A more fundamental look at the failed states index

I've never blogged before, so if my etiquette is off, please give me a heads up.

I'll start by saying that everything I'm about to say constitutes my own opinion, and only my own. I will do my best to source anything I claim to be fact.

Photo courtesy of foreignpolicy.com

So every year, as most of you know, Foreign Policy and the Fund For Peace collaborate on what's known as the Failed States Index. The index claims to be a way of quantifiably ranking the countries of the world into a list of "failed states". A failed state is usually recognized as a state in turmoil, lacking central governance, with a generally unhappy population. There are twelve total variables used in defining the index (source), from demographic pressures to public services and human rights. I think we would all agree; these factors do a good job at defining a failed state.

Now, there are many arguments for and against what the failed states index is trying to accomplish. Personally, while I feel some of the methodologies are offensive, I also feel as if this index can be a good method for raising awareness (whether or not increased awareness is beneficial is another topic). However, I also feel that most of the indicators are incredibly difficult to quantify. How does one put a number on demographic pressures? It's like asking a kid "on a scale from 1 to 10, how tasty is seared ahi steak". To be fair, the fund for peace does claim to use "tons of data taken worldwide", but without publishing their data, it's difficult to trust their proverbial word.

In that regard, I feel there's a more fundamental aspect which may help to more easily quantify the failing states index: unemployment. Before you claim that I don't know anything about economics and politics, you're completely right. I'm an engineer. Everything I do is based on numbers, equations, expressions, and logic. However, something I remember from my high school history class is that historically, the nations that prosper the most are the ones which are able to break away from traditional hunting/gathering. This propensity for growth occurs for a few reasons, which all end up with people not having to fend for themselves for nutrition, healthcare, and other basic needs. When 75% of one's time is spent finding dinner, that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for developing business, educating the young, and caring for each other.

Now, it would take a monumental effort to really prove that unemployment is a good indicator, and I'm not one to put forth that effort. In that regard, these are only my thoughts