helping to create a long term policy environment in which poverty reduction, property rights, and good governance can become feasible. Apart from the need to better understand the type and amount of resources to allocate at any given time and place, donors also need to understand the likely consequences of such allocation in advance. In ambiguity on differentiating certain weak states from others makes it difficult to focus on priority problems and to prescribe suitable interventions. Indeed, applying a tailored approach better suited to decision making beyond just a single ranking of performance is a key requirement of PSP analysis advocated by several investigators (Blair et al. 2014, Goldstone 2009, Furness 2014, Brinkerhoff 2014, Marshall and Cole 2014), all of whom have argued against single rank indices. To address this perceived deficiency, we use draw on the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP; 2014) fragile states framework that characterizes states along three dimensions of stateness, specifically authority (A), legitimacy (L), and capacity (C). These dimensions closely follow the recognition of combined statehood qualities (Nettl 1968) that are frequently implied, as for example by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) rests on three “State-building pillars: the capacity of state structures to perform core functions; their legitimacy and accountability; and ability to provide an enabling environment for strong economic performance to generate incomes, employment and domestic revenues.” The Typology Model was recently introduced (Tikuisis et al. 2015) for a more unpacked categorization of states. Specifically, it was developed to identify states characterized as highly functional, moderately functional, impoverished, brittle, struggling, or fragile. For example, while impoverished states are hampered by low capacity, they are reinforced with moderate authority and legitimacy. Brittle states exhibit moderate authority and moderate to high capacity, but weak legitimacy. Fragile states are the polar opposite of highly functional states and stand out as highly susceptible to violent internal conflict. What the state typologies concept provided in its original form was a more nuanced, context specific, and quantifiable methodology for categorizing PSPs along the A-L-C dimensions. Herein, we improve upon the categorization of states using a more complete dataset and statistical clustering.
helping to create a long term policy environment in which poverty reduction, property rights, and good governance can become feasible. Apart from the need to better understand the type and amount of resources to allocate at any given time and place, donors also need to understand the likely consequences of such allocation in advance. In ambiguity on differentiating certain weak states from others makes it difficult to focus on priority problems and to prescribe suitable interventions. Indeed, applying a tailored approach better suited to decision making beyond just a single ranking of performance is a key requirement of PSP analysis advocated by several investigators (Blair et al. 2014, Goldstone 2009, Furness 2014, Brinkerhoff 2014, Marshall and Cole 2014), all of whom have argued against single rank indices. To address this perceived deficiency, we use draw on the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP; 2014) fragile states framework that characterizes states along three dimensions of stateness, specifically authority (A), legitimacy (L), and capacity (C). These dimensions closely follow the recognition of combined statehood qualities (Nettl 1968) that are frequently implied, as for example by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) “State-building rests on three pillars: the capacity of state structures to perform core functions; their legitimacy and accountability; and ability to provide an enabling environment for strong economic performance to generate incomes, employment and domestic revenues.” The Typology Model was recently introduced (Tikuisis et al. 2015) for a more unpacked categorization of states. Specifically, it was developed to identify states characterized as highly functional, moderately functional, impoverished, brittle, struggling, or fragile. For example, while impoverished states are hampered by low capacity, they are reinforced with moderate authority and legitimacy. Brittle states exhibit moderate authority and moderate to high capacity, but weak legitimacy. Fragile states are the polar opposite of highly functional states and stand out as highly susceptible to violent internal conflict. What the state typologies concept provided in its original form was a more nuanced, context specific, and quantifiable methodology for categorizing PSPs along the A-L-C dimensions. Herein, we improve upon the categorization of states using a more complete dataset and statistical clustering.