8/4/2019 Report 102
1/68
INEF-Report102/2011
Institute for Development and Peace
Assessing HumanInsecurity Worldwide
The Way to A Human (In)Security Index
Sascha Werthes/Corinne Heaven/Sven Vollnhals
8/4/2019 Report 102
2/68
NOTEONTHEAUTHORS:
Sascha Werthes (Dipl.Soz.Wiss.), lecturer at the University of DuisburgEssen. Associate
FellowattheInstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF)attheUniversityofDuisburgEssen.CoordinatoroftheWorkingGrouponHumanSecurity(AGHumanSecurity).Ph.D.candidateattheCenterforConflictStudies(CCS)atthePhilippsUniversityMarburg.
EMail:[email protected]
CorinneHeaven (Dipl.Pol.),Ph.D.Studentat theUniversityofReading.AssociateFellowattheInstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF)attheUniversityofDuisburgEssen.
EMail:[email protected]
Sven Vollnhals (Dipl.Soz.Wiss. Cand.), studies political science and economics at theUniversityofDuisburgEssen.MemberoftheWorkingGrouponHumanSecurity(AGHumanSecurity).
EMail:[email protected]
BIBLIOGRAPHICALNOTE:
SaschaWerthes/CorinneHeaven/SvenVollnhals:AssessingHuman InsecurityWorldwide:TheWay toAHuman (In)Security Index. Institute forDevelopmentandPeace,UniversityofDuisburgEssen(INEFReport102/2011).
Imprint
Editor:
InstituteforDevelopmentandPeace(INEF)
UniversityofDuisburgEssen
Logodesign:CarolaVogel
Layoutdesign:JeanetteSchade,SaschaWerthes
Coverphoto:JochenHippler
InstitutfrEntwicklungundFrieden
Lotharstr.53 D 47057Duisburg
Phone+49(203)3794420 Fax+49(203)3794425
EMail:[email protected]
Homepage:http://inef.unidue.de
ISSN09414967
8/4/2019 Report 102
3/68
SaschaWerthes/CorinneHeaven/SvenVollnhals
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
TheWaytoaHuman(In)SecurityIndex
INEFReport102/2011
UniversityofDuisburgEssen InstituteforDevelopmentandPeace
UniversittDuisburgEssen InstitutfrEntwicklungundFrieden(INEF)
8/4/2019 Report 102
4/68
ABSTRACT
SaschaWerthes/CorinneHeaven/SvenVollnhals:AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide:
TheWaytoAHuman(In)SecurityIndex
The ideaofhuman securityhasbeenpresentedanddiscussed in internationalacademicand
political fora formore thanadecade.Yet,despite itspopularity, theanalyticalusefulnessas
wellasthepoliticalappropriatenessoftheconcept isfrequentlycriticized. InarguingforandpresentingaHuman(In)SecurityIndexweaddressbothaspects.
In the firstpart,wediscuss the ideaofhumansecurityand introduce thereader to themain
critiqueregardingtheconceptualusefulnessofthe idea.Secondly,wereflectonthecontested
developmentsecuritynexuswhenpresentingourconceptualframework.Additionally,weput
forwarda thresholdbasedconceptualizationofhuman securitybasedon the ideasoriginally
presentedby TaylorOwen togetherwithMaryMartin. To substantiate the thresholdbased
conceptualizationwepresentamultidimensionalHuman(In)SecurityIndex,allowingtoassess
respectivelevelsofhuman(in)security.Byoperationalizingthedimensionsofhumansecurity
andpresentingavailabledatafor2008,oneoftheremainingconceptualchallengesisaddressed.
WedemonstratehowaHuman(In)SecurityIndexcanbeusedinthepoliticalrealmandbring
to thefore thepotentialcore threats tohumansecurity.Thisadditionallyspecifies the ideaofhuman security and furthers a differentiation between human security and other related
conceptssuchashumandevelopmentandhumanrights.
Insum,wearguethathumansecurityasapoliticalidearemainshighlyrelevant.Asapolitical
leitmotif, human security is significantly and constructively used and applied in political
processesdespiteorbecauseofitsanalyticalambiguity.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
TrotzdervielfltigenAufmerksamkeitdiedasKonzeptdermenschlichenSicherheiterfahren
hat,sobleibtesdochinvielerleiHinsichtumstrittenundkritisiert.EinerzentralenKritik,dass
dasKonzeptempirischanalytischproblematischundmenschlicheUnsicherheit letztlichnicht
erfassbar sei, widmet sich dieser INEFReport. In einerWeiterentlicklung von Ideen von
TaylorOwen und TaylorOwen zusammenmitMaryMartin entwickeln dieAutoren einen
innovativenAnsatzmit dem sichmenschliche Sicherheit zumindest auf lnderspezifisch in
verschiedenenDimensionenerfassen lsstund leistenhierdurch einenwichtigenBeitragwie
das Konzept menschlicher Sicherheit auch fr die Zukunft politisch nutzbar als auch
akademischfruchtbargenutztwerdenkann.
8/4/2019 Report 102
5/68
Content
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 52. HumanSecurity:TheOriginalApproach,ConceptualChallenges,
andPoliticalConsequences......................................................................................................... 62.1 ConceptualChallenges...................................................................................................... 82.2 DifferentSchoolsofHumanSecurityandTheirPoliticalImpact................................92.3 FindingAnswers:AddressingtheDevelopmentSecurityNexus.............................12
3. AddressingtheChallenge:AHuman(In)SecurityIndex....................................................163.1 PreliminaryRemarksontheHuman(In)SecurityDimensions.................................193.2 Methodology:ComputationoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndex..................................253.3 Findings............................................................................................................................. 28
3.3.1 HumanEconomic(In)Security....................................................................... 283.3.2 HumanFood(In)Security............................................................................... 293.3.3 HumanHealth(In)Security............................................................................ 313.3.4 HumanEnvironmental(In)Security.............................................................. 343.3.5 HumanPersonalandCommunity(In)Security...........................................343.3.6 HumanPolitical(In)security...........................................................................353.3.7 HumanInsecurity............................................................................................ 38
3.4 ADescriptiveAnalysisoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndexwithotherIndices...................................................................................................................... 41
4. Rsum........................................................................................................................................... 42
5. References..................................................................................................................................... 45
6. Annex1:CountriesinAlphabeticalOrderandScoreforallDimensions........................51
7. Annex2:CountriesRanked....................................................................................................... 57
8/4/2019 Report 102
6/68
8/4/2019 Report 102
7/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
5
1. Introduction1The
notion
of
human
security
has
strongly
influenced
the
academic
and
politicaldebatealike.Asmuchastheusefulnessoftheideahasbeencontested,asmuchithasbeenlobbiedfor.Notwithstandingtheideaspoliticalimpactthecritique raised is substantial: it is said tobe too vague, too ambiguous, tooconceptuallyweaktonameonlyafewpointswhichhavebeenargued.
Thefollowingpapertakestheseanalyticalchallengesasastartingpointandresponds to one of themajor conceptual questionsby presenting aHuman(In)Security Index. The paper is organized in three parts: Chapter 2brieflysketchesouttheoriginalapproachtohumansecuritybytheUNDPandoffersabriefoverviewonthecurrentdebateaswellasthesubsequentcriticismraised.Despitethecriticism,thenotionofhumansecurityhasgainedpoliticalimpact.
Humansecurityhasgatheredfriendsandsomecountrieseventurnedtheideainto a guiding principle for their foreign policy agendas. Substantial policyresultshavebeenreached. Inchapter3wesuggestawayhow toaddress theproblematic close linkages to related concepts such as human developmentandhuman rights.Weproposea conceptualandpolicy frameworkbasedonthe ideas developed by Pauline Kerr. This helps to substantiate thedevelopment of actual thresholds which are also elaborated in chapter 3.Furthermore,inchapter4weexplicitlyaddressoneoftheremainingchallengesup to today.As iswell known, it haswidelybeen argued that the contextspecificanddynamicnatureoftheideaofhumansecuritydoesnotallowforameasurement of the potential insecurity of human beings. This makes
impossibleaprioritizationofpoliciesoreventoevaluatethesuccessofcertainpolicymeasures.Against thisbackground,we present an alternativeway ofoperationalizingtheideaofhumansecurity.AHuman(In)SecurityIndexhelpsto inform thepolitical realm in locating thehuman insecurityhot spots, thusenabling policy makers to set priorities and also to evaluate their policyinitiatives. Some of our findings of our assessment of human (in)securityworldwidearepresentedinchapter4andarebrieflyillustrated.
Importantly, one has to emphasize that a Human (In)Security Index iscertainlynomeaningfulsubstitute foran indepthanalysisofcountryspecificsituationsor the situationof thepopulation.However,aHuman (In)SecurityIndexisvaluableandhelpfulforatleastfivereasons:
a) It helps to present global trends in the respective human securitydimensions.Although there is a number of global indices (BertelsmannTransformation Index;HumanDevelopment Index;Global Peace Index;FailedStateIndex,tonameonlyafew),noneofthem,atleastuptonow,adequatelyrepresentsthehumansecuritysituationastheyareconstructed
1 Amongmanyotherswe aregrateful to StephaneRoussel,ChristianBger,DanielLambach,CorneliaUlbertandFelixBethkefortheirhelpfulcommentsandcriticalreviewofthefirstdraft.Moreover,wewouldliketothanktheWorkingGrouponHumanSecurityanditsmembersfortheircontinuousandenthusiasticsupport.
8/4/2019 Report 102
8/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
6
fordifferentpurposes.Therehavebeenotherattemptstoassessthehumansecurity situationworldwide (e.g. theHuman Security Index)2,but theyaddress the issue from a different analytical perspective and mainlyconcentrateonsubstantiatinghumansecurityviaanequitabilityenhanced
HumanDevelopmentIndex.b) Bydescribing thehuman insecurity situation in the respective countries
from abroad general dimensional perspective, it is illustrated inwhichhuman(in)securitydimensionscountriesperformquitewellandinwhichnot. Thereby, the possibility to set priority agendas for policy action isoffered.
c) The Human (In)Security Index helps to substantiate aggregatedthresholds of human insecurity in the respective human insecuritydimension.
d) Inthelongrun,theHuman(In)SecurityIndexshouldalsohelptoassessin
whichdimensionrespectivecountrieshavemadeprogress,thatis,performbetter than before. The index might measure the success/efficacy oreffectivenessofcertainpolicyinitiatives.
e) Finally,onecanarguethatnocountrywantstobeseenasabadperformerwhen it comes tohuman security.TheHuman (In)Security Indexmighthelpinfosteringthepoliticalwillintherespectivecountrybutalsointheinternational community to help the respective country to addresschallengesintherespectivehumaninsecuritydimensions.
Insum,wearguethataHuman(In)SecurityIndexcanperformasthebasisforproposinggeneralgoalsforpolicyprograms.Theindexshouldberegardedasa
reference base and starting point when it comes to the first phase ofoperationalizing the human security concept in theway theUnitedNationsTrustFund forHumanSecurity (2009)hasproposed.Additionally,onamoregeneralandbroadlyaggregatedlevelitoffersthepossibilitytosubstantiatetheideaofhumansecurityanditsrespectivedimensionsbydefiningthresholdsoflevelshuman(in)security.
2. HumanSecurity:TheOriginalApproach,ConceptualChallenges,andPolitical
Consequences
Contemporary thinkingabouthuman securityhasbeen strongly informedbytheHumanDevelopmentReportof1994,arguingtotaketheprotectionoftheindividual as the starting point for political thinking and practice (seeMacFarlane/Kong2006;alsoDebiel/Franke2008).TheUNDPReportintroducedseven socalled dimensions of human security: economic, food, health,
2 Seehttp://www.humansecurityindex.org/?cat=3,10/09/2010.SeealsoHasting2009.
8/4/2019 Report 102
9/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
7
environmental,personal,communityandpoliticalsecurity.Withthenotionsofglobalization and interdependence becoming more and more clarifiedthroughout the 1990s, the interpretation practice of theUN SecurityCouncilalsoincreasinglychangedwithregardtotheevaluationofthreatsorbreachesto
andofinternationalpeace/security(seedeWet2004:Chap.4).Insum,complexpolitical challenges of development and security, exemplified by suchillustrativecasesasSomaliaorEastTimor,weremoreandmoreperceivedasinterrelated.
The idea of human security is precisely based on this perception ofinterrelatedness:In the finalanalysis,human security isachildwhodidnotdie,adiseasethatdidnotspread,ajobthatwasnotcut,anethnictensionthatdidnotexplodeinviolence,adissidentwhowasnotsilenced.HumanSecurityisnotaconcernwithweapons it isaconcernwithhuman lifeanddignity(UNDP1994:22).Importantly,thenotionalsoimpliesanewperspective:whilsttraditional thinkingabout securitywas firstand foremostconcernedwith the
protectionof thenation state, theconceptofhuman security is laidoutmorebroadlyandargues that the referenceobject shouldbe the individual (UNDP1994:2223).3
Thisdescription already illustrateshowmuch theoriginal idea ofhumansecurityanditsveryoftencriticizedambiguousconceptualizationisrelatedtothediscoursesrevolvingaroundthesocalledsecuritydevelopmentnexus(seee.g. Stern/jendal 2010; Duffield 2010;Hettne 2010; Chandler 2008a, 2008b,2007;Anand/Gasper2007;Martin/Owen2010).DarylCopeland (2009:91), forexample, argues that development mustbeboth made a top priority andunderstood inrelationtosecurity.Hearguesthatunderdevelopment isoneof
the
primary
causes
of
insecurity
and
moreover,
that
addressing
insecurity
effectivelyandeschewing themilitarizationof internationalpolicy in favorofequitable, sustainable,humancentereddevelopmentwill requirea largescalerevisionofprioritiesandasignificantreallocationofresources(Copeland2009:93).
However, as critical scholars have convincingly argued, notions ofbothsecurityand developmentcanalsobeseenasdiscursiveconstructionsthatproduce the reality they seem to reflect,and thus serve certainpurposesandinterests (Stern/jendal 2010: 7). Stern andjendal (2010: 7) emphasize inreference to Chandler (2007): Surely, the power of definition overdevelopmentandsecurityalsoimpliespowertodefinenotonlytherelevant
fieldof interest,butalso thematerial contentofpractices, thedistributionofresources,andsubsequentpolicyresponses.
3 Itisimportanttonotethathumansecurityshouldnotbeequatedwithhumandevelopment.InlinewiththeUNDPReport,wearguethathumandevelopmentremainsabroaderconceptthatis defined as a process ofwidening the range of peoples choices.Human security, on thecontrary,meansthatpeopleareabletosafelyandfreelyexercisethesechoices(UNDP1994:23).
8/4/2019 Report 102
10/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
8
In contrast to thesemore skeptical remarks,Martin andOwen (2010), indrawing lessons from theUN and EU experience, see a chance of a secondgeneration of human security emerging if the problem of weakconceptualization, currently especially present in the UNs traditional
understanding of human security, is addressed. That said, the recentlypublishedHumanSecurityReportTheShrinkingCostsofWarneverthelessunderlinesthattheideaisstillaspressingandrelevanttoday.Interestingly,theReportanalyses three interrelateddevelopments thathavebeendrivingdownconflictdeathsformorethanadecade(thatis:thechangingnatureofwarfare,globalhealthpolicyreducingdeathsinpeacetimeandincreasedhumanitarianassistance) (see Human Security Report 2009: 7). This surely illustrates thecomplexinterrelatednessofvariousformsofthreatstohumanbeings.
In sum, human security as such has become an integral part of any(academic) security discourse and in the field of security studies or globalpolitics(seee.g.Collins2007;Baylis/Smith/Owens2008;Booth2005;Ferdowsi
2009).Moreover,when it comes to policy utility and policy relevance, somemight argue that the firstgenerationofhuman security (representedby theUN and Canada) appears tobe in retreat,but one can also argue that asecondgenerationisemerging(Martin/Owen2010:212).However,thesuccessof any human security concept depends on addressing the conceptualchallenges.Otherwiseitmight,infact,stillserveasapoliticalleitmotif,butwillbetrappedinthesaydogapastheambiguityoftheconceptwillproduceonlypoorpossibilitiestoinstitutionalizetheideaasarealpolicyparadigm.
2.1 ConceptualChallengesAlthough the UNDP Report was widely acknowledged for bringing intoperspective an innovative thinking on security, itswideranging implicationsand its conceptual base was criticized especially in academic fora. In thefollowing,we shallpoint to the central aspectsdiscussed in themore recentdebates.4BydrawingonTadjabkhsh/Chenoy(2007:57ff.)webrieflysummarizethecoreaspects.
Firstly, the ideaofhumansecurity iscriticized for itsconceptualweaknessorthelackofaclearbroadlyaccepteddefinition.TheseaspectsmightevenhaveamountedtosymptomsoffailureasonecanobserveagradualimplosionoftheHumanSecurityNetworkandCanadasretreatfromtheforeignpolicyagenda
it
pioneered
(see
Martin/Owen
2010:
211f.;
for
contrasting
position
see
Werthes/
Bosold2006;Bger2008).Infact,onecanstatethattheambiguityoftheoriginalconcept canbe linked to problems of human security to establish itself as a
4 For an overview on the critique and countercritique please refer to the journal SecurityDialogue,whichbrought together21wellknownacademicswho expressed theiropinionsonthe conceptual challenges (e.g. Axworthy 2004; Hampson 2004; Hubert 2004; Uvin 2004;Newman 2004;Alkire 2004; Liotta 2004; Evans 2004; Suhrke 2004;Mack 2004;Krause 2004;MacFarlane 2004;Buzan 2004; Paris 2004;Owen 2004) or to the elaborate illustration of thedebate(s)byTadjbakhshandChenoy(2007:39ff).
8/4/2019 Report 102
11/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
9
general principle of public policy and to poor institutionalization of humansecurityasabroadlyacceptedpolicyparadigm.
Secondly, various authors have argued that the idea of human securitymightfallvictimtotheproblemofoversecuritization(seee.g.Paris2004,2001).
As Paris (2004: 371) pointed out: Human security seems to encompasseverything from substanceabuse togenocide.Thisdefinitionalexpansivenessservesthepoliticalpurposeofenticingthebroadestpossiblecoalitionofactorsand interests touniteunder thehumansecuritybanner,but itsimultaneouslycomplicates matters for academic researchers, particularly those who areinterestedincausalhypotheses.
Thirdly, the political implications of a human security agenda have alsobeen criticized on the grounds that they challenge the traditional role of thesovereignstateasthesoleproviderofsecurityaswellastheverysovereigntyofthestateintheinternationalcontext(Tadjabkhsh/Chenoy2007:63).
Lastly, themeasurementofhumansecurityhasbeenandstill isastronglydebated aspect. As is wellknown, critiques argue that the complexity andsubjectivity of the idea of human security makes it difficult to actuallyoperationalizeit.
In sum,muchcriticismcenterson theambiguityor the lackofconceptualclearnessoftheconcept.Thechallengeofanagreedonhopefullyclearenoughdefinitionhasresultedinheatedacademicdebates,pittingthosewhoproposenarrowing the concept against those who want to preserve its holism andinclusiveness(Paris2004:371).Havingsaidthis,itiseasytounderstandwhyscholars and policy makers have viewed human security either as (a) an
attractive
idea
which
lacks
analytical
rigor;
or
(b)
have
tried
to
limit
it
to
a
narrowlyconceiveddefinition;or(c)havearguedthatitisanessentialtoolforunderstanding challenges to peoples wellbeing and dignity (Tadjbakhsh/Chenoy2007:40).Moreover, it iseasytocomprehendwhyamongacademics,thedebateis,first,betweentheproponentsanddetractorsofhumansecurity,andsecond,betweenanarrowasopposedtoabroadconceptualtheorizationofhumansecurity(Tadjbakhsh/Chenoy 2007:40).
2.2 DifferentSchoolsofHumanSecurityandTheirPoliticalImpact
Despite
the
analytical
critique,
the
idea
of
human
security
gained
acceptance
by
politiciansandcivilsocietyalikeandunfoldeditsimpactinthepoliticalrealm.Someauthors suchasBger (2008)orWerthesandBosold (2006)evenarguethatthelackofdefinitionalclarityconstitutesoneofthefactorshelpingtheideatoevolveasaboundaryobjectorpolitical leitmotifand thereby togainpoliticalimpact.
Startinginthesecondhalfofthe1990s,theideaofhumansecuritybegantogainpoliticalimpact.AmongthefirstcountriestoofficiallyadopttheapproachwereCanadaandJapan(inmoredetailseeBosold/Werthes2005;Atanassova
8/4/2019 Report 102
12/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
10
Cornelis2006;MacRae/Hubert2001;for theUNseeMacFarlane/Khong 2006).5Especially under the auspices of the then Foreign Affairs Minister LloydAxworthyCanada initiated and/ or supported various efforts guidedby theideaofhumansecurity.TheOttawaProcesstobanantipersonallandminesand
theOptionalProtocolontheInvolvementofChildreninArmedConflictareprobablythe most wellknown success stories. Additionally, in March 1999, the
GovernmentofJapanand theUnitedNationsSecretariat launched theUnitedNationsTrustFundforHumanSecurity(UNTFHS).TheUNTFHS,opentoUNagencies, iscurrentlymanagedbytheHumanSecurityUnit(HSU).Besidethemanagement of the UNTFHS the overall objective of the HSU, which wasestablished inMay2004at theUnitedNationsSecretariat in theOfficeof theCoordinationofHumanitarianAffairs (OCHA), is toplacehuman security inthemainstream ofUN activitiesby playing a pivotal role in translating theconceptofhumansecurity intoconcreteactivitiesandhighlighting theaddedvalue of the human security approach (see http://ochaonline.un.org/
humansecurity).Clearlyrelatedtoabroadperspectiveonhumansecurity,themajority of fundingwasdirected towardsdevelopmental concerns includingkey thematic areas such as health, education, agriculture and small scaleinfrastructuredevelopment.6
Commonlyatleasttwounderstandingsaredistinguishedincurrentpoliticalandacademicdiscourseswhichshareasubstantialcore(seealsoFigure1).Thenarrow school is associated with Canada and to a certain degree with theHumanSecurityNetwork (seese.g.FuentesJulio/Brauch2009).Basically, thisnarrowschoolarguesthatthethreatofpoliticalviolencetopeople,bythestateoranyotherorganizedpoliticalentity,istheappropriatefocusfortheconceptofhumansecurity(inmoredetailseeKerr2007;seealsoBosold/Werthes2005).
This perspective ismainly linked to the idea offreedomfromfear.The broadschoolarguesthathumansecuritymeansmorethanaconcernwiththethreatofviolence.Human security isnot onlyfreedomfromfear but alsofreedomfromwant. This broad perspective is generally associated with Japan, theCommission onHuman Security (CHS 2003) and the UnitedNations TrustFundforHumanSecurity.
More recently, it can be argued that a third perspective or a secondgeneration of human security (Martin/Owen 2010), is evolving whichencompassesthenarrowandthebroadschoolthatonemightcalltheEuropeanschool.Ontheonehand,thisperspective ismorestronglyrelatedtothethird
dimension
ofliberty,
rights
and
rule
of
law
while
it
is
not
strictly
limited
or
primarilyfocussedonthisdimensionontheother.TheBarcelonaReportoftheStudyGrouponEuropesSecurityCapabilities(2004),theMadridReportoftheHumanSecurityStudyGroup(2007),andCounciloftheEuropeanUnion(2003,
5 For a compendium of human securityrelated initiatives and activitiesby members of theFriendsofHumanSecurityandUnitedNationsagencies,fundsandprogramsseeUNGA2008.
6 >>http://ochaonline.un.org/TrustFund/TheUnitedNationsTrustFundforHumanSecurity/tabid/2108/language/enUS/Default.aspx
8/4/2019 Report 102
13/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
11
2008) advance this perspective (also see Glasius/Kaldor 2005; 2007;Martin/Owen2010;Sira/Grns2010).
Figure1:HumanSecurityastheNexusbetweenSafety,Rights,andEquity
(Original:
Shahrbanou
Tadjbakhsh/
Anuradha
M.
Chenoy
2007:
52)
Especially,the2008reportisof interestas itmakesmoreexplicitreferencestohuman security.Moreover, the reportdraws extensively, and inmoredetailthaninanypreviousofficialdocumentsoftheCounciloftheEuropeanUnion,onhumansecurityideas.Furthermore,asMartinandOwen(2010)observetheEuropean Parliament and especially the European Commission have eithersupported the shift to human security or explicitlypromotehuman security.Noteworthy, the Commissions definition of human security located itdifferently from that of theUN, combining physical protection andmaterialsecurity,andsitting it firmlywithinacrisismanagementaswellasaconflictresolutionpolicyframe(Martin/Owen2010:219).AsMartinandOwen(2010:
219) furthersubstantiate:While theCommissioncommitted itself to tacklingthe root causes of conflict and vulnerability, the emphasis was less onunderdevelopment per se and more on the integration of a developmentperspectiveintotheEUsforeignpolicytoolkit.Theideaofhumansecuritynotonly served as a tool to mobilize the EUs foreign policy to tackleunderdevelopment and insecurity,but also as ameansbywhich to enforcecooperationbetweenrivalEUpolicystreams.
8/4/2019 Report 102
14/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
12
2.3 FindingAnswers:AddressingtheDevelopmentSecurityNexus
While agreeing that human development is a muchbroader concept than
human security and that not all human rights issues are linked to securityconcernsas such, it is stillapparent thathuman securityproponents stronglyemphasize adevelopmentsecuritynexus and ahuman rightssecuritynexus.Aspointedoutbefore,humansecuritycommonlyservesaspoliticalobjective(Martin/Owen 2010), political leitmotif (Werthes/Bosold 2006), or boundaryobject (Bger 2008). In essence,what is important tonote is that it couldbeused,first,tocombineshort and longtermpolicyresponses;second,toblurdistinctionsbetween foreign and security policy, andbetween development,humanitarian and crisis management agendas; and third, to integratecommitments to agendas such as gender equality and human rights(Martin/Owen2010:219).However,despitebeingusefulinthissense,thereare
twopossibilitiesinredressingtheconceptualambiguityforpracticalpurposes:first, the above mentioned nexi have to be conceptualized more clearlyregarding their causal links and a second step forward is to propose andadvance a thresholdbased conceptualization ofhuman security (Owen 2004;Martin/Owen 2010;Werthes 2008). That is, rather than securitizing an evergrowinglistofthreatsassuch,allofthesemustprincipallybeconsideredatalltimesassecurityissues.Butanyissueinanylocationhastopassathresholdsothatitcanbecomeasecuritythreat.Onlythosethatbecomesevereenoughtowarrantthesecuritylabelwouldbetreatedassuch(Martin/Owen2010:221).
Thisconceptualizationlimitstheinclusionofthreatsbytheirseverityratherthan their cause.Finally, toenhance thepolitical impactofa thresholdbasedconceptualization of human security, substantiation of specific thresholds isnecessary.Oneway todo this is thecreationofaHuman (In)Security Indexreflecting these underlying conceptual ideas in relation to human securitydimensions.Only theworst threat situations in any country,whatever theircause, areprioritizedwith the labelofhuman (in)security.Allothers remainwithin their constituent disciplines and institutional structures, such asdevelopment,environmentalregulation,orthelegalprotectionofhumanrights(seealsoMartin/Owen2010:221).
Today,manyarguethatthe modernstateora modernunderstandingofsovereignty involves responsibilities and fiduciary duties (see also: Jones/
Pacual/Stedman 2009; ICISS 2001; Bellamy 2009; Evans 2008). Theseresponsibilities and fiduciaryduties literally encompass thewhole agenda ofthe human rights, human security, and human development discourse. Butwhilewelfare and issues of sustainability and a huge part of internationallycodified human rights still onlybelong to the sphere of fiduciary duties,fundamentalhuman rights andbasicneeds aremore andmore consensuallyregardedasresponsibilitiesofthestateor,toputitdifferently,theaspectsthatarediscussedwith reference to the termhuman security.Though the specificset of the boundaries is contested and in flux, one can argue that theinternationalsocietyaccepts thisareaofhumanvulnerabilityasacommonlysharedresponsibilityandismoreandmorewillingtofindwaystotakeupthis
(shared)responsibility.Basedonaprincipleofsubsidiarityaresponsibility to
8/4/2019 Report 102
15/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
13
act is postulated. Current state practice shows that this is a sphere whereinternational interference seems to become more and more legitimate,notwithstanding that international interference has tobe appropriate andwellsuitedtobeacceptedaslegitimate.Thismightexplainwhyamajorityof
debates on political strategies and means circulate on ways to establishbenchmarks and thresholds or clear criteria when and how to interfere orintervene in situationswhere the respective state isnotableorwilling toactappropriately.Themostprominentexampleof thiskind is thedebateon theresponsibilitytoprotect(R2P)whichisconcernedwithmilitaryinterventionincasesofmassatrocities.
ThesenexuschallengescanbedescribedwhenworkingonideasoriginallypresentedbyPaulineKerr.Thoughmorelimitedandratherrelatedonlytothedevelopmentsecuritynexus,theseideascanalsobeusedtoexplainthehumanrightssecuritynexus.7Firstly,onecanstatethatproponentsofhumansecuritygrantthemselvestheanalyticalfreedomtostudyalmostany security issueas
an potential threat that is as a dependent or independent variablebecauseinsecurity canbeboth a cause and a consequence of violence (Tadjbakhsh/Chenoy2007:59).Onewaytosubsequentlydevelopaconceptualframeworkisto focuson thenexusbetween thenarrowschools focusonviolenceand thebroadschoolsfocusonhumandevelopment(Kerr2007:95ff).Onemayargueby focusing on political violence that human insecurity is the dependentvariable. Moreover, it becomes apparent that the many causes of humaninsecurityincludeproblemsofunderdevelopment andthatthesecanthereforebe perceived as the independent variables. This leads us to a way ofconceptualizingboth the developmentsecuritynexus and the human rightssecuritynexus.
Our understanding of how to conceptualize four kinds of human(in)securitysituations(levels)areillustratedinfigure2.Thresholdsofthiskindarenecessary (seeabove)as theyhelptopointoutwhenaction isneeded, i.e.whenthereisaresponsibilityto(re)act.Atthelevelofhumansecuritythereareno systematic and sustainable threats to life/survival, though theremightbesecurity issues as such (see above). The level of relative human security ischaracterizedby a situation where some factors and contexts threaten life/survival,but individualsandgroupsgenerallyhaveawaytocopewith thesethreatsorhavethenecessaryhelpattheirdisposal.Inotherwords,peoplearesensitive to (specific) threatsbutnotvulnerable8as theyhaveoptions tocope
with
these
kinds
of
threats,
even
though
these
options
may
produce
(significant)costseithertotheindividualortothecommunity/stateassuch.
7 Additional insights, thoughbased on a different line of argument and perspective, canbegainedbyreadingRoberts(2008).
8 TheideaofsensitivityandvulnerabilityislooselybasedonthethinkingofKeohaneandNye(1977).
8/4/2019 Report 102
16/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
14
Sphereof
FiduciaryDuty
Sphere ofthe
Responsibilityto
Prevent
Sphereofthe
Responsibilityto
React
Sphereofthe
Responsibilityto
Rebuild/Prevent
Sphereof
FiduciaryDuty
SaschaWerthes2007
Idealized ProgressionofHumanSecurityPolicy
War,Chaos,Complex
humanitarianemergencies
Thresholdofa
humanitarian
crisis
Thresholdof
vulnerability
Thresholdof
sensitivity
Levelof
Human
(In)Securit
Figure2:LevelsofHuman(In)Security
Level1 Level of human security: There is no systematic and sustainable threat tolife/survival.
Level2 Levelofrelativehumansecurity:Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survival,
but individuals and groups usually have strategies, means, behavioral options, oraid/helpattheirdisposaltocopewiththesethreats.
Level3 Levelofrelativehumaninsecurity:Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survivaland individuals and groups have only limited or inadequate strategies, means,behavioraloptions,oraid/helpattheirdisposaltocopewiththesethreats.
Level4 Level ofhuman insecurity:Some factorsand contexts threaten life/survivalandindividuals and groups have no adequate strategies, means,behavioral options, oraid/helpattheirdisposaltocopewiththesethreats.
At the level of relative human insecurity there are factors and contexts that
threatenlife/survival,butaspeoplehave(atthatspecificmoment)onlylimitedor inadequatestrategies,means,behavioraloptions,oraidat theirdisposal tocopewiththesethreatstheyarevulnerabletothesethreats.Finally,atthelevelofhumaninsecurityindividualsorgroupsdonotdisposeatallofanyadequatestrategies,means,behavioraloption,oraid.Thesituationofvulnerabilityissogravethatitresemblesasituationofhumanitariancrisis.
Inthefollowing,weshalllinkthelevelsofhuman(in)securitytonumberstoillustratetherelevanceand inpointoffacttopreparethegroundforanindexthat identifies the actually vulnerabilities of people. This is carried outbyreferring to thedimensionsof theUNDPReport1994and themain threats in
each
region.
8/4/2019 Report 102
17/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
15
Firstly,typesofthreatsconcerningeconomicsecurityarepersistentpovertyand unemployment. In 2007, the total number of unemployment was 180million,for2008it isestimatedtoaccountfor188million(ILO2009:24).Evenmore so, the 2009 global financial crisis and the slowdown in the world
economic growth including a recession for some of themajor industrializedcountrieshave severely impacted on the labormarket andjobopportunities.Today,morethan620millionpersonsliveinextremepovertyoflessthanUS$1.25adayandthenumberofworkingpoorisstillprojectedtoriseinthefuture(ILO2009:3),resultinginincreasedglobalpoverty.Themostinsecurejobsaretobe found in the informal sector, a feature of a majority of developingcountrieswheresomesortofsocialnetorinsuranceismissingforlargepartsofthepersonsworkingintheinformalsector(Canagaraja/Sethuraman2001).
As regards potential threats that canbe identified in the environmentaldimension, climate change can lead to increased shortage ofwater and thedegradation of land. This significantly can produce the effect of increasing
energycostsandtheheighteneddemandfornaturalresources.Moreover,itisfrequentlypointed out that conflicts can lead to thedeterioration of health causingmortality,morbidityormalnutrition.Muchresearchhasfocusedonthelink of poverty and conflicts and in this context, the connection of poverty,restricted access to education,health and conflictbecomes evident (Pedersen2009).Onehasonly to thinkof the landbasedconflicts inSomalia tobecomeawareoftheinterlinkageshere(Dehrez2009).Thenumberofdeathscausedbynatural catastrophes accounted for 235,000 in 2008,mainly effectedby twomajor incidents, the abovementioned Cyclone Nargis and the SichuanearthquakeinChina(AnnualDisasterStatisticalReview2008:1).Thenumbersfor the 2006 and 2007 are similarly alarming despite the fact that nomajor
events suchasNargis and theSichuanearthquake tookplace: in 200623,000personswerekilledbynaturaldisasterscausingmorethanUS$34.5billion ineconomic damages (AnnualDisaster Statistical Review 2006). The year 2007witnessed16,847deaths;however,more than211millionotherswereaffectedbyoverall414naturaldisasterscausinganeconomicdamageofUS$74.9billion(AnnualDisasterStatisticalReview2007).
With a view to the food dimensions, alarming numbersmake clear thenecessity for appropriate policy (re)actions: According to the Food andAgriculturalOrganizationoftheUnitedNations(FAO),68percentofthetotalpopulationinEritreawereundernourishedin2005,63percentinBurundiand
46
per
cent
in
Ethiopia
(FAO
Food
Security
Statistics
2008).
This
figures
point
to
the severity of undernourishment especially for developing countries.According to theFAO,nearlyonebillionpeoplesufferfrommalnutritionandhungertoday.Thisproblem isclosely linked toadditionalaspectssuchas theeconomic and social status a person enjoys. It should alsobe stressed thatsufferingfromhungerandbeingundernourishedleadstoanalarmingnumberofdeaths:25,000persons(adultsandchildren)dieeverydayfromhungerandrelatedcauses (FAO2008:SOFIReport).About11millionchildrenunder fivedieindevelopingcountrieseachyear,malnutritionandhungerrelateddiseasescause 60 percent of the deaths of children (UNICEF 2007: The State of theWorldsChildren).
8/4/2019 Report 102
18/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
16
Equally alarming numbers canbe identified in the health dimensions ofhumansecurity.TheWorldHealthOrganization(WHO)listsmorethanfifteeninfectiousdiseasesaffectinghumanbeingsworldwide, themost importantofthembeingmalariaand tuberculosis. In2006, therewere247millioncasesof
malaria,leadingtonearlyonemilliondeaths,mostlyamongchildreninAfrica.The number of persons infectedwith the TB virus is also disastrous: today,approximately9millionhumanbeingsare infectedwith theTBvirus thathascausedabout1.5milliondeaths in2006 (http.www.who.org).The2008ReportontheGlobalAidsEpidemicestimatesthenumberofadultsandchildrenlivingwithHIV 33,000,000, the vastmajority of them living in SubSaharanAfrica(22,000,000)(UNAIDS2008:214).ThefurtherspreadofHIV/AIDSwillcontinuetoposeaworldwidesecurityrisk.
Having identified the necessity of conceptual thresholds of human(in)security the next step is to point out away how to operationalize thesethresholds inreferencetothehuman(in)securitydimensions identifiedbythe
original UNDPconcept. That is to assess human (in)security. As we havearguedabove,conceptualizingahuman(in)securityindexisrelevanttoassesscertain security issues as actual threats (and in doing so, we argue for theconceptualizationofcertain thresholds).However,andequally important, theoverview on actualnumbersofdeaths related to thedifferentdimensions ofhuman (in)security underscores the necessity to develop a measurementinstrument.
3. AddressingtheChallenge:AHuman(In)Security
Index
We shall address this challengeby presenting aHuman (In)Security Index(HISI)based on the original human security dimensions presentedby theUNDPidentifiedintheHumanDevelopmentReportof1994.Thecrucialtaskistohelptodevelopbenchmarkstomonitortheimpactsofagivenpolicyandtohelptoformulatecoursesandagendasofaction(seealsoUNUCRIS2009).Inthismanner,notonlyoneofthefundamentalcriticismsismet,evenmoresothepracticalrelevanceofhumansecuritycanbeenhanced.Findinganswerstotheproblemofhumaninsecurityrequiresaninstrumenttoassesstheactualthreatstohumanbeings.Besides,humansecurity isalsounderstoodasanattemptto
shed light on the root causes of insecurity (Werthes/Debiel 2006: 10). To findappropriate policy responses, it is important to measure the actual threatsrelated to insecurity.This alsohelps to identifypriorities forpolicy agendas,since the idea ofhuman securityhasbeen increasingly included indecisionmaking,policydesignandprogrammaticimplementation.
Previouscontributionswhichhavefocusedoncreatinganindexmeasuringhuman security are primarily restricted to a narrow approach to humansecurity. To date, the debate on the possibilities of measuring human(in)security has predominantly been shaped by the miniAtlas of HumanSecurity (formerly the Human Security Report), published by the HumanSecurity Report Project and the World Bank. TheminiAtlas predominatelyprovidesdata for insecurityrelated towarsandarmedconflicts (miniAtlasof
8/4/2019 Report 102
19/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
17
HumanSecurity2008),butdoesnot take intoaccount threatscausedbynonviolent factors such as undernourishment, infectious diseases and naturaldisasters.
Oneofthefirstattemptstooperationalizeadefinitionhowhumansecurity
maybemeasured is the concept of generalized povertyby Gary King andChristopherJ.L.Murray.Generalizedpovertyexistswhenadefinedthresholdforacertaindimensionisreached.Theauthorsofthisconceptargueinfavorofa universal decision for indicators of measuring human security in aquantitativemannerworldwide (King/Murray2001:11ff).Anoverallstateofgeneralized poverty for a population in all relevant dimensions can thenbeidentified through a quantitative approach using survival analysismethods(King/Murray 2001: 609f). Therefore the concept of generalized poverty issubstantially related to an economic dimension of security. In contrast, ourattemptwillalsotakeintoaccountotherdimensions(whicharenotcloselyandsolelylinkedtoeconomicwellbeinglike,forexample,politicalsecurity).
Perhaps themost forwardpushing attempt to create an Index ofHumanSecuritysofarhasbeenmadebyDavidA.Hastings.Thisindexmainlyaimsatextending the Human Development Index with indicators that attempt tocharacterizeinclusiveincome,knowledge,andhealthcareasactuallydeliveredtopeople (Hastings2009:10).ThisEnhancedHumanDevelopment Index isdevelopedtocreateaprototypeHumanSecurityIndex(Hastings2009:11ff)based on ideas of theUNDP 1994 human security definition. The EnhancedHDIshallthenprogressivelybeadvancedtoaHumanSecurityIndex.
We agreewithHastingswhen drawing attention to the fact that initialingredientsofaHumanSecurityIndexnowexistwhicharerelatedtothefact
thatinternationallycomparabledatasetsforavastfieldoftopicsinthefieldofeconomic and development are available today and the possibility for theconstructionofindicesforavastfieldhasbeenimproved(Hastings2009:18f).HastingsconstructshisSocialFabricorHumanSecurityIndex(HSI)alongthedimensions of: protection of (and benefiting from) diversity, peace,environmental protection, freedom from corruption and informationempowerment and additionally draws the attention to the imperfectness ofindicatorsonanaggregatedcountry levelasacriticalremark.9This isalsoanissuewe take intoaccountwhenconstructingourHuman (In)Security Index,butwillnotdiscussindetail.IncontrasttoHastingsapproachofproducingaSocialFabricorHumanSecurityIndexweattempttostrictlyoperationalizethe
core ideas of the respective UNDPs human security dimensions. There aresome dimensions that are operationalized in a similarway inboth indices.However, our index focuses on aworldwide relation of human (in)security.Hastingsmainlydraws the focusonAsia and thePacificasa regional index(Hastings2009:8).10
9 Foramoredetaileddescriptionpleasesee:http://www.humansecurityindex.org/?page_id=147.
10 AregionalindexhasbeenrecentlypublishedbytheUniversityofthePhilippinesThirdWorldStudiesCenterthatexaminesthehumansecuritysituationinthePhilippines,seeAtenziaetal.2009.
8/4/2019 Report 102
20/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
18
Anotherapproachhasbeen thevery fruitful (early)operationalizationandcomputationofanIndexofHumanInsecurity (IHI)developedbytheGECHS(GlobalEnvironmental ChangeandHumanSecurity)project in2000.Humaninsecurityisdividedintothedimensionsofenvironment,economy,societyand
institutions.Countries are firstly differentiated along categories of insecurityintotencategoriesandarethenaggregatedtorankeachcountryonanoveralllevelof insecurity.Longitudinaldata from1970up to1995 isused togainanoverallvalueforinsecurity.11
WemainlyfollowtheideaoftheGECHSprojectasregardsthestructureoftheaggregationof thedimensionsofhuman insecurity.However,wemodifythedimensionsandchoiceofindicators.IncontrasttoGECHSwewillskipdatainterpolation formissing values due to the fact thatwewill only use crosssectionaldatafor2008andnotatimeseriesoveralongerperiod.Thisaimsatavoidingahighnumberofmissingvaluesespecially inperiodsprior to2000and inadditionatgettingatimepoint imageofhuman insecurityratherthan
anaverageforalongertimeperiod.TheindexresemblessomeelementsoftheGECHSconstructionbut focusesonadefinedpoint in time (namely theyear2008)anddiffers in thechoiceofoperationalizeddimensions. Inotherwords,sincewechooseasimilaraggregationtechniqueinsomeareasofourindex,itisinawaycomparable to theearlyattemptofGECHS.However,we takeonasignificantlydifferentperspectiveofoperationalizationofhuman(in)securityasaconcept.ThisarguesforareasonableextensionoftheattemptofGECHS.
In line with our understanding of human insecurity as vulnerability ofpeople,ouroperationalization for theHuman (In)Security Index isevenmorecloselybasedontheoriginalthinkingoftheUNDPReportasweinterpretit.
However,
there
is
one
exception:
The
dimensions
of
Personal
and
Community
Securityare combined toonedimensiondue topracticalandmethodologicalreasons: Personal security focuses on the basic threats caused by physicalviolence,be it from states, groups or individual persons,whilst communitysecurityaimsatprotectingpeople from their lossof traditionalpracticesandmembershipincertaingroups,beitafamily,acommunity,anorganizationoraracial or ethnic group from which people derive cultural identity. Tests inpreparation of the index have shown that for now (due to the availablestatisticaldata) the linkage (andcorrelation)between these twodimensions isespeciallyhigh:given the fact thatviolationofphysical integrityalso impactsoncommunitytrustand levelsofbehaviorincommunities.Ahighnumberof
violent
acts,
regardless
whether
carried
out
by
state
or
non
state
actors,
have
a
negativeimpactonsocialcohesionwhichcanbemoreeffectivelymaintainedinfunctioningcommunities.
TheHuman(In)SecurityIndexconcentratesonthevulnerabilityofpeopleinatwofoldway:firstly,assessingtheactualthreatineachdimensionallowsforadifferentiatedunderstandingof therespective insecuritydimensionassuch.That is, it allows for differentiation: whilst, for example, the dimension of
11 Detailedaggregatingprocedureandchoiceofindicatorscanbefoundontheprojecthomepage:http://www.gechs.org/aviso/06/.
8/4/2019 Report 102
21/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
19
environmental securitymay show low values, the threat to political securitymaybemuch higher for the same country.This could lead todifferentiatedagendaswhenhaving tosetprioritiesandwill therebyhelp todirectpriorityandattentionto(morerelevant)areasofconcern,andpreventfuturedamages
in a more precise and efficient way. The Human (In)Security Index willcontribute to a better alignment of the assessment of vulnerability andcorrespondingagendasetting.Tothateffect,strategiccoursesofactionmaybechosen,dependingonthevalueofeachdimension.Secondly,theoverallvaluefor each country sheds light on the actual human (in)security situation in agiven country; countriesmaybe compared toeachotherand those countrieswhosecitizensarethreatenedmostseverelycanclearlybeidentified.Thismayhelp to gather additional momentum to ask for governmental and nongovernmentalpolicyresponsesandtherespectiveresourcesneeded.
3.1 PreliminaryRemarksontheHuman(In)SecurityDimensionsInthissection,weshallexplicatetheseveraldimensionsandpointtoindicativethreats that canbe identified in eachdimension.Additionally, the indicatorschosenforeachdimensionareshortlyintroducedandsubstantiated.
TheHumanDevelopmentReportstatesthatEconomicSecurityrequiresanassuredbasic income,usually fromproductiveand remunerativework,or inthe last resort from apublicly financed safetynet (UNDP 1994: 24). In otherwords,economicsecuritymeansbeingabletoprovideforaminimumstandardoflivingor,ifthisisnotthecase,beingsecuredbysomekindofsocialsecurityprovidedbythestateorprivateactors.Accordingly,unemploymentaswellasunderemploymentisindicativeissue/threatstoeconomicsecurity.Bothcanbe
compensated (tovaryingextent)byanexistingsocial safetynet.Thismaybeprovidedbyeitherthestateorprivateactors.12Whatismore,theactualaccessto public services can account for another factor that endangers economicsecurity. It is therefore crucial tomeasure the equal access individuals enjoyregardlessoftheirsocialbackground,theirreligion,ethnicityandgenderandtoestimatetowhatextentinstitutionsaresufficientlyabletocompensateforgrosssocialdifferences(BertelsmannTransformationIndex2008).
Againstthisbackground,economicsecurityisoperationalizedby:
a) Gross Domestic Product per Capita at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)(Source: International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook
Database2008)andthe
b) BertelsmannTransformationIndexCombinationoftwoIndicators:SocialSafetyNetsandEqualOpportunity(Source:BertelsmannFoundationBTI2008)
12 Theauthorsarewellawareofthefactthat socialsafetynetsdonotexistineverycountryandthattheymaysometimesbesubstitutedtoavaryingextentbythefamilyorthecommunity.However,dataavailabilitydoesnotofferthepossibilitytomeasurethiskindofsocialsafety.
8/4/2019 Report 102
22/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
20
The first indicator was chosen since it illustrates the overall economicperformance of a given country allowing for international comparison. Thisindicatorwas chosen instead of unemployment rates since definitions of anunemployedpersonstronglyvaryacrosscountries,whichmakes international
comparisonveryproblematic.The indicatorsofSocialSafetyNets andEqualOpportunity are part of the Status Index regarding the state of themarketeconomyinacountryandarepartofthesubcriterionofthewelfarestate.Thepresenceofsocialsafetynetsdepictsthegivenpossibilitytocompensatefortheloss of income, health care and prevention of poverty. Measuring equalopportunity shows towhat extent a country provides equal access to publicservicesforitscitizens.
Food Security implies that allpeople at all timeshavebothphysical andeconomicaccess tobasic food.This requires thatpeoplehave readyaccess tofoodthattheyhaveanentitlementtofood,bygrowingitforthemselves,bybuying itorby takingadvantageofapublic fooddistributionsystem (UNDP
1994:27).Theproblemhere isnotthemereavailabilityoffood,buttheactualaccess individuals enjoy tobasic food. This might eitherbe constrictedbyunequal distribution (physical access) or the lack of purchasing power(economicaccess).What ismore,malnutritionmaybecausedbyavarietyoffactors such as social structures, armed conflicts, lack of education orenvironmentalcatastrophessuchastheCycloneNargisthatstruckMyanmarinMay2008.Thecyclonestronglyaffected thecountry thatwasalreadymarkedby a dire humanitarian situation with growing impoverishment anddeterioratingsocialservicestructures.Humanbeingsareevenmorevulnerabletoeconomiccrisisornaturalshockshere(InternationalCrisisGroup2008).
Accordingly,
food
security
is
measured
by
the
a) NumberofChildrenUnderFiveUnderweighted forAge (Source:WorldHealthOrganizationWHOSTATIS2006)andbythe
b) Percentage of Population that is Undernourished (Source: Food andAgriculturalOrganizationFAOSTAT20032005).
Measuringchildmalnutritionisinternationallyrecognizedasawaytoestimatethenutritionalstatusandhealthinpopulationsingeneral.Whatismore,childmalnutrition is linked to several other factors such aspoverty, low levels ofeducation and limited access to health care. Children who suffer frommalnutritionasaresultofpoordietsaremorevulnerabletoillnessesanddeath,
malnutrition also affects their cognitive development and their health statuslater in life.A failure tomeet theseneedswillhavepermanentconsequencesthatmay include stunting, reduced cognition and increased susceptibility toinfectiousdiseases(GlobalHungerIndex2008:27).Assuch,thisindicatoralsoshowsthethreatstopotentialfuturedevelopmentofyounggenerations, oftenoneofthemorevulnerablegroupswithinthesocietiesasalreadyindicatedbythe remarks on youth unemployment at the beginning of this chapter.Additionally,thepercentageofthepopulationthatisundernourishedprovidestheoverallpictureof thevulnerabilityofhumanbeingswith regards to foodsecurity.
FoodSecurityiscloselyrelatedtothedimensionofHealthSecuritywhichisdirected towards theprotection frommajorcausesofdeath, includingmainly
8/4/2019 Report 102
23/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
21
infectiousandparasiticdiseasesespeciallyindevelopingcountries.Mostofthedeaths causedby infectiousdiseases are linked tomalnutrition andpollutedwater.Forindustrializedcountries,themajorcausesofdeatharediseasesofthecirculatorysystem,oftenconnectedtodietandlifestyle(UNDP1994:27).What
ismore, pollutedwater constitutes one of themajor causes for diarrhea, awaterrelateddisease causingup to 4 per cent of victimsworldwide (GlobalWaterSupplyandSanitationAssessmentReport2000).Furthermore, thespreadof HIV/AIDS poses another major risk to health security. Additionally,epidemicsmayalsoaffectthefunctioningofsocieties,sinceillhealthmaybeadirect cause for poverty since it reduces the possibility of productive andremunerativework and is thus directly related to an increase in householdincome(Pederson2008:27).
It is evident that the problem of infectious diseases can no longer beregardedasamedicalproblemalonebuthastobelinkedtosecurityissues,too.The crossborder characterof infectiousdiseasesheightens the importanceof
implementing efficient strategies to encounter continued human loss, anoutstanding concern especially since the infectionwith the abovementioneddiseasescanactuallybeprevented.Againstthisbackground,infectiousdiseasesandtheinfluenceonchildmortalityrates,ascanbeexemplifiedbythedeathscausedbymalaria,arethemostimportantthreatstohealthsecurity.
According to this,ourHuman (In)Security Indexmeasureshealthsecuritybythe
a) NumberofTotalPopulation affectedbyDiseases (Source:WorldHealthOrganizationWHOGlobalHealthAtlas2007)andthe
b)
Child
Mortality
Rate
(Source:
U.S.
Census
Bureau,
International
Database
2008).
The number of total population affected by diseases depicts the casesmentioned above and demonstrates how vulnerable individuals are towardsinfectious diseases. The following diseases are aggregated within the firstindicator: HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and cholera. Additionally,measuringthechildmortalityrateconstitutesoneoftheleadingindicatorsforthelevelofchildhealthandtheoveralldevelopmentinacountry.Similarlytotheindicatormeasuringchildrenunderfivethatareunderweightedthisfactorpointsouttheoverallhealthinapopulation.
As defined by the Human Development Report 1994 EnvironmentalSecurityincludesthreats inflictedbythedegradationoflocalecosystemsandthat of the global system,mainly globalwarming. In developing countries,access to cleanwater is increasinglybecoming a reason for ethnic strife andpolitical tension, whilst for developed countries the pollution of the airconstitutes amajor threat to environmental security (UNDP 1994: 28ff.).Thelinkbetweenenvironmentalissuesandhuman(in)securityisespeciallyclose,asmuchof the environmentalproblems aredirectly affectedbyhuman activityand yet, their security isbound to the access to natural recourses and theirvulnerability to environmental change (Khagram/Clark/Raad 2003). Globalwarmingcausingamultitudeofeffectssuchas increases inglobalaverageairand ocean temperatures, thewidespreadmelting of snow and ice and risingglobalaveragesealevelposesafiercethreattothesecurityofhumanbeingsat
8/4/2019 Report 102
24/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
22
global level. Furthermore, natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods,droughtorwildfireposeanothermajor risk to thewellbeingand securityofhumanbeings.
Besidessuchdirecteffectsasthetotalnumberofreportedvictimscausedby
environmental catastrophes, there are also more indirect and longlastingconsequencesfortheenvironment,theagricultureandindustrialproductionsothatthefuturedevelopmentofsocietiesisincreasinglyendangeredwhenhitbynaturaldisasters.Consequently,environmental securitynotonlycauseshumanbutalsoeconomic losses.Achangingenvironmentcanimpactnotonlyonthewellbeinganddignityofhumanbeings,butalsooneconomicproductivityandpolitical stability.Competition aboutwater resources constitutesaprominentcaseinpoint.Asmentionedabove,pollutedwaterisoneofthemainproblemsin developing countries and access to clean water may cause or heightenpoliticalunrest.However,waterpollutionmainlyresultsfrompoorsanitationwhich iswhy the second indicator as statedbelow combines two factors to
depictthiscloserelation.Withregardstoanotheraspect,wateraccessnotonlyisacrucialconditionforthesurvivalandwellbeingofhumanbeings,butalsoneededforagricultureandtheindustry.
Against this background, environmental security is operationalized by thefollowingtwoindicatorswhichisfirstlythe
a) Percentage of Population that is Affected by Disasters (Source: TheInternationalEmergencyDisastersDatabaseEMDA2006)andsecondlythe
b) Mean of Percentage of Population with Access to Clean Water and
Percentage
with
Access
to
Improved
Water
Sanitation
(Source:
Joint
MonitoringProgrammeforWaterandSupplyandSanitationbyUNICEFandWHO2006)
The first indicator shows thepercentageof thepopulation that isaffectedbydisasters,suchasfloodsorearthquakesandiscrucialsinceithelpstopaintthebroader picture that is causedby environmental catastrophes. Crossbordernatural disasters are a particular evident example that security and livingconditionsinonecountrycanaffectthesecurityandlivingconditionsofothercountriesor even inother regions.This is also true forother factors such asinternational terrorism or migration. The second indicator combines twoaspects, access to cleanwater and access to improvedwater sanitation,both
factorsstronglyrelatedtoimprovedenvironmentalconditions.
Asmentionedabove,wechosetocombinethefollowingtwodimensionstoonedimension, that is, Personal SecurityandCommunity Security.PersonalSecurity is defined as security from threats from physical violence. Thesethreatsmaycomefromthestate(physicaltorture),fromotherstates(war),fromother groups of people (ethnic conflicts), from individuals (crime or streetviolence,theymightbedirectedagainstwomen(rapeordomesticviolence)andthreattoselfsuchasdrugsorsuicide(UNDP1994:30).Clearly,thisdimensioncoversawiderangeofthreatstohumanbeingsoriginatingfrommostdifferent
8/4/2019 Report 102
25/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
23
sources.Wewillconcentrateonviolenceexecutedby thestate,whichwillbefurtheroutlinedbelow.13
Community Security aims at the protection of people from their loss oftraditional practices and membership in certain groups, be it a family, a
community, an organization or a racial or ethnic group fromwhich peoplederivecultural identity, thatprovide themwith security.A lossof traditionalpracticesmaybe causedbymodernization,but alsoby sectarian and ethnicviolence(UNDP1994:31f.).
Of the persons that are most vulnerable with regards to personal andcommunity security, internally displaced persons (IDPs) are probably thelargestgroupintheworld(Fielden2008:1).Theirsecurityisaffectedinmanyways: They are often denied theirbasic human rights, are endangeredbyphysicalviolence,areunprotectedbytheirnationalgovernmentandthusmaysuffer from malnutrition, missing access to clean water, health care and
education.
Woman
and
children
are
especially
vulnerable
in
those
conditions
andarethreatenedbysexualandgenderbasedviolence.IDPsmostlylackanyeconomic opportunities so that they are hardly able to secure a minimumstandardoflivingbythemselves(Fielden2008).Insum,IDPsarefacedwithavariety of lifethreatening concerns. Despite the multiple reasons for theirdisplacementand thevarietyof subgroupsof IDPs, theircommonground isthelinktobothcommunityandpersonalsecurity.Beingturnedintoarefugeeorinternallydisplacedpersonmakesindividualsmorevulnerabletotheabovementioned threats.What ismore, formerly functioning communities that arewartornandaffectedbypolitical tensionsmightno longer serveas securingbasis for individualswho derive their security from theirmembership to a
certain
ethnic,
religious
or
racial
group.
Quite
the
contrary
might
be
the
case
giventhefactthatbeingamemberofacertaingrouporfamilymightactuallybe the cause for insecurity which is then again clearly linked to personalinsecurity.Refugeeandmigrationflowsalsoindicatepossiblefurtherinsecuritysincethesocietalinfrastructuremightbedamagedandthuscommunitiesmoveaway from traditional forms of solidarity and societal trust is continuouslydecreased.Causingdamagestothesocietalinfrastructuremaythenalsoinflictuponotherdimensionsofhumansecuritysuchaseconomicorhealthsecuritywhen access to productive and remunerative work or to health care isaggravated.
Thecombineddimensionofpersonalandcommunityisoperationalizedbythe
followingtwoindicatorswhicharethe
a) TotalNumber of people assistedby the UNHCR (Source:UN RefugeeAgency2006)andthe
b) PoliticalTerrorScale(Source:PoliticalTerrorScaleProject2007).
13 Pleasenote:Dataoncrimeandstreetviolence,rapeanddomesticviolence is lackingandnotreliable,especiallyfordevelopingcountries.Forthisreason,thesethreatswereexcludedfromouroperationalizationandareindirectlymeasuredbyoursetofindicators.
8/4/2019 Report 102
26/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
24
ThePoliticalTerror Scalemeasures the levels ofpolitical violenceusing twodifferentsources,theyearlyCountryReportsofAmnestyInternationalandtheU.S.StateDepartmentCountryReportsonHumanRightsPractices.ThePTSrathermeasurestheviolationsofphysicalintegrityrightsthangeneralpolitical
repression,forwhichreasonthisindicatorischosentooperationalizepersonalsecurity.The PTSmeasure state violence (admittedly, it isnot always clearwhether thestate isdirectlyresponsible forviolence),however, the indicatordoesnotincludeviolenceexecutedby individuals,e.g.crime,orgenderbasedviolencesuchasdomesticviolenceagainstwomenorfemalegenitalmutilation(Wood/Gibney 2008: 3ff.). According to the latest reports by AmnestyInternational, we still witness gross violation of human rights despite theprogressmadeinhumanrightsprotectionoverthepastyears.
Finally, the dimension of Political Security is addressed. Following theHumanDevelopmentReport1994,politicalsecurity focuseson theprotectionofbasic human rights,which is, as theReport emphasizes, one of themost
importantaspectsofhumansecurity.Violationsofhumanrightsmayespeciallyoriginateduringtimesofpoliticalunrest,butalsofrompoliticalrepressionbythestateorsystematictorture(UNDP1994:22f.).
One of the major concerns up to date is securing people from staterepression.2,390peopleareestimatedtohavebeenexecutedworldwide;China,SaudiArabiaandUSAaccounted forthehighestnumberofexecutions.Then,freedomofthepressisoneofthemostessentialrightsandhighlyindicativeforthisdimensionofhumansecurity.For thepast threeyears (2006 to2008), thePressFreedomIndexlistsNorthKorea,TurkmenistanandEritreaastheworstviolatorsofpress freedom.Countries such as Iraq,PakistanandAfghanistan
which
are
involved
in
armed
conflict
and
failing
to
solve
dire
domestic
problemsarealsorankedasblackzonesforthepress(PressFreedomIndex2008). TheHuman (In)Security Indexwill use the following two indicators,whichare
a) Index of Five Indicators14 concerning Personal Security (Source:HumanRightsDataProjectCIRI2006)
b) PressFreedomIndex(Source:ReporterswithoutBorders2006)
Itisimportanttonotethatboth,PTSandCIRI,usethesamedatatocodetheirindicators, that is, statesponsored violations of human rights termed asphysical integrity rights.However, theCIRIdivides the category ofphysical
integrity violence into several subcategories, which are: disappearances,killing,tortureandimprisonment(whicharefouroutoffiveindicatorsusedforthe operationalization carried out here). Secondly, the PTS ranks thegovernment abuses, whilst the CIRI analyses the frequency and type ofviolation so that these two indicators paint a different picture, though they
14 The indicators are:Disappearance,ExtrajudicialKilling,Political Imprisonment,Torture andAssassination. All Indicators are codedon a scale ranging from 0 (frequentlypracticed) to 2(havenotoccurred).Forafurtherdescriptionseehttp://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_variables_short_descriptions.pdf.
8/4/2019 Report 102
27/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
25
clearly correlatewith each other (on detail see the remarks in chapter 4.2)(Wood/Gibney 2008). The Press Freedom Index is composed from aquestionnaire that comprises 52 questions on press freedom that theorganization Reporters without Borders distributes among its partner
organizationsonanannualbasis.Havinglaidoutourconceptualbackgroundforthechoiceofindicators,we
will now point out the methodological background for developing andconstructingtheHuman(In)SecurityIndex(HISI).
3.2 Methodology:ComputationoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndexThe aim of the Human (In)Security Index as presented in this paper is tooperationalizethecoredimensionsofhumansecurity.Thishastwo importantimplications: Firstly, the indicators that were chosen to operationalize eachdimensionmeasurehumaninsecurity.Secondly,wewillpolarizeourindicators
inanegativeway,meaningthehigherthevalue,thehigherthethreattohumansecurity.Bydeveloping thiskindofHuman (In)Security Indexweareable toidentify the dimensions which present the most severe threats at a givenmomentoftime.Thismayputadditionalimpetusonthenecessitytorespondtospecificthreatsandmayhelptopreventafurtherdeteriorationofthehuman(in)security situationas such.Weargue thataHuman (In)Security Indexwillcontributetoananalyticalrefinementofthenotionofhumansecurityandwillalso allow for improved strategic actions since efficient policies towards thedifferentfieldsofactivityareneededtorespondtotherootcausesofinsecurity.In short, a Human (In)Security Index will help to improve vulnerabilityassessmentandprioritysetting.
TheHuman (In)Security Index includes209countriesandregions (suchasGazaandtheWestBank).ThesixdimensionsasdefinedbytheUNDPReport(personal and community security are combined to one dimension) areoperationalizedby two indicatorseachandareaggregated tocountryspecificvalues.Figure3illustratesthemanifestindicatorsandthelatentconstruct(thatis: human insecurity) they measure. The Human (In)Security Index is arelationalindextothemaximumandminimumvalueofeveryindicator(andina second step to every dimension). Although outliers are computed out,extreme cases (in relation to themean)maybias the data. This applies inparticulartotheenvironmental dimension,wheresingularcasessuchasaone
time
natural
disaster
may
occur.
Given
such
a
situation,
a
high
percentage
of
thepopulationmightbeaffected.Thescoreforallothercountriesiscomputedintorelationtothat.Thiscertainlydoesnot implythat,forexample,thegreenenvironmental dimension should be interpreted as a complete absence ofaffectedpeople.However, the threateningpotential ishardlyathandhere inrelationtotheextremecases.
8/4/2019 Report 102
28/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
26
Figure3:MatrixofIndicatorsandDimensionsoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndex(HISI)
There are threepossible and adequateways to compute the indicatorvalues
andtoaggregatethemtotheseveraldimensions(OECD2008:83ff):
Zstandardizationofvalues(withthemeanasareferencepoint) Definingintervalsonourown(oroncomputingquartiles) RescalingthevaluesthroughcomputationIt is important to keep in mind that these methods can onlybe used forvariablesmeasuredonametriclevel.Forvariablesonanordinallevel(liketheBertelsmannTransformation Index forSocialNetsor thecombinationofCIRIindicators)aspecificcomputationisusedtorescalethevaluesbetween0and100 (this range is thebasis for all indicators tobe aggregated to dimension
value).Thecomputingproceduresaccountforthefollowingmetricvariables:
GrossDomesticProduct perCapitabased on (Purchasing Power Parity PPP)
ChildrenUnderFiveUnderweightedforAge PercentageofPopulationthatisUndernourished TotalPopulationAffectedbyDiseases ChildMortalityRate PercentageofPopulationthatisAffectedbyDisasters Mean of Percentage of Population with Access to Clean Water andPercentagewithAccesstoImprovedWaterSanitation
TotalNumberofpeopleassistedbytheUNHCRTheindicatorsarerescaledbasedonthefollowingformula:
8/4/2019 Report 102
29/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
27
Allcountriesarerankedintheirrelationtotheextremecases(withthehighestand lowest score on the indicator) at a range of 0 to 100. In thisway, thecountriesexperiencingextremeproblemswithregardstohumaninsecurityareespeciallypointedout.Toavoidanartificialskewnessregardingtooutlierswe
excluded the general calculationby adequately identifying them from eachindicatorsdistribution.15
Afterwardsthemeanforeverycountryineverydimensioniscalculatedby:
Thedimensionvalues for every country are summedupanddividedby thenumber of valid rated dimensions to gain a country value for the overallHuman (In)Security Indexwhich is the overallmean of allvaliddimensions
(some
countries
do
not
have
valid
values
on
every
dimension
due
to
the
fact
of
lackingdata).Theformulaforthisprocedureis:
The dimensions and the overall index then varybetween 0 (lowest level ofhuman insecurity)and100(highest levelofhuman insecurity).It is importanttonote thatall indicatorshave thesameweightingfor thecomputationofthedimensions.Oneexceptionoccurs:whenacountryhasamissingvalueinone
of the two indicators, itsdimensionvalue is identicalwith thevalid indicatorvalue.Inastatisticalmanner,the indicatoristhenoverestimatedinrelationtoalldimensionsindicatorswithmorethanonevalidvalue.However,thisdoesnothinder the analytical interpretation as thisonly counts for thedimensionvalue,theoverallIndexofHuman(In)Securityisthereforeacombinationofthedimensionsvaluewithconstantweightsofeverydimension.
After computing thevalues,wedivide theHuman (In)Security Index intoquartileslabelledinthefollowingcategoriesbyscores(seeTable1).Inlinewiththe computationprocedure, the index isanadditiveandnot amultiplicativeone.
15 A country canbe regarded as an outlierwhen its value differsmore than three standarddeviationsfromtheindicatorsmean.
8/4/2019 Report 102
30/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
28
Table1:AssessingtheLevelofHuman(In)Security
LevelHuman(In)Security
LevelScore Definition
1Level
ofHumanSecurity 025Thereisnosystematicandsustainablethreattolife/
survival
2LevelofRelativeHumanSecurity
2650
Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survival,butindividualsandgroupsusuallyhavestrategies,means,behaviouraloptions,oraid/helpattheirdisposaltocope
withthesethreats.
3LevelofRelativeHumanInsecurity
5175
Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survivalandindividualsandgroupshaveonlylimitedorinadequatestrategies,means,behaviouraloptions,oraid/helpat
theirdisposaltocopewiththesethreats.
4 LevelofHumanInsecurity 76100Somefactorsandcontextsthreatenlife/survivaland
individualsandgroupshavenoadequatestrategies,means,behaviouraloptions,oraid/helpattheirdisposal
tocopewiththesethreats.
3.3 FindingsInthefollowingsection,thefindingsineachdimensionarepresentedaschartsillustrating the frequencies of countries falling in the respective categories ofhuman (in)security at a regional macro level.16 Additionally, for somedimensionsaworldmap thatcorrespondswith the typology laidout in table
oneisincluded.17Itshouldbenoted,thatalthoughtwocountriesmayfallintooneinterval,theirvaluesmaydiffertosomeextentwhenbotharelocatedatthedifferent end of the interval. This is the case, for example, for Belgium andBelaruswhichboth fall into the levelofhumansecurity (seeAnnex2),butofcourse differ from each other especially with respect to political security.Additionally,itisimportanttokeepinmindthateventhecategoryofrelativehuman securitymight imply aproblematic level foranadequate life, that is,routinesofdailylifemightbeconstrainedalsothere.
3.3.1 HumanEconomic(In)SecurityAnoverallsecure levelofeconomicsecurity (GDPpercapitaandexistenceofSocialNets) ismainly athand inNorthAmerica,WesternEurope and somepartsofAsiaandOceania.InAfrica,onlyasmallnumberofcountriesreachthehighest category, for example,Gabon,Namibia, Botswana and SouthAfrica.
16 TheregionsareidentifiedaccordingtoUNSTATSidentificationnumbers.Fordetailsseehttp://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.
17 Foracompleteoverviewonallworldmaps,pleaseseewww.humansecurity.de.
8/4/2019 Report 102
31/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
29
Theoverallhighest threat toeconomic securityoccurs inAfrica,especially intheDemocraticRepublicofCongo,GuineaBissau,SomaliaandLiberia.NearlyallpartsofAfricaareaffectedbyarelativelyhighlevelofeconomicinsecurityand15countriesareonthehighestlevelofhumaninsecurity(outofoverall19
countriesinthiscategory).Incomefordailylifeisverylowandvastlimitationsof an adequate life occur. If the case of unemployment is at hand, a highnumberofAfricancountrieslackaminimumnetofsocialsafetytocompensatefor the problem of economic insecurity that is causedby notbeing able tosecure aminimum standard of living. Since theBertelsmannTransformationIndex (oneof the indicators for thisdimension)alsomeasuresaconstraint inequal(economic)opportunitiesbesidesalackofsocialsafetynets,ahighlevelof insecurity impliesrestrictions inbothaspects.Thisapplies tosomepartsofSouthAsia.Moreover,NorthKorea,Afghanistan,MyanmarandNepalfacethesame economical problems, but even India, Pakistan, Indonesia and othercountries in East Asia with their overall high population numbers fail in
providing adequate economic opportunities. In the Americas, Bolivia andParaguayandsomepartsofCentralAmericaface thesameeconomicsecurityproblems.
Overall,AfricaandSouthtoSouthEastAsiaaremostaffectedbythreatstoeconomicsafetyandsecurity.EspeciallyinAfricanearlyallgeographicregionsface alarming problems. Economic insecurity is one of the major problemsworldwide.Theimportancetochallengethisthroughpovertyreductionisstilloneofthemajortaskstoday,evenmoresosinceeconomicsecurityisstronglyrelatedtohealthandfoodsecurity.
Table2:RegionalDistributionofHumanEconomic(In)Security
UNMacro
Region
EconomicDimensionNumberofCountries
fallinginoneofthehuman(in)securitylevels
TotalNumberof
Countries
Level1 Level2 Level3 Level4
Africa 3 9 25 15 52
Oceania 2 5 2 0 9
Americas 8 20 7 0 35
Asia 9 15 18 4 46
Europe 27 9 4 0 40
Total 49 58 56 19 182
3.3.2 HumanFood(In)SecurityFood insecurity, measured by the percentage of population that isundernourishedandthenumberofchildrenunderfiveunderweightedforage
isasevereproblemmainly inAfricaandSouthAsia.EspeciallyinSubSahara
8/4/2019 Report 102
32/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
30
Africa,foodsecurityisamajorproblemforhugepartsofthepopulation.SomecountrieslikeEthiopia,Eritrea,theDemocraticRepublicofCongo,AngolaandMadagascarfacealarmingscoresinthisdimension.
Inotherpartsoftheworld,onlyAfghanistanfalls intothiscategory(Level
of Human Insecurity). But even some countries in SouthEast Asia (Laos,Cambodia,Bangladesh,NepalandIndia)andYemenfaceproblemsconcerningtheadequatesupplyoffoodfortheirpopulation.Besidesthesecountries,foodinsecurityingeneraldoesnotconstituteacentralproblemforCentralAsiaandtheMiddleEastregion. In theAmericas,Haitikeepson facingproblemswithfundamental food supply for its population. The same applies (with somerestrictions) toBolivia,Nicaragua andGuatemala. Food insecurity inEuropecanberegardedasabsent.Here,theproblemofmissingdataforthisdimensionoccurs,however, it canbe assumed thatSpain,Poland,PortugalandAustria(withmissingdata)willnotbe ranked as highly alarming concerning foodinsecurity.18
Table3:RegionalDistributionofHumanFood(In)Security
UN
Macro
Region
FoodDimensionNumberofCountriesfallinginoneofthe
human(in)securitylevelsTotalNumber
ofCountries
Level1 Level2 Level3 Level4
Africa 12 19 14 7 52
Oceania 7 1 0 0 8
Americas 28 5 2 0 35
Asia 27 10 7 2 46
Europe 39 1 0 0 40
Total 113 36 23 9 181
18 Data providedby FAOSTAT cover the years 20032005 (latest available year used), sinceadequateandreliabledataisproblematicor/andnotavailableforthefollowingyears.
8/4/2019 Report 102
33/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
31
Figure4:WorldMapHumanFood(In)Security
8/4/2019 Report 102
34/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
32
3.3.3 HumanHealth(In)SecurityHealth insecurity is measured by the occurrence of infectious diseases(HIV/AIDS,malaria,choleraandtuberculosis)andthechildmortalityrate.All
partsofSubSaharanAfricafacetheseproblems.Infectiousdiseasesoccurinallofthesecountries,malaria,HIV/AIDSandtuberculosisarealarmingproblemsforahighnumberofAfricancountriesandtheirpopulation.Itcanbeassumedthat already for today the spread ofHIV/AIDS influences the economicallyworkingpartofAfricancountries.ApartfromAfrica,onlyAfghanistan(duetotheworldwide highest number of childmortality) and PapuaNew Guineareach such a disastrous status. InAsia, Pakistan,Mongolia, Bangladesh andLaoshealthinsecurityalsoisaproblem.Havingthisstated,healthinsecurityisin general nomajor problem in the Americas (only Haiti is affected here),Oceania (except PapuaNewGuinea, the Solomon Islands and TimorLeste),AsiaandEurope.
Health insecurity can mainlybe regarded as an African phenomenon.Notwithstanding, health insecurity caused by an unhealthy life style (inindustrialized countries)mightalsobeorbecomeaproblem.However, sincewefocusondirectdeathratesfrominsecurity(andnotindirectlybylifestyles)Europe,Americasand largepartsofAsiaandOceaniaperformquitewell inthisdimension.
Table4:RegionalDistributionofHumanHealth(In)Security
UNMacro
Region
HealthDimensionNumberofCountriesfallinginoneof
the
human
(in)
security
levels
TotalNumberof
Countries
Level1 Level 2 Level3 Level4
Africa 12 19 13 8 52
Oceania 7 2 0 0 9
Americas 34 1 0 0 35
Asia 39 6 2 0 47
Europe 38 1 1 0 40
Total 130 29 16 8 183
8/4/2019 Report 102
35/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
33
Figure5:WorldMapHumanHealth(In)Security
8/4/2019 Report 102
36/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
34
3.3.4 HumanEnvironmental(In)SecurityTheenvironmentaldimensionisthecategorythatisstronglyaffectedbyshortterm changes,namelybynaturaldisasters,due to one specific indicator: the
numberofpeopleaffectedbydisasters.Sincenaturaldisastersmightaffectahighpercentageofapopulation,theextremecasesaresignificant.Wecertainlyacknowledgethatthismightoverestimatethe findingsfor thisdimensiontoacertaindegree;however,theindexisintendedtoshowthreatsatacertainpointin time so that the neglect of sudden catastrophes would also bias theinterpretation.This indicator is combinedwith the access to improvedwatersourcesandsanitationfacilities.
The countries with the highest alarming status are Somalia and Eritrea(according to floods) inAfricaandBelize inCentralAmerica.Othercountriesalso experienced disasters (like China),but in addition to that they have ahigherperformancewithregardstosanitationandwatersupply.Somaliadoesnotperformverywellwith aview toboth indicators. It is also important tokeepthefollowinginmind:Evenwhenasmallpercentageofthepopulationisaffected by disasters this might result in a complete loss of housing andeconomicinsecurityasaresultofnaturaldisastersinsteadofbeingeconomicallyinsecureasmeasuredbytheindicatorswithintheeconomicdimension.
Table5:RegionalDistributionofHumanEnvironment(In)Security
UNMacro
Region
EnvironmentDimensionNumberofCountriesfallinginoneof
thehuman(in)securitylevelsTotalNumber
ofCountries
Level1 Level2 Level3 Level4
Africa 25 23 2 2 52
Oceania 8 1 0 0 9
Americas 30 2 0 2 34
Asia 40 5 2 0 47
Europe 39 1 1 0 40
Total 142 32 4 4 182
3.3.5 HumanPersonalandCommunity(In)SecurityPersonal and community insecurity is aworldwide phenomenon. Themostalarming cases can be localized in Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, theDemocraticRepublicofCongoandColombia.Due to thedevelopmentsafter9/11,theUnitedStatesalsofallsintoalowercategoryherethantheydoinotherdimensions (asahighperformer).Thismainlyresults from the scoringof the
PoliticalTerrorScale,oneof the two indicators for thisdimensionbesides the
8/4/2019 Report 102
37/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
35
number of people assisted by the UNHCR. Apart from this, threats tocommunityandpersonalsecurityareespeciallysevere inallpartsofAsia(forexample China and Pakistan), Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Serbia and BosniaHerzegovina) andCentral/SouthAmerica (Brazil,El Salvador andVenezuela
e.g.).Thedimensionofpersonalandcommunitysecurity isthereforenotonlyanAfricanandAsianphenomenon.EspeciallySouthAmericashowsaseverelevelof insecurity incomparison to theotherdimensions.NotonlyColombiawithitshighnumbersofIDPsishighlyranked,butalsoBrazilisacaseinpointhere.
Table6:RegionalDistributionofHumanPersonalandCommunity(In)Security
UNMacro
Region
PersonalandCommunityDimensionNumberofCountries
fallinginoneofthehuman(in)securitylevelsTotalNumberof
Countries
Level1 Level2 Level3 Level4
Africa 16 26 7 3 52
Oceania 8 1 0 0 9
Americas 21 13 0 1 35
Asia 18 21 5 3 47
Europe 35 4 1 0 40
Total
98
65
13
7
183
3.3.6 HumanPolitical(In)securityPoliticalinsecuritymaymainlybedescribedasanAsianphenomenon.LargepartsofAsia experience ahigh level ofhuman insecurity regardingpoliticalissues.Eightcountriesare facedwithalarming threats, four timeshigher thaninotherpartsof theworld. Iran,Myanmar,China,NorthKoreaandPakistanareonlysomeexamples. In the followingcategoryof relative insecurity,Asia
also
wins
the
race
against
the
African
continent.
In
Africa
severe
political
situationsaremainly situated inNorthEastAfrica.TheAmericas experiencesuch a high level inCuba,Mexico andColombia. It is important to keep inmind that the institutional aspects of the current political situation are notmeasured, but the daily experience of citizens regarding press freedom(Reporters Without Borders) and the occurrence of torture, politicalimprisonmentetc.throughtheCIRIindicators(aspointedoutbefore).
The fact that some of the highly ranked states are authoritarian regimes(according to institutional aspects) is not the reason for their score (like thePolityIVranksthemwithafocusoninstitutionalaspects).If,forexample,onecountryisahighlyauthoritarianstatebutsomehowrespectsacertaindegreeof
civilianliberties(measuredthroughthescalesofFreedomHouse),thiscountry
8/4/2019 Report 102
38/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
36
may rank on a slightly higher level of human security. By choosing ourindicators, a bias towards (the institutional aspects of) democracies wasavoided.
Table7:RegionalDistributionofHumanPersonalandCommunity(In)Security
UNMacro
Region
PoliticalDimensionNumberofCountriesfallinginone
ofthehuman(in)securitylevelsTotalNumberof
Countries
Level1 Level2 Level3 Level4
Africa 13 22 14 1 50
Oceania 3 2 1 0 6
Americas 16 6 3 1 26
Asia 7 16 15 8 46
Europe 32 4 2 0 38
Total 71 50 35 10 166
8/4/2019 Report 102
39/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
37
Figure6:WorldMapHumanPolitical(In)Security
8/4/2019 Report 102
40/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
38
3.3.7 HumanInsecurityTheoverallHuman(In)SecurityIndexreflectsthepicturepaintedbytheseveraldimensionsalone:HumaninsecuritycertainlyisanAfricanandpartlyanAsian
concern. This is not to neglect areas of concern in the rest of the world.However, only two out of the fifteen countries with the highest score arelocatedoutsideAfrica,namely:AfghanistanandMyanmar,13 countrieswiththehighest levelofhuman insecurityare located inSubSaharanAfrica.Withregardstothepoliticaldimension,Asiaisthemostproblematicworldregion.
Somalia is rankedat the top,being theonly country that receives the fullscoringof100points(pleasenote:sincetheindexisrelational,onlyonecountryislistedattheendoftheinterval).SomaliaisfollowedbyEritrea,Afghanistan,the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Ethiopia in the highestcategoryofhuman insecurity.Nevertheless,countries thatat firstglancemaynot perform at a worrisome level of human insecurity, might still havechallenges to copewith. Countries experiencing some kind of limitation tohumansecurityaccountforabout59percentoftheworld.
Table8:RegionalDistributionofHuman(In)Security
UNMacro
RegionHuman(In)Security Total
Numbers of
CountriesLevel1 Level2 Level3 Level4
Africa 3 19 25 5 52
Oceania 5 4 0 0 9
Americas 19 15 1 0 35
Asia 12 20 14 1 47
Europe 36 4 0 0 40
Total 75 62 40 6 183
Table9showsthefifteencountriesthatperformworstaccordingtotheHuman(In)Security Index. As pointed outbefore,mainly African countries despitewellknown progresses show an overall alarming status due to threats tohumansecurity.Thesecountriesconstantlyreceivehighscoresinnearlyevery
dimension. The first six countries of the highest score fall into the overallcategory of human insecurity (Somalia, Eritrea,Afghanistan, theDemocraticRepublicoftheCongo,BurundiandEthiopia).Thefollowingninecountriesaregroupedatthelevelofrelativehumaninsecurity.
8/4/2019 Report 102
41/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
39
Table9:TheWorstHuman(In)SecurityPerformers
Country Human(In)SecurityScore
Somalia 100,00
Eritrea
88,58
Afghanistan 85,97
Congo,Dem.Rep. 83,28
Burundi 79,51
Ethiopia 78,02
Liberia 73,56
Sudan 73,51
CentralAfricanRepublic 71,71
Angola 71,29
Chad 70,52
Mozambique 69,51
Myanmar 68,88
Uganda 68,23
Niger 67,34
Regarding the high performers of human security (with a very low overallthreat) all countries (exceptJapan)geographicallybelong toWesternEurope.
The
Scandinavian
countries
Norway,
Finland
and
Sweden
perform
at
a
high
levelregardinghumansecurity.MeasuredbytheHuman(In)SecurityIndex,itisNorwaythatperformsbest.
Table10:TheBestHuman(In)SecurityPerformers
Country Human(In)SecurityScore
Norway 0,32
Netherlands 2,26
Japan 2,62
Sweden 2,93
Finland 2,99
Germany 3,40
Belgium 3,49
Australia 3,51
Slovenia 3,75
Ireland 3,82
8/4/2019 Report 102
42/68
Werthes/Heaven/Vollnhals
40
Figure7:WorldMapHuman(In)Security
8/4/2019 Report 102
43/68
AssessingHumanInsecurityWorldwide
41
3.4 ADescriptiveAnalysisoftheHuman(In)SecurityIndexwithotherIndices
Asoutlinedbefore,ouraimistomeasurehumaninsecurityinitssix(originally
seven)
Top Related