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

Abstract 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Development Policy Review
Published
2025-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.70041
Primary Topic
Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Gulzhan Asylbek Kyzy, Gary Milante, Kaj Thomsson, Zina Nimeh
Development Policy Review
Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
article

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

Gulzhan Asylbek Kyzy, Gary Milante, Kaj Thomsson, Zina Nimeh
article en

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Development Policy ReviewVol. 43(6)
Maastricht School of Management (NL), United Nations University – Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (NL), Maastricht University (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.