Multidimensional Fragility Dashboard

The OECD defines fragility as the combination of exposure to risk and insufficient coping capacities of the state, system and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks. The OECD introduced its multidimensional fragility framework in the States of Fragility 2016, measuring fragility on a spectrum of intensity across six dimensions: economic, environmental, human (introduced in 2022), political, security and societal. 

The methodology combines quantitative approaches to measure the intensity of fragility alongside a qualitative description. It comprises four stages:

• data collection
• a first principal component analysis (PCA)
• hierarchical clustering to group contexts according to shared attributes
• a second PCA to aggregate fragility scores for 177 contexts

56 indicators across the six dimensions of fragility were selected according to criteria aligned with the OECD’s concept of high risk and low coping capacity, using publicly available sources. Selection criteria included:

• Timeliness and frequency of updates
• Geographic coverage
• Quality and citation frequency in academic literature
• Whether an indicator constitutes a cause or outcome of fragility

Sub-tabs on indicators provide further information on the relationship between fragility and each indicator. Specifically, indicators may increase risk or strengthen resilience.

The first PCA stage calculates fragility scores for each dimension using 8-10 indicators and classifying them as a risk or a coping capacity. 

PCA identifies the underlying statistical patterns across a set of correlated indicators and recombines them into a smaller number of principal components (PC). Each PC captures a distinct, non-overlapping share of the total variance in the data. The first PC captures the greatest share of variance, the second the next greatest, and so on. Each context’s value on the first PC is its fragility score for that dimension. The first two PCs, which capture most of the variance from the original indicators feed into the clustering and second PCA stages. 

While this method helps manage the complexity of fragility, quantitative tools should be complemented with in-depth qualitative investigation to provide nuance and context.

Clustering offers another way to find patterns in the data. All 177 contexts are grouped into 6 clusters based on the value of their first two PCs from stage 1. Clusters are defined through a Tukey ANOVA difference-in-means test. A statistical significance criterion flags indicators with a mean in any one cluster that is significantly different (at 95% confidence) from at least four of the five remaining clusters.

A group of experts was consulted to rank clusters by severity. Experts drew on qualitative contextual knowledge to supplement the quantitative foundation. These consultations produced five categories of fragility intensity: severe, high, moderate, low and minor.

Clustering is prominent in recent scholarship on fragility. This literature reflects attempts to devise typologies of contexts that reconcile the complexity of fragility with the need for simplicity and guided approaches to help policy makers address fragility and its drivers.

A second PCA uses the first two PCs from each of the 6 dimensions to produce an aggregate fragility score for each context. While stage 1 analysed fragility within dimensions, stage 2 captures how fragility emerges from the interaction of risks and resilience across dimensions. The first PC of stage 2 constitutes the aggregate fragility score.

Classification thresholds are set using natural breaks in the data. This means they may slightly vary in different editions of States of Fragility. Contexts scoring −1.18 or below are classified as exposed to high fragility, and those scoring −2.7 or below as facing extreme fragility. All other contexts are classified as experiencing medium to low fragility. In States of Fragility 2025, this approach yields 61 contexts exposed to extreme (18) or high (43) fragility.

The analysis covers 177 contexts for which data is available across at least 70% of the 56 indicators. Key data parameters include:

• Indicator values using the most recent data available from 2023 or earlier, with a floor of 2012 to avoid excessively outdated data.
• Missing data are imputed using k-nearest neighbour imputation based on the 15 most similar contexts for each data point. 

The full replication code, underlying raw data and dimensional results are available upon request by emailing INCAF.Secretariat@oecd.org.

OECD (2026), Multidimensional Fragility Dashboard, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/multidimensional-fragility

If using specific indicators, please cite the underlying data source and note the OECD's terms and conditions.

Financial flows data are updated annually following publication of the OECD's development finance statistics. The fragility framework is updated biennially to allow sufficient time for updates to underlying indicators.

For ODA statistics, consult the OECD FAQ. For remittances and foreign direct investment, see the World Bank's World Development Indicators. For tax data, see UNU-WIDER. For debt, see the IMF World Economic Outlook.

The map displays net ODA and FDI values. Profiles show ODA in gross terms to allow consistent comparisons across sectors and the HDP nexus, as sectoral data are unavailable in net terms.

Data for 2025 is available upon request. Please email INCAF.Secretariat@oecd.org.

All raw indicator data are scaled prior to PCA.

177 contexts had sufficient data for inclusion in the analysis. Of these, 61 were identified as exposed to high or extreme fragility in 2025, using the OECD methodology described above.

These are defined using OECD DAC CRS sector codes: Humanitarian (700); Peace (16 purpose codes from 15110 to 15261); Development (all other codes).

ODA for core peace uses sector code 152, "Conflict, peace, and security" while “secondary peace” uses 12 out of 18 purpose codes under sector code 151 “Government and civil society, general”.  For the full definition and composition, refer to Peace and ODA.

The States of Fragility work is led by the OECD's Development, Peace and Resilience Unit. This team addresses the priorities established by the DAC through the work of the International Network on Conflict and Prevention (INCAF), a subcommittee of the DAC.