The contextualized index of statehood (CIS): assessing the interaction between contextual challenges and the organizational capacities of states

  • Oliver Schlenkrich
  • Lukas Lemm
  • Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach


Although the measurement of the quality of statehood has become an important research field in Comparative Politics, most of the currently used indices are flawed by major weaknesses. To address such weaknesses, we developed the “Contextualized Index of Statehood” (CIS). This index is based on the two most essential dimensions of statehood: “monopoly on the use of physical force” and “administration”. Applying a new aggregation method called “variable threshold”, we highlight the interaction between the organizational capacities of a state and the contextual challenges it may face in order to measure the quality of statehood. First, we demonstrate the concept, measurement and aggregation. Then we investigate the validity of our index before presenting our empirical findings, including a model-based cluster analysis.


State fragility Measurement of the quality of statehood Model-based clustering Failed states Contextual challenge Organizational capacity Variable threshold 

Ein Kontextualisierter Index der Staatlichkeit (KIS): Zur Interaktion zwischen kontextuellen Herausforderungen und organisationalen Kapazitäten des Staates


Obwohl die Messung von Staatlichkeit zum wichtigen Forschungsgebiet innerhalb der Vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft wurde, zeigen aktuell verwendete Indizes starke Defizite. Deshalb haben wir den „Kontextualisierten Index der Staatlichkeit“ (KIS) entwickelt. Der Index basiert auf den zwei essentiellsten Dimensionen der Staatlichkeit: „Physisches Gewaltmonopol“ und „Administration“. Unter Verwendung des neuen Aggregationsverfahrens des „variablen thresholds“ analysieren wir die Interaktion von organisationalen Kapazitäten des Staates und kontextuellen Herausforderungen zur Messung der Qualität von Staatlichkeit. Zuerst stellen wir Konzept, Messung und Aggregation dar; danach untersuchen wir die Validität des Index, um schließlich empirische Befunde inklusive einer modell-basierten Cluster-Analyse zu präsentieren.


Staatszerfall Messung von Staatlichkeit Modell-basierte Cluster-Analyse Kontextuale Herausforderungen Organisationale Kapazitäten Variabler threshold 


  1. Abromeit, Heidrun. 2004. Die Messbarkeit von Demokratie: Zur Relevanz des Kontexts. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 45:73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Algina, James, and Randall D. Penfield. 2009. Classical test theory. In The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology, ed. Roger E. Millsap, Alberto Maydeu-Olivares, 123–157. Los Angeles, London, Washington DC: SAGE.Google Scholar
  3. Bäck, Hanna, and Axel Hadenius. 2008. Democracy and state capacity: exploring a J-shaped relationship. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 21(1):1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beisheim, Marianne, and Gunnar Folke Schuppert (eds.). 2007. Staatszerfall und Governance. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  5. Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.). 2014a. Transformation index BTI 2014. Political management in international comparison. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  6. Bertelsmann Stiftung (ed.). 2014b. BTI 2014. Codebook for country assessments. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  7. Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2014c. BTI 2014 – senegal country report. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. Scholar
  8. Bethke, Felix S. 2012. Zuverlässig invalide – Indizes zur Messung fragiler Staatlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 6:19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brock, Lothar, Hans-Henrik Holm, Georg Sørensen, and Michael Stohl. 2012. Fragile states. Violence and the failure of intervention. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  10. Browne, Ciara, Thierry Geiger, and Tania Gutknecht. 2012. The executive opinion survey: the voice of the business community. In The global competitiveness report 2012–2013. Full data edition, ed. Klaus Schwab, Xavier Sala-i-Martín, 69–78. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  11. Büttner, Annette. 2004. Staatszerfall als neues Phänomen der internationalen Politik. Theoretische Kategorisierung und empirische Überprüfung. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
  12. Call, Charles T. 2011. Beyond the ‚failed state’: toward conceptual alternatives. European Journal of International Relations 17:303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Englehart, Neil A. 2009. State capacity, state failure, and human rights. Journal of Peace Research 46:163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erdmann, Gero. 2014. Apocalyptic triad: state failure, state disintegration and state collapse: structural problems of democracy in Africa. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 8:215–236.Google Scholar
  15. Esty, Daniel C., et al. 1998. Failed states and international security: causes, prsopects, and consequences. West Lafayette: Purdue University.
  16. Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. 1985. On the road toward a more adequate understanding of the state. In Bringing the state back, ed. Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, 347–366. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ezrow, Natasha, and Erica Frantz. 2013. Revisiting the concept of the failed state: bringing the state back in. Third World Quarterly 34(8):1323–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fortin, Jessica. 2012. Democracy? The role of state capacity in postcommunist countries. Comparative Political Studies 45(7):903–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fortin-Rittberger. 2014. Exploring the relationship between infrastructural and coercive state capacity. Democratization 21(7):1244–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraley, Chris, and Adrian E. Raftery. 1998. How many clusters? Which clustering method? Answers via model-based cluster analysis. The Computer Journal 41(8):578–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraley, Chris, and Adrian E. Raftery. 2006. MCLUST version 3: an R package for normal mixture modeling and model-based clustering. Technical report no. 504. Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  22. Geddes, Barbara, Joseph Wright, and Erica Frantz. 2014. Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: a new data set. Perspectives on Politics 12:313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilley, Bruce. 2009. The right to rule. How states win and lose legitimacy. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gilley, Bruce. 2012. State legitimacy: an updated dataset for 52 countries. European Journal of Political Research 51:693–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. GMI. 2016. Global militarization index. Accessed 03. Jun 2016.Google Scholar
  26. Grävingholt, Jörn, Sebastian Ziaja, and Merle Kreibaum. 2012. State fragility: towards a multi-dimensional empirical typology. DIE Discussion Paper, Vol. 3. Bonn: German Development Institute.Google Scholar
  27. Grebe, Jan. 2011. The Global Militarization Index (GMI). Use of the GMI for evaluating the development orientation of states and regional militarization. Occasional Paper VII. BICC. Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  28. Grebe, Jan, and Max M. Mutschler. 2015. Global militarization index 2015. BICC. Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  29. Gros, Jean-Germain. 1996. Toward a taxonomy of failed states in the new world order: decaying Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda and Haiti. Third World Quarterly 17(3):455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hadenius, Axel, and Jan Teorell. 2007. Pathways from authoritarianism. Journal of Democracy 18:143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Helman, Gerald B., and Steven R. Ratner. 1992. Saving failed states. Foreign Policy 89:3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hendrix, Cullen S. 2010. Measuring state capacity: theoretical and empirical implications for the study of civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research 47:273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jackson, Robert H., and Carl Rosberg. 1982. Why African weak states persist. The empirical and the juridical in statehood. World Politics 35(1):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson, Robert H., and Georg Sørensen. 2007. Introduction to international relations. Theories and approaches, 3rd edn., New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kailitz, Steffen, and Patrick Köllner (eds.). 2013. Autokratien im Vergleich. PVS Sonderheft, Vol. 47. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  36. Kaufmann, Daniel, and Aart Kraay. 2015. The worldwide governance indicators. Aggregated indicators of governance 1996–2014. Accessed 03. Jun 2016.Google Scholar
  37. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. 2010. The worldwide governance indicators. Methodology and analytical issues. Policy Research Working Paper, Vol. 5430. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  38. Lambach, Daniel. 2008. Staatszerfall und regionale Sicherheit. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lambach, Daniel, and Felix Bethke. 2012. Ursachen von Staatskollaps und fragiler Staatlichkeit. Eine Übersicht über den Forschungsstand. INEF-Report, Vol. 106. Duisburg: Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden, Universität Dusiburg-Essen.Google Scholar
  40. Lambach, Daniel, Eva Johais, and Markus Bayer. 2015a. The causes of state collapse: results from a QCA analysis. Louvain-la-Neuve: COMPASSS working paper 2015–80. Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  41. Lambach, Daniel, Eva Johais, and Markus Bayer. 2015b. Conceptualising state collapse: an institutionalist approach. Third World Quarterly 36(7):1299–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2004. Demokratie und Demokratiemessung: Eine konzeptionelle Grundlegung für den interkulturellen Vergleich. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2010. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Demokratiemessung. Zeitschrift für Staats- und Europawissenschaften 4:498–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2013. Datensatz „Kombinierter Index der Demokratie (KID), 1996–2012“. Würzburg: Institut für Politikwissenschaft und Soziologie 2013. Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  45. Lauth, Hans-Joachim. 2015. The matrix of democracy. Three-dimensional approach to measuring the quality of democracy and regime transformations. Würzburger Arbeitspapiere zur Politikwissenschaft und Sozialforschung, Vol. 6. Würzburg: Institut für Politikwissenschaft und Soziologie.Google Scholar
  46. Lauth, Hans-Joachim, and Oliver Kauff. 2012. Demokratiemessung: Der KID als aggregiertes Maß für die komparative Forschung. Empirische Befunde der Regimeentwicklung von 1996 bis 2010. Würzburger Arbeitspapiere zur Politikwissenschaft und Sozialforschung, Vol. 2. Würzburg: Institut für Politikwissenschaft und Soziologie.Google Scholar
  47. Lauth, Hans-Joachim, Gert Pickel, and Susanne Pickel. 2014. Vergleich politischer Systeme. Paderborn: Schöningh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee, Sharon X., and Geoffrey J. McLachlan. 2013. Model-based clustering and classification with non-normal mixture distributions. Statistical Methods & Applications 22(4):427–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marquez, Xavier. 2015. The irrelevance of legitimacy. Political Studies doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12202.Google Scholar
  50. Marshall, Monty G., and Benjamin R. Cole. 2014. Global report 2014. Conflict, governance, and state fragility. Center for systemic peace. Accessed 30 Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  51. Marshall, Monty G., Ted Robert Gurr, and Barbara Harff. 2015. PITF-state failure problem set. Internal wars and failures of governance, 1955–2014. Vienna: Societal-Systems Research. Scholar
  52. Mata, Javier Fabra, and Sebastian Ziaja. 2009. Users’ guide on measuring fragility. Bonn Oslo: German Development Institute/United Nation Development Programme..Google Scholar
  53. Merkel, Wolfgang. 2010. Systemtransformation. Eine Einführung in die Theorie und Empirie der Transformationsforschung, 2nd edn., Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  54. Merkel, Wolfgang, Hans-Jürgen Puhle, Aurel Croissant, Claudia Eicher, and Peter Thiery. 2003. Theorie. Defekte Demokratie, Vol. 1. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  55. Muchinsky, Paul M. 2006. Psychology applied to work. An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology, 8th edn., Wadsworth: Thomson.Google Scholar
  56. Müller, Thomas, and Susanne Pickel. 2007. Wie lässt sich Demokratie am besten messen? Zur Konzeptqualität von Demokratie-Indizes. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 48:511–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Munck, Gerardo L., and Jay Verkuilen. 2002. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy. Evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies 35:5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Muno, Wolfgang. 2012. Measuring the world: an analysis of the world bank’s worldwide governance indicators. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 6:87–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pickel, Susanne, Toralf Stark, and Wiebke Breustedt. 2015. Assessing the quality of quality measures of democracy: a theoretical framework and its empirical application. European Political Science 14:496–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rice, Susan E., and Patrick Stewart. 2008. Index of state weakness in the developing world. Washington, D.C.: the brookings institution. Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  61. Rotberg, Robert I. (ed.). 2003. State failure and state weakness in a time of terror. Cambridge, Washington, D.C: The World Peace Foundation, Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  62. Rotberg, Robert I. (ed.). 2004a. When states fail. Causes and consequences. Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Rotberg, Robert I. 2004b. The failure and collapse of nation-states: breakdown, prevention, and repair. In When states fail, ed. Robert I. Rotberg, 1–50. Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review 64:1033–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schlenkrich, Oliver, and Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach. 2015. Open and closed electoral autocracies in the (semi-)periphery from 1996 to 2010: democratization and foreign aid flows. Global Humanities – Studies in Histories, Cultures, and Societies 1:57–88.Google Scholar
  66. Schlenkrich, Oliver, Lukas Lemm, and Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach. 2016. State fragility in the democratic republic of the Congo 1960–2014: a new approach for assessing the quality of statehood by analysing the relationship between capacities, challenges and state actors. In The democratic republic of the Congo. Problems, progress and prospects, ed. Julien Bobineau, Philipp Gieg, 57–86. Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
  67. Schneckener, Ulrich. 2004. States at Risk – Zur Analyse fragiler Staatlichkeit. In States at Risk – Fragile Staaten als Sicherheits- und Entwicklungsproblem, ed. Ulrich Schneckener, 5–27. Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.Google Scholar
  68. Schneckener, Ulrich (ed.). 2006. Fragile Staatlichkeit. „States at Risk“ zwischen Stabilität und Scheitern. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  69. Schwab, Klaus, and Xavier Sala-i-Martín. 2014. Technical note and sources. In The global competitiveness report 2014–2015. Full data edition, ed. Klaus Schwab, Xavier Sala-i-Martín, 537–545. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  70. SIPRI. 2015a. Frequently asked questions: how well does military spending measure military capability? Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  71. SIPRI. 2015b. Frequently asked questions: how reliable are SIPRI military expenditure data? Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  72. SIPRI. 2016. SIPRI military expenditure database. Accessed 04. Jun 2016.Google Scholar
  73. Spruyt, Hendrik. 1996. The sovereign state and its competitors. An analysis of systems change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Stoiber, Michael. 2008. Ein neues, kontextualisiertes Maß für Demokratie: Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 18:209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stoiber, Michael. 2011. Die Qualität von Demokratien im Vergleich. Zur Bedeutung des Kontextes in der empirisch vergleichenden Demokratietheorie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Straßner, Alexander, and Margarete Klein (eds.). 2007. Wenn Staaten scheitern.Theorie und Empirie des Staatszerfalls. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  77. The Fund for Peace. 2015. Fragile states index 2015. Washington, D.C.: the Fund for Peace. Accessed 30. Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  78. Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, capital and European states: AD 990 – 1992. Oxford Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  79. Weiss, Stefani, and Joscha Schmierer (eds.). 2007. Prekäre Staatlichkeit und international Ordnung. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  80. Wolff, Hans-Georg, and Johann Bacher. 2010. Hauptkomponentenanalyse und explorative Faktorenanalyse. In Handbuch der sozialwissenschaftlichen Datenanalyse, ed. Christian Wolf, Henning Best, 333–365. Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. World Bank. 2016. Armed forces personnel, total. Accessed 04. Jun 2016.Google Scholar
  82. World Economic Forum. 2016. Global competitiveness report. Accessed 03. Jun 2016.Google Scholar
  83. Zartman, I. William (ed.). 1995. Collapsed states. The disintegration and restoration of legitimate authority. Boulder London: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  84. Ziaja, Sebastian. 2012. What do fragility indices measure? Assessing measurement procedures and statistical proximity. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 6:39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Schlenkrich
    • 1
  • Lukas Lemm
    • 1
  • Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Politikwissenschaft und Soziologie, Lehrstuhl für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft und SystemlehreUniversität WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations