Is it fair to rank 'failed' states?
Media outlets and think tanks like rankings because they inspire debate, but ranking failed states based on perceived failings is irresponsible, writes a guest blogger.
Media outlets and think tanks like rankings because they inspire debate, but ranking failed states based on perceived failings is irresponsible, writes a guest blogger.
鈥� A version of this post ran on the author's blog, bloggingsbyboz.com. The views expressed are the author's own.
Foreign Policy published the annual Failed States Index along with its "Postcards from Hell" that show pictures from each of the worst 60.
听
听In terms of this hemisphere, Haiti is in the top 10 most failed states in the world. Colombia and Bolivia both make the "critical" level. My analysis is that Honduras and Venezuela are both far worse than Colombia or Bolivia, but that's a separate issue.
Think you know Latin America? Take our geography quiz!
Two solid critiques of the index have been published in Foreign Policy itself by the authors of the Africa is a Country blog as well as the Guardian. From the Guardian:
Media outlets and think tanks like rankings because they inspire debate and media coverage, but I think the Guardian has this correct. I also agree with the criticism that "Postcards from Hell" is offensive. To define 60 countries as "Hell" is to use their worst qualities to define them as completely irredeemable, which they are not.
鈥� James Bosworth is a freelance writer and consultant who runs Bloggings by Boz.