Q & A: Mark A. Loucas on Failed State Scores for Nepal
KRISHNA SHARMA of Nepal Monitor speaks to MARK A. LOUCAS of the FFP on Nepal's performance on the FSI.
Mark A. Loucas is the spokesperson of the Fund For Peace (FFP), a Washington DC-based independent research institute, which has been working on the Failed States Index, among others, since the creation of United Nations. Also a research associate and co-author of “Peace Operations”, Mr. Loucas works in the Peace and Stability Operations Program and the Conflict Assessment Program of the FFP. He has been involved on a number of projects aimed at exploring new ways in which Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST) can be used to measure and analyze data on weak and failing states for the FFP's Conflict Assessment program. A graduate of George Washington University on International Affairs, he had also assisted with the publishing of the 'Realizing Never Again' report in 2005. Mr. Loucas took time to talk to Krishna Sharma of Nepal Monitor after the recent release of FSI-2009 in which Nepal’s overall situation is featured as failing. Excerpts:
In the new global report on the Failed States released by your institution, Nepal ranks 25th. What implications does it have to Nepal’s overall performance?
The Failed States Index (FSI) ranks all 177 world nations for which we can collect data. Nepal's rank of 25 indicates a situation in which there are persistent, significant social, political and economic challenges. The purpose of the index is to raise awareness on key issues, promote discussion and provide a deeper analysis of a country's instability. The development disparity between the rural and urban areas, the continuing governmental problems related to the former Maoist factions and the severe economic problems are all issues that we have been monitoring.
What does the FSI have to do with nations like Nepal that are on the verge of being failed?
The index measures the risk of state failure. We do not state definitively who has failed and who has not.
What criteria were used to measure whether Nepal falls under the category of Failed States? How were they applied?
The FSI is classified into twelve indicators of pressures on the state. Our website has a FAQ section which can explain how they are applied - you can click here for that.
How does Fund for Peace announce or enlist any nation in the Failed States idex? Does it communicate about it with the respective governments before doing so?
We provide scores and rankings for every country for which we can collect data - currently 177 nations. The index is published in Foreign Policy magazine and we always welcome an opportunity to discuss our findings with various government representatives.
Does your release of the Index in any way influence the United States' and the United Nation's (among other donor nations’ and agencies’) approach to dealing with Nepal's development endeavor, such as a new shift in their policies toward that country?
The FSI does not say that a country is or is not a "failed state", rather it shows the pressures on the state and the risk of failure. It is a comprehensive breakdown of the critical challenges to a country's stability. Our data has been reviewed by various branches of the US government as well as several international organizations including the UN. It is hard to say with any certainty how much influence our findings have had but they remain very interested in our work.
Politicians and development experts in general in Nepal deny that the country has fallen into the category of "Failed State". They say despite some political hitches, Nepal is doing well in terms of education, communication, civil service sector, military, etc. How would FFP's react to this?
Given Nepal's recent troubles, it has made real progress in some key areas, particularly in areas related to security. We strive to publish scores that reflect positive developments as well as negative ones. It is also important to note that our 2009 FSI is based on events that occurred in 2008. Progress that is taking place this year will not be reflected until next year.
What were the parameters that made the FFP to conclude that Nepal made progress in military in 2008 while in reality the institution seems to have been increasingly politicized?
As far as Nepal goes, the slight improvements in the political/military indicators reflect the gradual reduction of violence and political violence since the end of the Maoist insurgency. The security situation is far from ideal but some improvements have shown up in our data.
What is the basis the FFP’s annual review of nations in terms of their political and social performances? Could you shed light on the contribution your institution makes to global peace and development?
The goal of The Fund for Peace is to provide research and analysis of international conflicts so as to educate and promote discussion of critical global issues. We have been doing this for over fifty years.
How many countries have exited from the list of Failed States after performing better in the areas of their respective governments, civil service, military, education and others?
Many countries have made enough progress to dramatically improve their ranking on the FSI. Some recent examples include Ivory Coast, Lebanon and the Dominican Republic.
You can read the FSI 2009 for Nepal here
####
Posted by Editor on August 7, 2009 09:25 AM