。我们通过解释为什么多边组织和捐助者仍在努力扩大这一概念,对目前的指数进行盘点,并就如何理解这些指数提出建议,从而促进了关于这一问题的日益激烈的辩论。方法和方法我们确定了最广泛使用的国家脆弱性措施,并根据文献中列出的制定此类指数的基本标准对其进行评估。我们分析了潜在的来源指标,以理解脆弱性指数最终告诉我们什么。然后,我们简要地比较了一些当前的分类,作为一个例子,不同的定义如何导致不一致的排名。对现有指数的回顾表明,它们可以是有用信号的来源。然而,由于来源问题、重复计算问题或数据滞后,也存在外来噪声。除了依赖综合指数外,政策制定者还可以利用公开可用的指标来确定自己对最佳状态的看法,并确定需要改进的目标领域,从而制定更具针对性和可操作性的战略。这种方法可以更好地利用基础数据进行战略规划和可持续发展,同时确保政策反映脆弱国家的实际需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Lost in Aggregation: Navigating noise and signals in measuring state fragility

Lost in Aggregation: Navigating noise and signals in measuring state fragility

Motivation

The measurement of the fragility of countries continues to be a growing field, although there is less and less consensus on the definition of fragility. Moreover, quantifying highly complex concepts such as state fragility involves assumptions that differ substantially across indices. Yet, interest in advancing the ways of capturing fragility remains high. Therefore, it raises the question of why the fragility community remains invested in the concept despite the notable challenges and how we can make sense of the different fragility measures available today.

Purpose

This article considers why there are so many fragility indices and how they can be most useful to scholars and the international community. We contribute to a growing debate on this issue by explaining why multilateral organizations and donors are still invested in expanding the concept and by carrying out a stocktake of the current indices as well as offering suggestions about how to make sense of them.

Approach and methods

We identify the most widely used measures of state fragility and evaluate them according to the basic criteria for developing such indices as set out in the literature. We unpack the underlying source indicators to understand what the fragility indices ultimately tell us. We then briefly compare some of the current classifications as an example of how different definitions can result in inconsistent rankings.

Findings

A review of the available indices reveals that they can be sources of useful signals. However, there is also extraneous noise due to sourcing problems, problems of double-counting, or data time-lags.

Policy implications

Beyond reliance on composite indices, policy-makers can leverage publicly available indicators to define their own vision of an optimal state and identify targeted areas for improvement, fostering more context-specific and actionable strategies. Such an approach enables better use of underlying data for strategic planning and sustainable development, while ensuring that policies are reflective of the actual needs of fragile states.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Development Policy Review
Development Policy Review DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Development Policy Review is the refereed journal that makes the crucial links between research and policy in international development. Edited by staff of the Overseas Development Institute, the London-based think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues, it publishes single articles and theme issues on topics at the forefront of current development policy debate. Coverage includes the latest thinking and research on poverty-reduction strategies, inequality and social exclusion, property rights and sustainable livelihoods, globalisation in trade and finance, and the reform of global governance. Informed, rigorous, multi-disciplinary and up-to-the-minute, DPR is an indispensable tool for development researchers and practitioners alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信