Why are westerners obsessed with ranking everything?

By Claire Leigh

The west seems to be obsessed with ranking things. Whether it’s Mark Owen’s top 20 hits, the Forbes rich list or the 100 greatest Britons, success is apparently relative rather than absolute.

But the urge to order things does not stop with pop culture and celebrities. In development, it extends to ranking countries, and not usually by their successes but by their failings. The human development index, the global peace index, the failed states index; time and again mainly northern-based organisations feel at liberty to opine about the progress of nations.

The countries with the worst rankings in these indices undoubtedly have serious challenges they need to confront. The pseudo-scientific concoctions that underpin many development indices contain elements of truth, and the countries ranked as most failed have every reason to take a long hard look at themselves. But many of them are already doing just that. Eighteen of the countries that regularly appear at the bottom of development indices have voluntarily signed up as members of the g7+ group of fragile states. The g7+ acts as a sort of self-help group for fragile governments and a forum for peer learning between conflict-affected states. It advocates a new approach to building resilient relationships between states and societies.

Governments in the g7+ share three insights: first, that each fragile state is unique, making comparisons not only unhelpful but a bit pointless. Success for people living in fragile states is absolute, not relative; second, that the people best able to assess and address the reasons for a country’s fragility are the citizens of that country; and third, that external assessments can ignore important early signs of progress, destroying citizen confidence and killing off progress. In other words, the opinions of those working in development matter, but not always in the way we think. The g7+’s “country-owned, country-led” approach to peace-building and state-building is innovative. It runs counter to the assumption that the most troubled countries are both knowable and comparable by outsiders. A pillar of this country-led approach to tackling fragility is self-assessment that brings together stakeholders from government, political parties, civil society groups and the private sector to discuss progress in five areas; political legitimacy, security, justice, economic foundations and public services.

Participants undertaking fragility assessments agree their own ratings, along a spectrum that acknowledges stepwise progress even in its earliest stages. The assessments are a cornerstone of the new deal for engagement in fragile states. Fragility assessments have already been conducted in five countries. South Sudan has conducted a wide-ranging consultation, the results of which are publicly available. This has resulted in a frank and honest analysis of its weaknesses and where it needs to do better. For example, the report says: “Political and civil service appointments are often perceived to be based on tribal relations, rather than qualification or merit.”

The findings are at a degree of granularity that only consultation with the real experts — the citizens of South Sudan — could provide. For example, the assessment found: “Popular involvement in the review of the transitional constitution has so far been limited, as the national constitutional review commission is yet to begin its consultative process.”

And, crucially, as opposed to the impotent prognosis of many development indices, the assessment actually marries all of these problems with practical solutions.

 Acknowledging and encouraging these moves is a way to reinforce progress.

The writer is a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute. This piece was first published by The Guardian