Pakistan among failed states: Nawaz

[Perceptron]

There have been bombings & violence inside the UK & Turkey as well in many parts of their history, but this was only a temporary phase. There were no suicide bombings in Pakistan prior to 2006, & this is a temporary phase in Pakistan as well.

I asked a simple Question. Let me repeat it again. WHY IS PAKISTAN RANKED 12TH IN THE LIST OF FAILED STATES WHILE INDIA IS RANKED 76TH ? You can of course do a weighted analysis on the given indicators and come up with a suitable explanation. What i need is an insight into that explanation. U can defend the honour of ur nation with such an assessment, can't you ?

 

[53fd]

I asked a simple Question. Let me repeat it again. WHY IS PAKISTAN RANKED 12TH IN THE LIST OF FAILED STATES WHILE INDIA IS RANKED 76TH ? You can of course do a weighted analysis on the given indicators and come up with a suitable explanation. What i need is an insight into that explanation. U can defend the honour of ur nation with such an assessment, can't you ?

These rankings are opinions with no reality attached to them.

India had more casualties terrorism & violence in India from 1994-2005 than Pakistan has had from 2001-2011, Sri Lanka had more casualties from terrorism than Pakistan has had, so these rankings have no meaning to them. Anyone can make a ranking based on their opinions.

 

[S.M.R]

So are you going to be biased and delete posts which show the mirror, or be unbiased and just delete the flames that brought about the mirror too ?

isn't he courteous enough that he did not ban the op for opening thread which is against forum rules?

 

[Perceptron]

These rankings are opinions with no reality attached to them.

India had more casualties terrorism & violence in India from 1994-2005 than Pakistan has had from 2001-2011, Sri Lanka had more casualties from terrorism than Pakistan has had, so these rankings have no meaning to them. Anyone can make a ranking based on their opinions.

Why and how are they opinions ? Where do you think that facts have blurred fiction to make them opinions ? Why cannot an independent research organization with more groundwork and a evaluation worthy dataset size make suitable estimates and provide a suitable ranking ?

 

[53fd]

Why and how are they opinions ? Where do you think that facts have blurred fiction to make them opinions ? Why cannot an independent research organization with more groundwork and a evaluation worthy dataset size make suitable estimates and provide a suitable ranking ?

They are opinions because they do not draw conclusions from statistical evidence or factual information of any kind. As I have shown you, there are many countries that have seen more terrorism than Pakistan has, but they've never made it to the list, because these rankings are baseless.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Pakistan a failed state?

 

[Perceptron]

They are opinions because they do not draw conclusions from statistical evidence or factual information of any kind. As I have shown you, there are many countries that have seen more terrorism than Pakistan has, but they've never made it to the list, because these rankings are baseless.

That's not what they The Fund for Peace site says. You can have a good read here. Principally, they detail their methodology as

The Fund for Peace methodology triangulates data from three primary sources and subjects them to critical review to obtain final scores for the Failed States Index. The main data collection methods are content analysis (electronic scanning), quantitative data, and qualitative input.

First, we download millions of documents, including a variety of digitized news articles, essays, magazine pieces, speeches, and government and non-government reports (we do not use blogs, twitter, or other social media.) Then, we apply our content analysis software to scan the documents using Boolean phrases on indicators within our CAST framework. The data used in each index are collected from the preceding year and stored on our servers so that we can go back to them when needed. Our search landscape has expanded from 90,000 to 115,000 online English-language publications worldwide, giving us a wide variety of data sources upon which to base our findings. Filters built into the software extract irrelevant or erroneous documents so the search can zero in on the specific subject matter defined in the Boolean phrases, and correct for false positives, pack journalism, and media drift.

Second, we incorporate quantitative data from reputable institutions, such as the UNHCR, WHO, UNDP, Transparency International, World Factbook, Freedom House, World Bank, and other reliable sources. Third, the results are compared with insights from a separate qualitative review of each indicator for each country.

Taken together, the three methods serve as internal checks. Aggregated data are normalized and scaled from 0-10 to obtain final scores for 12 social, economic and political/military indicators for 177 countries. These results are then critically reviewed by analysts different from those who conducted the original research.

This multi-stage process has several layers of scrutiny to ensure the highest standards of methodological rigor, the broadest possible information base including both quantitative and qualitative expertise, and the greatest accuracy.

In fact, you can dump their entire data onto your server, ask for their methodology, and cross-verify it. Above all, the results are peer reviewed by independent experts and government officials too. All in all, i would say a worthy social system undertaking going much beyond opinions to hardcore data and evaluations and conclusions based on those facts.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

If indeed Pakistan is a failed state, has Nawaz Sharif not contributed to this state of affairs?

 

[53fd]

That's not what they The Fund for Peace site says. You can have a good read here. Principally, they detail their methodology as
In fact, you can dump their entire data onto your server, ask for their methodology, and cross-verify it. Above all, the results are peer reviewed by independent experts and government officials too. All in all, i would say a worthy social system undertaking going much beyond opinions to hardcore data and evaluations and conclusions based on those facts.

Not really. The weights they give to each category, & the scores they give on each individual socioeconomic indicator is not based on any real statistical or factual evidence.

 

[Peshwa]

They are opinions because they do not draw conclusions from statistical evidence or factual information of any kind. As I have shown you, there are many countries that have seen more terrorism than Pakistan has, but they've never made it to the list, because these rankings are baseless.

Maybe the criteria is Terrorists per capita and the rate of bombings....rule of law, stability of political system, law and order situation (an obvious)

I personally dont think Pakistan is a failed state....but Perceptron does bring up a good point....what criteria is being used to warrant Pakistan being in the list?

 

[foxbat]

this stupid thread still going on.. Nawaz Sharif has a habit of saying embarrassing stuff.. Wasnt he the one who said JF 17 is inferior to LCA??

One of the mods, please close this thread before the flame war gets worse..

 

[Perceptron]

Not really. The weights they give to each category, & the scores they give on each individual socioeconomic indicator is not based on any real statistical or factual evidence.

This is precisely where you are lead astray. At them moment, what you do not have is the data which can be requested from the organization. As for statistical analysis, this is a simple correlation equation between the FSI and the Polity as mentioned here. For practical purposes you can consider it as a 12-variable parametric equation to which you fit your model. So yes, it does have statistical background. For factual evidence, you can get the data dump for Pakistan and see for any inherent bias in the data. Take-away :: The indicators are very real and much factual ; Pakistan may not be a failed state, but it is limping in that direction.

 

[53fd]

This is precisely where you are lead astray. At them moment, what you do not have is the data which can be requested from the organization. As for statistical analysis, this is a simple correlation equation between the FSI and the Polity as mentioned here. For practical purposes you can consider it as a 12-variable parametric equation to which you fit your model. So yes, it does have statistical background. For factual evidence, you can get the data dump for Pakistan and see for any inherent bias in the data. Take-away :: The indicators are very real and much factual ; Pakistan may not be a failed state, but it is limping in that direction.

I saw the indicators they posted. But the scores they give on each indicator, as well as deciding which indicators are important & which are not (based on opinions of course), as well as their opinion on what weights should be given to each indicator; just goes to show that this whole thing is just an opinion & has no basis of reality attached to it.

 

[Perceptron]

I saw the indicators they posted. But the scores they give on each indicator, as well as deciding which indicators are important & which are not, as well as their opinion on what weights should be given to each indicator; just goes to show that this whole thing is just an opinion & has no basis of reality attached to it.

Of course, i cannot spoon feed the details to you ; But let me try. If you sum up all the weights assigned to each indicator, you get your FSI total (you can work that out for Pakistan). That does away for the question of importance of certain indicators, all are equally important. The data dump in their site obtainable on request, does away with the "opinion" canard. Now let me take you back on the link before for a possible way of solving your opinion problem. The Fund for Peace has a list of questionnaires for each indicator. You take the questions, assigning a binary score to each YES/NO value. Now contrast this score against the government and UNHDR reports for the questions asked and observe the correlation. A high correlation with the government and UN figures shows that the questionnaire agrees to a large extent. This is then used to pin the correct score for that indicator. Now tell me, how are the UNHDR figures not opinion to you but are facts ? Because they are corroborated by other neutral sources. This is precisely the scenario for the FSI policy scores too.

 

[53fd]

Of course, i cannot spoon feed the details to you ; But let me try. If you sum up all the weights assigned to each indicator, you get your FSI total (you can work that out for Pakistan). That does away for the question of importance of certain indicators, all are equally important. The data dump in their site obtainable on request, does away with the "opinion" canard. Now let me take you back on the link before for a possible way of solving your opinion problem. The Fund for Peace has a list of questionnaires for each indicator. You take the questions, assigning a binary score to each YES/NO value. Now contrast this score against the government and UNHDR reports for the questions asked and observe the correlation. A high correlation with the government and UN figures shows that the questionnaire agrees to a large extent. This is then used to pin the correct score for that indicator. Now tell me, how are the UNHDR figures not opinion to you but are facts ? Because they are corroborated by other neutral sources. This is precisely the scenario for the FSI policy scores too.

God, I understand how the system works, it's not that hard to understand. Let me repeat it for you again: a) the weights given to each indicator are based on opinion. b) Selecting certain indicators, but not others, is based on an opinion. c) Even the scores given to a certain indicator in many cases is based on an opinion. End result: these rankings are nothing but opinion! Period.