Fragility exposure index: Concepts, measurement, and application

• Published date: 01 May 2022
• Author: Ghassan Baliki,Tilman Brück,Neil T. N. Ferguson,Sindu Workneh Kebede
• Date: 01 May 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12876

Rev Dev Econ. 2022;26:639–660.

|

639

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/rode

Received: 31 October 2019

|

Revised: 19 November 2021

|

Accepted: 21 January 2022

DOI: 10.1111/rode.12876

REGULAR ARTICLE

Fragility exposure index: Concepts,

measurement, and application

GhassanBaliki1,2

|

TilmanBrück1,2,3

|

Neil T. N.Ferguson2

|

Sindu WorknehKebede2

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License, which permits use,

distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

© 2022 The Authors. Review of Development Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

1Economic Development and Food

Security Research Group, Leibniz

Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental

Crops, Großbeeren, Germany

2ISDC - International Security and

Development Center, Berlin, Germany

3Natural Resources Institute, University

of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, UK

Correspondence

Tilman Brück, Economic Development

and Food Security Research Group,

Leibniz Institute of Vegetable

and Ornamental Crops, Theodor-

Echtermeyer-Str. 1, 14979 Großbeeren,

Germany.

Email: brueck@igzev.de; brueck@igzev.

de

Funding information

ISDC received financial support from the

African Economic Research Consortium

Abstract

Definitions of fragility are focused atthe level of the state,

but this should not be considered to suggest that indi-

viduals with heterogeneous endowments experience a

state of fragility in the same way. Nor does it suggest

that all subregions of a fragile country exist in this state.

In turn, experience of fragility varies not just at national

level but also between districts and between individu-

als. To test this idea, we develop a fragility exposure

module, which was inserted into the standard house-

hold survey. We consider three components of fragility:

human security, economic inclusion, and social cohe-

sion. We index data collected from a survey in Kenya.

We show that experience of fragility in Kenya is in the

midrange for most individuals, with notable heteroge-

neities. Those living in Nairobi experience higher levels

of fragility than those in other areas. Young people ex-

perience higher levels of fragility than older individu-

als. We find no evidence of overall differences between

men and women. These findings demonstrate the im-

portance of capturing the experience of fragility at the

individual level. More specifically, they also provide an

important base to understanding which groups would

benefit most from pro- stability interventions and for

testing the performance of such interventions.

640

|

BALIKI et al.

1

|

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In the past two decades, a growing literature has defined the adverse role of state failure on eco-

nomic growth and development (Acemoglu & Robinson,2013). While it is understood that insti-

tutions are important, there is no real consensus on their role in fostering development (North,

2007). On the one hand, weak institutions are considered a hindrance to economic performance

(Acemoglu etal., 2005). On the other hand, poor economic performance often contributes to a

state's designation as “fragile.” While significant debate surrounds a precise definition of fragility,

key in most definitions is a state- centered approach. In contrast, we will discuss and derive a view

of fragility that is more people centric, emphasizing the weak performance of both formal state

and informal civil society institutions to protect, include— socially and economically— and unite

the people who live in a given place.

Countries that experience fragility are less likely to have made progress toward the millen-

nium development goals (Harttgen & Klasen, 2013), show slower trajectories toward long- term

peace and development (Cilliers & Sisk,2013), and are more susceptible to economic crisis (Allen

& Giovannetti,2009). The presence of fragility complicates the functioning of development pro-

gramming (Ahmadzai & Paracha,2016) and causes poorer health and food insecurity than in

more stable developing countries (Graves etal.,2015; Pingali etal.,2005). At the individual level,

those in fragile countries suffer a range of adversities in standard human development indica-

tors, as well as encounter the well- known costs that the (risk of ) conflict brings (Blattman &

Miguel,2010).

At the same time, not everyone in fragile countries has the same endowments. Like poverty,

which is widespread, fragility is pervasive but not universal. Just as they do in nonfragile states,

individuals with different endowments in fragile countries will rely, differently, on services the

government could provide. Even violence is experienced— at least to some degree— at the in-

dividual level, although with structural predictors, such as gender and socioeconomic status

(Brück etal., 2016). In turn, different endowments likely determine the extent to which an in-

dividual experiences fragility. Similarly, subnational regions with different average endowments

likely face life under fragility differently. In turn, some individuals or groups of individuals will

have endowments that allow them to better mitigate the adverse effects of exposure to fragility

than others.

In this article, we seek to explore this rather simple idea. In particular, we set out to capture

whether some groups in the societies of a fragile country experience that fragility differently or

if they show differences in the domains of fragility by which they are impacted. This requires us

to define and understand how individuals experience life in a fragile state and, in turn, to collect

bespoke microlevel survey data on these experiences. Based on a working definition of fragility

that captures economic inclusion, social cohesion, and human security, we develop a “fragility

exposure module” (FEM), which contains an array of indicators linked to each of these domains.

The FEM was inserted in the HORTINLEA survey, a panel survey in rural Kenya (Kebede &

Bokelmann,2017). Using typical multidimensional indexing techniques, we aggregate responses

KEYWORDS

fragility, households, institutions, fragility exposure index, state

JEL CLASSIFICATION

C8; C83; D00; D02; O1; Q12; O17; Q1