Sustainability and National Security

Quantitative Qualitative

Strengths

High Predictive Capacity

(especially political crisis and instability)

Rich Contextual Information

(simple for desk officers to absorb)

Immediate Policy Value

(useful for priority setting and “watch

lists”)

Strong Planning Applications

(evaluation applications built in)

Weaknesses

Incomplete Data - Reliability

(crisis-affected countries lack data points)

Often “One-On Snapshots”

(may become quickly outdated)

Limited “On-the-Ground” Insight

(graphs, charts, country lists may not be

useful to account for interventions)

May Oversimplify Situations

(conflict and fragility complexities)

Less Sensitive to Short Term

(focus on shifting trend conditions)

Basis Is Personal Judgment

(more subject to personal bias)

Source: Adapted from OECD 2009 and Goldstone 2008

Table 2. Comparison of Qualitative vs. Qualitative

Approaches

including remote sensing, statistical data, and qualita-
tive and unstructured data (e.g., cultural and natural
resources).
The U.S. Army, DOD, and USG are developing nu-
merous approaches and tools (Table 3) but, in many
cases, without a common lexicon and broader prac-
titioner applicability. The vast majority of these ap-
proaches and systems focus on conflict and instability
prediction or post-conflict progress monitoring. Cur-
rently, the only official USG fragility approach is the
USAID Fragility Alert Lists, but its reports are listed
as “unclassified but sensitive.” Of the systems identi-
fied, very few of the academic and USG fragility early
warning approaches are known to have explicitly
incorporated energy, natural resources, and environ-
mental factor dynamics (AEPI 2010).