NationStates Jolt Archive

I came across this article recently, and it struck me as interesting. The nations of the world with listed in terms of how viable they are, using this criteria:
* mounting demographic pressures
* massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples
* legacy of vengeance - seeking group grievance
* chronic and sustained human flight
* uneven economic development along group lines
* sharp and/or severe economic decline
* criminalisation and delegitimisation of the state
* progressive deterioration of public services
* widespread violation of human rights
* security apparatus as "state within a state"
* rise of factionalised elites
* intervention of other states or external actors

Here's the least viable, according to the index:
1. Sudan (3)*
2. DR Congo (2)*
3. Ivory Coast (1)*
4. Iraq (4)*
5. Zimbabwe (15)*
6. Chad (7)*
(Tie) Somalia (5)*
8. Haiti (10)*
9. Pakistan (34)*
10. Afghanistan (11)*
* Position in 2005 report

So, anyone have any ideas on this list, what criteria was used and which countries should be in the top 10? Honestly, I'm suprised North Korea isn't there, considering the human rights abuses and wrecked economy.

I came across this article recently, and it struck me as interesting. The nations of the world with listed in terms of how viable they are, using this criteria:
* mounting demographic pressures
* massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples
* legacy of vengeance - seeking group grievance
* chronic and sustained human flight
* uneven economic development along group lines
* sharp and/or severe economic decline
* criminalisation and delegitimisation of the state
* progressive deterioration of public services
* widespread violation of human rights
* security apparatus as "state within a state"
* rise of factionalised elites
* intervention of other states or external actors

So, anyone have any ideas on this list, what criteria was used and which countries should be in the top 10? Honestly, I'm suprised North Korea isn't there, considering the human rights abuses and wrecked economy.

Using these criteria, California should be on the list. I know it's not a nation, though it's population, economic status and physical size could put it there.
About the only criterion that doesn't apply is the third from the bottom "security apparatus as 'state within a state'".

Pakistan? :eek:

Honestly, I'm suprised North Korea isn't there, considering the human rights abuses and wrecked economy.

I don't think NK's going to collapse soon. It's a pretty stable state.

Pakistan? :eek:

That's perfectly reasonable

So, anyone have any ideas on this list, what criteria was used and which countries should be in the top 10? Honestly, I'm suprised North Korea isn't there, considering the human rights abuses and wrecked economy.

Why would N-Korea be in there?

Let's just check the points you mentioned:
* mounting demographic pressures NO
* massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples NO
* legacy of vengeance - seeking group grievance NO
* chronic and sustained human flight NO
* uneven economic development along group lines NO
* sharp and/or severe economic decline NO
* criminalisation and delegitimisation of the state NO
* progressive deterioration of public services NO
* widespread violation of human rights YES
* security apparatus as "state within a state" NO
* rise of factionalised elites NO
* intervention of other states or external actors NO

That is ONE factor, the widespread violation of human rights.
The economic state hasnt recently changed significantly (it always kinda sucked, but not nearly as much as many, many other countries). There is no ethnic abuse and the country isnt split. In other words, there is no chance of a civil war of any kind.
The only reason why NKorea would possibly fail is because of US intervention. This same argument used to hold to a certain degree for Iraq, btw. But let's hope the US finally learned its lesson...

Honestly, I'm suprised North Korea isn't there, considering the human rights abuses and wrecked economy.

Actually when you look beyond the bizarre propaganda statements there is actually a lot of basic economic reform going on in NK a la what China went through 25 years ago. They are following the Chinese example and China itself is also a stabilizing influence. Hopfully they will be able to put their embarrassing starvation problems behind them.

Emaciated citizeney? Even your best allies won't tell you. Work your way to fatter citizens with NEW agricultural reform! You'll be glad you did! (Because your head won't end up on a pike when your citizen slaves rebel.)

Pakistan? :eek:


That surprised me a bit too, but maybe its just the test cricket thing.

Pakistan?

Pakistan is about as stable as a lumpy chocolate bar balanced on one end in an earthquake.

I came across this article recently, and it struck me as interesting. The nations of the world with listed in terms of how viable they are, using this criteria:
* mounting demographic pressures
* massive movement of refugees and internally displaced peoples
* legacy of vengeance - seeking group grievance
* chronic and sustained human flight
* uneven economic development along group lines
* sharp and/or severe economic decline
* criminalisation and delegitimisation of the state
* progressive deterioration of public services
* widespread violation of human rights
* security apparatus as "state within a state"
* rise of factionalised elites
* intervention of other states or external actors

So, anyone have any ideas on this list, what criteria was used and which countries should be in the top 10? Honestly, I'm suprised North Korea isn't there, considering the human rights abuses and wrecked economy.The bold parts answer that:
There is no massive movement of refugees within North Korea. Movement is severely limited.
Legacy of vengeance? There's no cultural conflict *within* North Korea that would compare to the ethnic violence that criteria was intended for.
Delegitimization of the state probably means that the state loses its powers and abilities to enforce its laws. This isn't really the case.
And there hasn't been much intervention in North Korea lately.