logo
World Bank warns that 39 fragile states are falling further behind as conflicts grow, get deadlier

World Bank warns that 39 fragile states are falling further behind as conflicts grow, get deadlier

Independent7 hours ago

The world's most desperate countries are falling further and further behind, their plight worsened by conflicts that are growing deadlier and more frequent.
That is the sobering conclusion of the World Bank's first comprehensive study of how 39 countries contending with 'fragile and conflict-affected situations'' have fared since the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020.
'Economic stagnation —rather than growth —has been the norm in economies hit by conflict and instability,' said Ayhan Kose, the World Bank's deputy chief economist.
Since 2020, the 39 countries, which range from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific to Mozambique in sub-Saharan Africa, have seen their economic output per person fall by an average 1.8% a year. In other developing countries, by contrast, it grew by an average 2.9% a year over the same period.
More than 420 million people in the fragile economies are living on less than $3 a day — the bank's definition of extreme poverty. That is more than everywhere else combined, even though the 39 countries account for less than 15% of the world's people.
Many of these countries have longstanding problems with crumbling infrastructure, weak governments and low levels of education. People in the 39 countries get an average of just six years of schooling, three years fewer than those in other low- and middle-income countries. Life expectancy is five years shorter and infant mortality is twice as high.
Increasing conflicts have made things worse. In the 2000s, the world saw an annual average of just over 6,000 conflicts — in which organized groups used armed force against other groups or against civilians and cause at least one death. Now the annual average exceeds 20,000. The conflicts are more lethal, too: In the 2000s, they took an average of fewer than 42,000 lives a year. From 2000 through 2024, the number averaged almost 194,000.
Of the 39 countries, 21 are involved in active conflicts, including Ukraine, Sudan, Ethiopia and Gaza. The World Bank finds that countries involved in high-intensity conflict — which kill more than 150 out of every 1 million people — see a cumulative drop of 20% after five years in their gross domestic product, the output of goods and services.
More conflict also means more hunger: The World Bank estimated that 18% -- around 200 million – of the people in the 39 countries are 'experiencing acute food insecurity'' compared with just 1% in other low and middle-income countries.
Some countries have managed to escape the cycle of conflict and economic fragility. Kose cites Nepal; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Rwanda; and Sri Lanka as relative success stories.
And the World Bank report notes that the 39 countries do enjoy strengths, including natural resources such as oil and natural gas and a lot of young, working-age people at a time when many economies are aging.
'Some of them are very rich when it comes to their tourism potential,'' Kose said. 'But you need to have security established. You and I are not going to go and visit these places unless they are safe even though they might be the most beautiful places in the world.''

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump says Gaza ceasefire is possible within a week
Trump says Gaza ceasefire is possible within a week

The Independent

time3 hours ago

  • The Independent

Trump says Gaza ceasefire is possible within a week

President Donald Trump has suggested that a ceasefire in the Gaza could be reached within a week. The US president told reporters on Friday that he believed a ceasefire between Israel and Iran-backed Hamas was close. Mr Trump's administration has been working on a deal after Israel shattered a two-month truce with Hamas by launching strikes in April. Weeks later, he voiced optimism a deal would be reached to stop the conflict and secure the release of more hostages. Interest in resolving the conflict has picked up steam this month after the US and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. A ceasefire to the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict went i nto effect early this week. On Friday, at an Oval Office event celebrating a Congo-Rwanda accord, Mr Trump said he had been just been talking to some of the people involved in trying to reach a cessation of hostilities in the Palestinian enclave. "I think it's close. I just spoke to some of the people involved," he said. "We think within the next week we're going to get a ceasefire." Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says it can only end if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms. The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies. Gaza's health ministry says Israel's post-October 7 military assault has killed over 56,000 Palestinians. Mr Trump's surprise prediction of a possible ceasefire deal in the coming days comes at a time when there have been few signs that the warring parties were ready to restart serious negotiations or budge from entrenched positions. A spokesperson for US special envoy Steve Witkoff's office said they had no information to share beyond Mr Trump's comments. Mr Witkoff helped former President Joe Biden's aides broker a ceasefire and hostage release agreement shortly before Mr Trump took office in January but the deal soon unravelled. The Israeli embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer plans to visit Washington starting on Monday for talks with Trump administration officials about Gaza, Iran and a possible White House visit by Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu, according to a source familiar with the matter. Mr Netanyahu said on Thursday the outcome of Israel's war with Iran presented opportunities for peace that his country must not waste. "This victory presents an opportunity for a dramatic widening of peace agreements. We are working on this with enthusiasm," Netanyahu said in a statement.

Trump says he would 'absolutely' consider bombing Iran again
Trump says he would 'absolutely' consider bombing Iran again

BBC News

time6 hours ago

  • BBC News

Trump says he would 'absolutely' consider bombing Iran again

US President Donald Trump has said he would "absolutely" consider bombing Iran to a question from the BBC's Nomia Iqbal at a White House press briefing, he said he would "without question" attack the country if intelligence concluded Iran could enrich uranium to concerning US became directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran last weekend, striking key nuclear sites with "bunker buster" bombs before Trump rapidly sought a ceasefire. In a speech on Thursday, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the strikes had achieved nothing significant, but on Friday Trump repeated his claim that the country's nuclear sites had been "obliterated". Iranian foreign minister admits serious damage to nuclear sitesHow a volatile 24 hours edged Iran and Israel to a ceasefireUS gained nothing from strikes, Iran's supreme leader says Posting on his social media platform Truth Social later on Friday, Trump said he knew "EXACTLY" where the ayatollah had been sheltering and that he had personally stopped Israeli and US armed forces from targeting is understood the Iranian leader was forced into hiding during his country's two-week war with Israel. All parties in the conflict have claimed victory, with the ayatollah telling Iranians that Israel and Iran had failed to disrupt the country's nuclear the country's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi later admitted "excessive and serious" damage was done to the country's nuclear sites by the recent US and Israeli bombings. Reacting to the ayatollah's comments, Trump repeated his assertions that Iran was "decimated"."Why would the so-called 'Supreme Leader' Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of the war-torn country of Iran, say so blatantly and foolishly that he won the war with Israel, when he knows his statement is a lie," Trump added. Trump claimed he had been "working on the possible removal of sanctions" against Iran, but had decided to "immediately" drop all work on sanction relief after the ayatollah released his statement of "anger, hatred and disgust". Iran has always insisted its nuclear programme is only intended for civilian latest conflict between Israel and Iran started when Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and military infrastructure, with a number of nuclear scientists and military commanders killed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "if not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time".CBS News, the BBC's US partner, reported the White House had been considering a range of options to entice Iran back to the negotiating table, including facilitating funding for a civilian, non-enrichment, nuclear Iran has denied it is set to resume nuclear talks with the US, after Trump said at a Nato summit in the Hague on Wednesday that negotiations were set to begin again next health ministry said 610 people were killed during the 12 days of air attacks, while Israeli authorities said 28 were killed in Israel.

The prime minister's welfare U-turn is welcome – but not the end of the matter
The prime minister's welfare U-turn is welcome – but not the end of the matter

The Independent

time7 hours ago

  • The Independent

The prime minister's welfare U-turn is welcome – but not the end of the matter

No doubt there is much relief in No 10, in the Treasury, at the Department for Work and Pensions and in the whips' office, that the welfare reforms crisis is over. That, however, is as nothing to the emotions being felt by the estimated 800,000 people who had been traumatised by the thought of losing around £3,850 in their annual income. The government's own assessment was that some 250,000 of them would thereby be pushed into relative poverty. Many were in despair. Behind the official impact assessments was an unmeasurable quantity of prospective human misery. While the fates of Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, Liz Kendall, Morgan McSweeney and various other Labour figures have, understandably, been the subject of much media attention, it is not too sanctimonious to point out that this whole debate should not be all about the careers of frankly well-heeled politicians and advisers – but those who need help simply to survive. This is about them – and it is a matter of some embarrassment, and shame, that Labour MPs only roused themselves to do anything about the coming disaster when they themselves had been given a shock of their own after their party's dismal performance at the local elections and the Runcorn by-election. Mass redundancies at the next general election loomed into view. Suddenly, their consciences emerged from the inner recesses of their brains, ready for a wrestling match. For a change, the consciences won. It need not have been like this. It is, indeed, incomprehensible that the government was proposing such legislation without concluding their consultations with groups representing disabled people. Despite Ms Kendall's efforts to keep the focus on improving their quality of life by giving people with disabilities the job opportunities they yearn for, the Treasury's rush to find some quick savings in public expenditure gave the exercise a mean-spirited vibe. This was never a promising background for a sensible and sensitive reform of the social security system. There were never any estimates, let alone guarantees, about how many disabled people would be lifted out of poverty into jobs, and the risks were far too great. That is why ministers lost the argument. The result is the messy compromise that has now emerged. Politically, it has averted a parliamentary nightmare, and it will mean that the government gets much of its reforms through. However, the partial U-turn still leaves the government looking foolish, even callous. It is not only the vulnerable people terrified by the now-ditched reforms who will have lost trust in Sir Keir's administration, but the electorate as a whole. Almost a year ago Labour campaigned on 'Change'; no one interpreted that as an assault on the welfare state, with the deeply unpopular means-testing of the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and clumsy changes to universal credit and personal independence payments (PIP). Sir Keir and his colleagues promised an end to the 'chaos and confusion' that reigned under the Conservatives. With three panicky volte-faces in as many weeks (including on winter fuel allowance and the national grooming gangs inquiry), the government is looking incompetent, not in control of events, and divided. In the revised package of measures there are, nonetheless, very welcome improvements. A reform of the points-based system for assessing PIP, a rather crude and dehumanising process, led by the social security minister Sir Stephen Timms, will now be 'co-produced' with disability rights organisations – a major breakthrough. Ms Kendall's excellent schemes to provide personal assistance, coaching and advice to open up job opportunities are to be brought forward. Another valuable enhancement. The 'right to try', widely welcomed and reiterated, will also be a great source of reassurance to people nervous about losing their hard-fought benefits if taking a particular job doesn't work out for them. This also means they don't have to go through another gruelling reassessment for PIP eligibility. What remains, however, is a two-tier regime, where existing claimants have a guarantee that none of their income will be lost, but new applicants for PIP and the health element of universal credit face a potentially much more difficult time. Ms Kendall is right to point out that such a situation is not so unusual when changes to social security are made, such as when the two-child benefit cap was introduced, or the successive postponements in the qualifying age for the state pension. However, that does not make such a system right. If it is unacceptable to drive people with certain types of disability into poverty in 2025, why is it the right thing to do in, say, 2028 or 2029? Ms Kendall also says she wants a system that is fair to people who cannot work, and fair to the taxpayer. That is a fine ideal, but, perhaps through no fault of hers, the right balance is yet to be struck. Clearly, much more serious work remains if the social security system is to be placed on a sustainable basis. It is perfectly true that it must command the confidence of the tax-paying public, who pay for it as well as benefit from it. It will also have to include the biggest single element in the system by far, the state pension. Unavoidably, it also has to be joined to a new approach to paying for adult social care, a challenge successive governments of all parties have ducked for decades. The UK's demographics demand a more comprehensive review of the welfare state, and the creation of something much closer to the cross-party consensus that prevailed for so long after the Beveridge report laid the foundations for social protections in 1942. As yet, there's no sign of that. Just some chaos and confusion.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store