Worlds Fragile States: Sri Lanka should not

ignore being classified as an alert state

Sri Lanka a failed state according to Fragile State Index- July 28, 2014
On te !asis of te country"s score in 12 !road indicators, Sri Lanka is !eing
continuously ranked, fro# 200$ % te year in &ic te country &as
included in te Index % as a fragile state, earlier a failed state, !y 'S(
!ased Fund for )eace or FF)* +e ranking in te index is done like te
ranking of te students in a class fro# !est to &orst* +us, in res,ect of
eac indicator, te !est country is ranked at nu#!er 1 and te &eakest at
nu#!er 10* (ccordingly, countries tat get a score of 12 or close to it are
ranked as strong* In te o,,osite, tose tat get scores of 120 or close to
tat nu#!er are ranked as fragile* Sri Lanka"s score trougout te ,eriod
200$-2014 as o-ered !et&een ./ and .2 ,lacing it a#ong te fragile
countries in te &orld*
In te Index for 2014, Sri Lanka as scored .2*$ ranking it as te 00t #ost
fragile country out of 1/8 countries 1a-aila!le at2
tt,2334,*statesindex*org3rankings-20145* In te !road classi6cations of
countries, Sri Lanka as !een categorised as an 7alert" country
de#onstrating a ig degree of fragility* +us, !y all #eans, Sri Lanka is a
failed state, according to tis index*

(ll glo!al indices are not kind to Sri Lanka
O!-iously, tis index as not !een kind to Sri Lanka* For tat
#atter, none of te oter glo!al indices suc as ease of doing
!usiness, corru,tion ,erce,tion, go-ernance, rule of la& etc
a-e !een kind to Sri Lanka* (ll tese indices a-e ranked Sri
Lanka -ery lo&, indicating tat tere is #uc to !e desired if
Sri Lanka &ises to i#,ro-e its conditions* +e i#,act of te
outco#e of tese indices on Sri Lanka as !een discussed !y
tis &riter in a nu#!er of ,re-ious articles in tis series* 8ase
of doing !usiness &as discussed in an article titled 79oing
!usiness in Sri Lanka2 +ere is a long &ay to go" 1(-aila!le at2
tt,233&&&*ft*lk3201231130:3doing-!usiness-in-sri-lanka-teres-
a-long-&ay-to-go35*
+e sli,,age of Sri Lanka in corru,tion ,erce,tion &as discussed in an
article titled 7Sli,,age in corru,tion ,erce,tion2 Sould Sri Lankans take
note of it;" 1(-aila!le at2 tt,233&&&*ft*lk3201031230.3sli,,age-in-corru,tion-
,erce,tion-sould-sri-lankans-take-note-of-it35*
+e article titled 7<lo!al =ule of La& Index2 SL ranked at #idle-el !ut as
#ore callenges tan rest of te grou," discussed te rule of la& issues
1(-aila!le at2 tt,233&&&*ft*lk320143043213glo!al-rule-of-la&-index-sl-ranked-
#id-le-el-!ut-as-#ore-callenges-tan-rest-of-grou,35*
=esults of glo!al indices #ostly ignored
+oug tese indices a-e &orld&ide acce,tance, te ,olicy autorities of
te countries concerned a-e al&ays looked at te# eiter as a nuisance or
as so#e international cons,iracy against te#* +us, te #essage
deli-ered !y te indices as not !een taken seriously !y te countries to
&ic tey are #ost a,,lica!le* +e result as !een te di-ision of te
&orld into t&o grou,s2 +e countries &ic a-e good index -alues and
countries &ic do not*
>ostly, te de-elo,ed countries !elong to te 6rst category &ile te
de-elo,ing nations to te latter* +is di-ision as &ell as te disregard of te
results of te indices !y ,olicy autorities of de-elo,ing countries as #ade
te outco#e of te indices, co#,iled at great costs and la!our, ?ust an
acade#ic exercise &it only li#ited ,ractical use*
@entral Aank"s atte#,t at educating te ,u!lic
In tis !ackground, te @entral Aank as ,u!lised a ti#ely !ox article
titled 7Insigt into <lo!al Indices" in its (nnual =e,ort for 2010 1,gs $.-/05*
+e ,ur,ose of te !ox article as !een t&ofold2 First, to ex,ress its
reser-ations a!out te accuracy of tese indices since tey are !ased on
,erce,tions of ,eo,le &o are !eing inter-ie&ed to gater infor#ation !y
te co#,ilers of indicesB second, to announce its ,lan for conducting an
inde,endent sur-ey of its o&n to ca,ture te senti#ents of !usiness
executi-es of te country on #any of te indicators co-ered in glo!al
indices*
+us, in ti#e to co#e, it is likely tat te @entral Aank #igt co#e u, &it
its o&n o#e-#ade indices as alternati-es to te indices co#,iled !y te
glo!al co#,ilers* +ey #igt counter te glo!al indices !ut lose
international co#,ara!ility if tey are not co#,iled !y adering to !est
glo!al ,ractices*

O!-iously, tis index as not !een kind to Sri Lanka* For tat #atter, none
of te oter glo!al indices suc as ease of doing !usiness, corru,tion
,erce,tion, go-ernance, rule of la& etc a-e !een kind to Sri Lanka* (ll
tese indices a-e ranked Sri Lanka -ery lo&, indicating tat tere is #uc
to !e desired if Sri Lanka &ises to i#,ro-e its conditions*
+e o-erall score of te country, as #entioned a!o-e, as !een
consistently !et&een .2*2 and .$*/ classifying Sri Lanka as a fragile state
&it ig risk of failure* +is is not a situation a!out &ic te country can
!e a,,y and co#,lacent*
+oug tese indices a-e &orld&ide acce,tance, te ,olicy autorities of
te countries concerned a-e al&ays looked at te# eiter as a nuisance or
as so#e international cons,iracy against te#* +us, te #essage
deli-ered !y te indices as not !een taken seriously !y te countries to
&ic tey are #ost a,,lica!le*C

@entral Aank2 )erce,tions are su!?ecti-e and a-e a ,ersonal and cultural
!ias
+e !ox article under reference, a-ing a,,reciated te useful role &ic
tese indices ,lay in infor#ing te glo!al ,olicy #akers of te co#,ara!le
,osition of te countries in-ol-ed, as s,oken of te li#itations of te index
results #ainly due to a sortco#ing in te #etod of co#,ilation* +o gater
infor#ation rele-ant to a country, selected grou,s of ,eo,le are inter-ie&ed
and tey ex,ress teir ,ersonal ,erce,tions a!out te Duestions tat are
,osed to te#* +ese ,erce,tions, alleges te @entral Aank, are Esu!?ecti-e
and reFect ,ersonal as &ell as cultural !iasC* Gence, te -alidity of te
results of te indices !eco#es de!ata!le*
In addition, so#e of te indices use te results of oter indices co#,iled !y
organisations like I>F and te Horld Aank* Gence, if te results of tose
indices are !ad, so are te results of te indices tat use tose results as
teir in,uts* +e i#,lication of suc an inter-linkage of index results is te
natural !uilding of 7!adness" or 7goodness" into te glo!al indices so
co#,iled* +us, !ad guys are al&ays !ad and good guys are al&ays good
&ic does not re-eal anyting tat as not !een kno&n !efore*
Aad or good #e#ories feed into long ter# ,erce,tions
+e @entral Aank cannot !e faulted for Duestioning te -alidity of
,erce,tions as a #eaningful re-elation of te actual situation ,re-ailing in a
country* )erce,tions are too often guided !y e#otions tat do not ,er#it a
,erson to ex,ress is o,inion on an issue in an o!?ecti-e #anner*
Gistorically accu#ulated #e#ories also ,lay an i#,ortant role in for#ing
long-ter# ,erce,tions* If a cild is caned e-eryday and if te cild does not
en?oy !eing caned, is or er ,erce,tion of te cane is as an instru#ent of
torture e-en &en it is used for a ,leasant ex,erience % say so&ing te
&ay to an ice crea# ,arlour* If tere are stories a!out corru,t ,ractices of
,oliticians or ,u!lic ser-ants and te la&s do not reac te#, te long-ter#
,erce,tion of a ,erson is tat ,oliticians and ,u!lic ser-ants are corru,t
and te syste# tat gi-es te# i#,unity is also corru,t* +us, ,erce,tions
are ,ersonalised -ie&s and sould not necessarily reFect te co##on -ie&
of a ,o,ulation*
)erce,tions inFuence al#ost all u#an actions
Aut tis is not an issue co##on only to glo!al sur-eys* In any ,u!lic
o,inion testing exercise, te issue of !iased ,erce,tions &ill co#e u,
distorting te 6nal result of te exercise* It is ty,ical of elections in &ic
te ,erce,tions of -oters are tested en #asse* )eo,le -ote for candidates
at elections not after an o!?ecti-e and rational e-aluation !ut !ased on te
,erce,tions tey a-e for#ed a!out te#* It is not unusual for a ,erson to
-ote for a candidate &itout ,ro,erly e-aluating te #anifesto e as
,resented to te electorate* +is !ea-iour is contrary to o& a rational
,erson sould !ea-e !ecause rationality reDuires i# to assess !ot te
,luses and #inuses of te issue at and and coose it only if ,luses are
greater tan #inuses* Aut as Io!el Laureate Ger!ert Si#on as found,
,eo,le do not go for te de,t of rationality &en #aking decisions*
Instead, tey go for te !est decision &ic tey can #ake &it te
a-aila!le infor#ation, ti#e and !rain ,o&er to ,rocess tat infor#ation* Ge
coined te ter# 7!ounded rationality" to descri!e tis !ea-iour !ecause
decisions are !ounded !y te a-aila!ility of infor#ation, ti#e and ,ersonal
a!ilities* +us, e-en at elections, ,eo,le do not #ake te #ost accurate
coice !ased on rational tinkingB tey #ake te !est coice &ic can !e
called te o,ti#al coice* (nd tat o,ti#al coice is good enoug for
#ini#ising risks, a-oiding losses and enancing ,ro6ts* Gence, ,erce,tions
are not tat #isleading*
<lo!al indices gater ,erce,tions of #any di-erse ,eo,le
+e co#,ilers of glo!al indices are a&are of tis nature of ,erce,tions tat
#igt ,re-ent te# fro# ,ortraying te true state of a4airs of a country*
Gence, tey select ,eo,le fro# di-erse !ackgrounds and ,ositions for
gatering infor#ation so tat e-eryone &ill not a-e te sa#e ,erce,tion
on an issue* Suc inter-ie&s are ten cross-cecked &it ,u!lised data to
assess teir -eracity* +e 6nal outco#e is ,roduced after a,,ro,riately
#oderating te indi-idual -ie&s ex,ressed !y te#*
+ree ste,s in !uilding te Fragile State Index
In te case of Fragile State Index, te Fund for )eace as de-elo,ed an
analytical ,latfor# kno&n as @onFict (ssess#ent Syste# +ool or @(S+
1a-aila!le at2 tt,233li!rary*fundfor,eace*org3cfsir14185* It uses tree
#etods to arri-e at its decisions* First, in a ,rocess called content analysis,
#illions of ,u!lised docu#ents relating to di4erent indicators ,ertaining to
a country are scanned and electronically assessed using s,ecial soft&are
,roduced for tis ,ur,ose* Second, a Duantitati-e data gatering is #ade
!y using infor#ation already ,u!lised !y di-erse glo!al institutions suc
as te 'nited Iations, +rans,arency International, Freedo# Gouse, Horld
Fact!ook, Horld Aank, and #any oter re,uted organisations* +ird, a
Dualitati-e re-ie& is done !y co#,aring te results arri-ed troug te t&o
,re-ious #etods 1a-aila!le at2 tt,2334,*statesindex*org3faD-00-&at-
#etodology5* +us, ,erce,tions get into te Index indirectly troug te
indices co#,iled !y oter agencies tat a-e ca,tured ,erce,tions of
,eo,le to co#e u, &it teir results*
Sri Lanka ranked lo& in all te su! indicators
+e t&el-e !road indicators used !y te Fund for )eace for co#,iling te
Fragile State Index are as follo&s2 9e#ogra,ic )ressures 19)5 tat
ca,tures diseases and natural disasters #aking it i#,ossi!le for
go-ern#ents to ,rotect citiJens or situations &ere tey lack ca,acity or
&illingness to do so2 In tis as,ect, Sri Lanka as !een ranked at lo& le-els
scoring !et&een $*: and 8*0 out of a total failed #ark of 10*
=efugees and internally dis,laced ,ersons 1=8F5 ,lacing a strain on te
ca,acity of te <o-ern#ent to andle te issue tere!y ,osing a security
treat2 In tis as,ect, Sri Lanka"s score is -ery ,oor ranging !et&een 8*2
and .*2*
<rou, grie-ances 1<<5 tat underlie te existence of conFicts a#ong
di4erent grou,s generating etnic, religious, co##unal and sectarian
-iolence and te el,lessness of te state to andle te# ,ro,erly2 Sri
Lanka"s score in tis as,ect is #ost alar#ing de#onstrating a score of
al#ost total failure* Its score as ranged !et&een .*1 and .*8*
Gu#an Figt and !rain-drain 1GF5 de#onstrating tat tere is little
o,,ortunity for ,eo,le forcing te# to lea-e te sores tere!y creating a
-acuu# in te u#an ca,ital stock2 Sri Lanka"s score in tis res,ect as
!een !et&een $*/ and /*$ !ut as !een rising in te recent years
de#onstrating te onset of a critical situation*
'ne-en de-elo,#ent 1'895 tat as taken into account inco#e dis,arity
and access to !asic ser-ices2 In tis as,ect also, te country"s score as
!een lo& ranging !et&een /*: and 8*/*
)o-erty and econo#ic decline 18@O5 tat #ake it diKcult for te state to
,ro-ide for te citiJens as de#onstrated !y te existence of !udget
de6cits, go-ern#ent de!t, yout une#,loy#ent, falling ,urcasing ,o&er
etc2 +e country"s score in tis as,ect as !een !etter tan oter as,ects
and its score as ranged at #id-le-el !et&een :*0 and $*2*
State legiti#acy 1SL5 in-ol-ing corru,tion, lack of re,resentati-eness and
failure to deli-er tat is ,ro#ised !y te <o-ern#ent* +is as,ect co-ers a
&ide range of social and ,olitical issues suc as le-el of corru,tion,
go-ern#ent e4ecti-eness, ,olitical ,artici,ation, electoral ,rocess, le-el of
de#ocracy, drug trade, ,rotests and de#onstrations and ,o&er struggles2
Sri Lanka"s score ere as !een -ery lo& and it as ranged !et&een 8*1
and .*2*
+e ,u!lic ser-ices 1)S5 tat ca,tures te a!ility of te state to deli-er te
!asic ser-ices tat co-er ,olicing, cri#inality, education, &ater and
sanitation, infrastructure, Duality ealtcare, tele,ony, internet access,
Duality roads and relia!le energy etc2 Sri Lanka"s second !est score as
!een in tis area &ere it as scored !et&een :*: and /*0*
Gu#an rigts and rule of la& 1G=5 tat includes ,ress freedo#, ci-il
li!erties, ,olitical freedo#s, u#an traKcking, ,olitical ,risoners,
incarceration, religious ,ersecution, torture and executions2 Sri Lanka as
!een ranked -ery lo& in tis area and its score as !een !et&een /*2 and
.*0* +e score as deteriorated signi6cantly in te recent fe& years*
Security a,,aratus 1S8@5 co-ers &eter te go-ern#ent as te #ono,oly
on te use of legiti#ate force and te ,o&er of te state is &eakened &en
tere are oter ,o&er grou,s &ic also use force on citiJens alongside te
<o-ern#ent2 In tis area too, Sri Lanka"s record is -ery lo& and its score
as ranged !et&een 8*0 and .*0*
Fractionalised elites 1F85 tat cause te local and external grou,s to
inter-ene in te ordinary a4airs of te state &eakening its ,osition2 Sri
Lanka"s score in tis area as !een -ery lo& and it as ranged !et&een $*/
and .*:*
8xternal inter-entions 18L+5 co-ering te failure of te state to #eet its
do#estic and international o!ligations2 In tis area, Sri Lanka"s track record
as !een at #id le-el scoring !et&een $*1 and $*8*
+e o-erall score of te country, as #entioned a!o-e, as !een
consistently !et&een .2*2 and .$*/ classifying Sri Lanka as a fragile state
&it ig risk of failure* +is is not a situation a!out &ic te country can
!e a,,y and co#,lacent*
@ritics say tat Fragile State Index is also fragile
+e Fragile State Index as co#e under ars criticis# o&ing to its failure
to ,redict conFicts in te countries co-ered !y it and its o!-ious !ias for
&estern-ty,e de#ocracies and declared underrating of so#e of te ,oor
countries es,ecially in (frica* Lionel Aeener and Jose, Moung &riting to
te Hasington )ost in July 2014 i##ediately after te Index for 2014 &as
released a-e su##arised tese criticis#s and indicated te &ays of
rescuing te index fro# !eing a futile exercise 1a-aila!le at2
tt,233&&&*&asington,ost*co#3!logs3#onkey-cage3&,3201430/3143is-
ranking-failed-or-fragile-states-a-futile-!usiness35*
+e suggestions #ade are tat te Index sould !e #ore trans,arent, it
sould #easure &at it as targeted to #easure, it sould de6ne &at is
#eant !y 7fragile" ,recisely, it sould du#, suc e#otional state#ents like
7)ostcards fro# Gell" &ic do not ser-e any ,ur,ose and it sould i#,ro-e
its ,redicti-e ,o&ers* Hitout suc i#,ro-e#ents, te autors feel tat te
index on fragile states &ill re#ain fragile*
+e #essage deli-ered !y Fragile State Index sould not !e ignored
+e index, like oter suc glo!al indices, is not criticis#-free* ( country can
castigate te index co#,ilers on te ground tat tey are !ased on
,ersonalised ,erce,tions &ic are far fro# reality* If te #a?ority of ,eo,le
,ercei-e te issues !efore te# in tat &ay, ten, it is so#eting tat
cannot !e ignored at all*
1H*(* Hi?e&ardena, a for#er 9e,uty <o-ernor of te @entral Aank of Sri
Lanka, can !e reaced at &a&1.4.Ng#ail*co#5