Glocal and Fragile: Do all parts of the world have elements of "fragility"?

As I've been working on a section of a new book on educational leadership in fragile states, I've been compelled to re-consider what we mean by a "fragile state."

I've written elsewhere about the complexities of countries. Even within very impoverished or fragile states, there are pockets of wealth and stability. For example, parts of Petionville (part of Port au Prince) in Haiti are very wealthy. I recall counting the number of Porsche SUVs there a few years ago and counting five or six in a few minutes of time. So, despite the economic poverty of Haiti, there is significant wealth.

At the same time, Haiti is prone to risk (fragility). This risk may be due to natural disasters or political protests. Yet, for those with economic means in Haiti, this risk is minimal since they live in well-constructed homes (for natural disaster risk) and can easily leave the country (in the face of political upheavals).

Similarly, we could look at my own country, Canada, and see aspects of fragility. We certainly can see this in some First Nations communities where access to clean drinking water, health care, or education, is regularly at risk. Of course, as a country, we have the resources to minimize the risk (whether we choose to do so or not is another question) thus differentiating us from countries such as Haiti, South Sudan, or Yemen.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is changing its definition of fragility to reflect this nuanced understanding (click here to read more). For example, it is suggesting that fragility is heightened exposure to risk combined with a low capacity to mitigate or absorb these risks. This situation of vulnerability can lead to violence, conflict, chronic underdevelopment and protracted political crisis.

The focus on vulnerability is an appropriate and important distinction and I intend to incorporate this concept in my writing.