{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011782032400589101, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005891016200294551, 'mean_word_length': 5.565217391304348, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
New Approaches to Identifying State Fragility

Abstract We offer an alternative approach to the identification of state fragility – and in turn an alternative foundation for fragility assessment. Current practice relies almost exclusively on a single aggregate metric updated annually, uninformed by change or rate of change in the metrics. Our alternative proposes a more pragmatic three-stage process: the use of existing quantitative country assessments to determine relatively clear lower regions of concern and upper bounds beyond which countries are of less concern; a combination of the component elements of the country assessments and history to gage the trajectory of recent change; and qualitative insights drawn from regularly-updated “fragility assessments” to ensure that the idiosyncrasies of each case are taken into account when crafting specific policy and programmatic responses. Our analysis here is based on historical CPIA data complemented by data on violent deaths and displacement, looking ex post at institutional trajectories for IDA countries from 2005 to 2015. The approach we propose is not without its own risks and limitations, but is offered in the spirit of widespread concerns in the development community that prevailing strategies for assessing state fragility have demonstrably reached the limits of their effectiveness.