Understanding Human Fragility and its impact in Underserved areas

Introduction

In the States of Fragility Report of 2022, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) seeks to incorporate the sixth component of fragility into its multidimensional fragility structure – the human dimension – to assess factors influencing the achievement of people’s potential and well-being. For the OECD, fragility is a fusion of exposure to risks and inadequate coping strategies of the government, communities, and systems to handle, mitigate, or absorb those threats (Understanding Fragility, 2022). Fragility can cause negative implications, encompassing inequality, poverty, violence, political and environmental degradation, and displacement. The human dimension addresses risks and coping mechanisms affecting people’s well-being and capacity to lead long, healthy, and prosperous lives. These elements include thematic aspects such as the creation of human capital, aversion of vulnerabilities and inequalities, and the issuance of vital social services (Understanding Fragility, 2022). Hence, this report explores human fragility and its implications on underserved areas in the United States. This analysis commences with a discussion of the state of fragility according to the OECD and other scholarly works reporting on the topic then progresses to explain the consequences of challenge on underserved areas in the United States. It also covers the possible consequences of poor or lack of health and education on well-being. Findings urge stakeholders, especially those in power, to enact measures that counter fragility, with a particular focus on the human dimension. Concerned parties learn the essence of developing human capital, averting risks that make some individuals and groups susceptible, and providing social services that serve vital roles in sustaining life.

State of Fragility

Indications show that crises’ intensified rate and magnitude strain coping strategies at the global, national, and individual levels. In its 2022 States of Fragility report, the OECD reaffirms that the world is increasingly becoming fragile, and the conflict between the worst affected areas and other nations is expanding. Evidence suggests that close to 1.9 billion people, about 24% of the globe’s population, lived in fragile conditions in 2022 (Key Characteristics, 2024). The OECD projects that this amount will expand to above 2.1 billion by 2030 and approximately 3.1 billion by 2050, reflecting 25% and 31%, respectively, of the entire world population (Key Characteristics, 2024). In terms of economy, five of the 60 fragile regions are upper-middle income economies, with 33 of them being middle-income. In the 2022 report, fragile contexts experience considerable disaster events due to climate and environmental change. Specifically, evidence reveals that highly affected places account for 4% of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions (Key Characteristics, 2024). Still, they host 30% of disaster events and 45% of fatalities from calamities worldwide based on data from 2019 to 2021 (Key Characteristics, 2024). Further research shows that of the close to 52 contexts globally with acutely food insecure populations in 2021, 47 are fragile, encompassing the top ten regions with the most significant number of persons in worse conditions (Key Characteristics, 2024). OECD reports that youngsters – ages 15 to 24 – account for at least one of every five persons in fragile places. On average, 26% of the youthful population in fragile environments lack training, education, or employment (Key Characteristics, 2024). It turns out that fragile countries account for 37 of the globe’s 59 authoritarian governments (Key Characteristics, 2024). On the other hand, about 19 fragile contexts embrace either flawed democracy or hybrid regimes. This description signifies an increased inclination toward human fragility.

Further review of the 2022 OECD report points out a declining state of human fragility globally. At least 50 of the 60 fragile places did not experience conflict in 2021 (Key Characteristics, 2024). From 2010 to 2020, 23 fragile nations encountered no violent conflict. Nonetheless, more than 79% of mortalities from war-related reasons were intense in highly affected places in 2021 (Key Characteristics, 2024). Further revelations inform that gender violence is a critical concern that requires a practical and effective intervention strategy. The reason for this, according to OECD, is that in fragile nations, one of every three women accepted having experienced sexual or/and physical violence in 2018, contrasted to one in four globally (Key Characteristics, 2024). Forced displacement is becoming rampant, with fragile contexts hosting 63% of the planet’s forcibly displaced persons, including about 79% of internally displaced populations. Nearly 77% of all forcibly evacuated individuals globally fled from fragile places based on the 2022 data (Key Characteristics, 2024). According to the OECD, a multidimensional approach to mitigating the root origins of fragility is a beginning point for better strategy, financing, and policy in highly fragile settings, but the challenge remains in implementing such a plan for affected groups, considering that doing so needs flexible, collaborative, and adaptive ways of working (Executive Summary, 2024). Inaction could worsen the situation, which calls for prompt intervention to avert adverse repercussions as it already appears in some situations.

In its Fragile States Index yearly report of 2022, the Fund for Peace (FFP) reaffirms OECD’s position that more nations record higher levels of fragility and emphasizes the need for a proactive approach to mitigating the situation. For years, FFP continues to be a global leader in creating and deploying practical strategies and tools for alleviating conflict. With considerable attention on the link between economic development and human security, the institution contributes to more prosperous and peaceful societies by fostering smarter collaborative efforts and methodologies (Fragile Index, 2022). According to FFP, the years starting in 2020 have countered many assumptions regarding what it implies to be fragile and what it signifies to be resilient (Fragile Index, 2022). It shows how nations initially associated with might and supremacy have turned out to be weak, and challenges perceived to be straightforward now appear complex, attributing the transformation partly to the COVID-19 pandemic that nearly caused a global shutdown. In the Fragile States Index (FSI) 2022, which includes the 2021 calendar year, the most fragile nations based on FFP’s findings were the Central African Republic, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and South Sudan (Fragile Index, 2022). The most worsened over a decade were Lebanon, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Haiti, and Burkina Faso (Fragile Index, 2022). Uzbekistan, which commenced as the 22nd highly fragile nation in 2005, has improved steadily over the past 17 years thanks to a series of ongoing economic and political transformations (Fragile Index, 2022). FFP reiterates that starting in 2020, public confidence in democratic bodies has weaned, and political and social polarization in poor and rich nations worldwide has increased, all intensifying fragility levels. The organization recommends strengthening existing security apparatus, countering uneven development, facilitating availability and access to public services, and protecting human rights and the rule of law as some of the possible remedies (Fragile Index, 2022). Actors at the state and international scale should emulate these suggestions to alleviate fragility that might continue to affect many societies if concerned parties fail to respond accordingly.

Impact of Fragility on Underserved Areas

Data showing measures of a state’s fragility or vulnerability to collapse places the United States among the more stable countries, but this does not mean that all areas are free from human fragility. It is in the same category with nations such as Italy, Croatia, Poland, and the United Kingdom, but below countries such as France and Japan, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Slovenia, and Finland, Norway, and Denmark, which fall in the very stable, sustainable, and very sustainable categories, respectively (Fragile States, 2022). Below the more stable group, there are those in the stable, warning, elevated warning, high warning, alert, high alert, and very high alert divisions, encompassing Romania, China, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Haiti, Syria, and Yemen, in that order (Fragile States, 2022). However, due to the prolonged racial-based imbalances in the United States, some areas remain underserved, thereby creating room for fragility. The availability of such instances that cause adverse effects on affected communities is why the country does not feature in the stable, sustainable, and very sustainable groupings.

One of the major effects of human fragility on underserved areas is the inability to develop and take advantage of human capital. This dimension examines a country’s advancement in human capital indicators to reflect the material gains of human capital at the societal and individual levels. Affected communities in the United States have become increasingly unable to protect, develop, maintain, and advance people’s capacity to lead prosperous and enjoyable lives at their homes, in the economy, and in the larger society (Understanding Fragility, 2022). Human capital presents a source of resilience over the long term. It creates a situation that propagates the well-being of current and future societies, particularly in areas with large youth populations (Understanding Fragility, 2022). However, human fragility renders it impossible to achieve this objective. Consequently, such places might not experience the higher rates of labor participation and wages associated with substantial human capital. These challenges affect gross domestic product growth, causing immense economic constraints (Understanding Fragility, 2022). Furthermore, while high measures of human capital can bolster social cohesion and improve the formation of more inclusive and peaceful communities, underserved areas that experience considerably high fragility levels might not enjoy this benefit (Understanding Fragility, 2022). Places experiencing some form of fragility must act on the most troubling elements fast enough to avoid escalating existing problems.

Underserved areas in the United States that record considerable volatility and fragility encounter immense difficulty averting inequality and vulnerabilities. An issue that already attracts the attention of many groups is that disproportion lowers people’s capabilities and quality of life, resulting in relentless, intergenerational implications in core components such as education and health (Understanding Fragility, 2022). In addition, such inequality tends to be equally pronounced within regions and multidimensional, emanating from discrepancies in gender, income, group affiliation, and socioeconomic standing. While fragile areas might acknowledge the essence of averting vulnerabilities and inequalities that form structural obstacles to livelihoods and intensify human fragility, they might lack needed resources or the urge to enforce intervention measures (Understanding Fragility, 2022). Such places might not make good use of recently introduced tools and opportunities from institutions such as the World Institute for Development Economics Research, under the administration of the United Nations University, the World Inequality Lab, and the United Nations Development Project, among others. Frameworks formed by these groups make it easier to measure inequality across a particular region over time (Understanding Fragility, 2022). The inability to deploy such innovative mechanisms hampers the capacity to develop multidimensional measures of inequality of existing opportunities and results over the long term. Consequently, affected places experience intensified gender imbalance. This issue is particularly challenging, considering that gender and sex are vital in influencing people’s reach to essential services and their capacity to convert such accessibility to enhanced livelihoods (Understanding Fragility, 2022). While women serve vital roles in promoting human development worldwide and particularly in fragile circumstances, they are vulnerable in underserved areas and encounter impediments that disproportionately affect their well-being and livelihood, such as unequal power relations at the societal and household level, intimate partner violence, and imbalanced burdens because of unpaid work (Understanding Fragility, 2022). Affected places might be unable to overcome constraints that hamper their capacity to avert inequalities and vulnerabilities without substantial support.

The evident gender wage gap among some underserved areas in California with large numbers of undocumented Latinos reaffirms the potential effects of high human fragility levels on intensifying inequality and vulnerability. In a meeting of coalition advocacy groups, encompassing Latina Features, Equal Rights Advocates, and 2050 Lab, among others, convened by the Latina Pay Day group, it emerged that this population continues to face a persistent wage gap (UCLA, 2023). The situation in such places in California reflects a similar situation nationwide whereby members of this population working full-time year-round, on average, encounter a wage gap of 56 to 57 cents to every dollar White, non-Hispanic men get (UCLA, 2023). Moreover, this imbalance replicates what all Latina earners – including seasonal, part-time, and full-time year-round employees – get at the national level, but it widens further to 52 cents (UCLA, 2023). Latinas are instrumental in the growth of California’s economy, but due to high inequality and vulnerability in certain areas, it is difficult to achieve the place’s maximum potential.

In the United States, an effect of human fragility on underserved areas is a lack of education and evident inequality in accessing this vital service. Such places experience serious underfunding of skills training for young people. Besides, areas with considerably high human fragility rates encounter discrimination in learning institutions and record instances of stifled schools and public engagement that no longer get parental or government support (Miller-Grandvaux, 2019). Residents sometimes do not regard government authorities as legitimate, trustworthy, or valuable. Besides, education fails to make positive strides in such communities due to instances of violence among learners and brutality aimed against educators (Miller-Grandvaux, 2019). In the United States, lack of access to education is prevalent in rural and low-income areas. Evidence by the National Center for Education Statistics shows that only 59.8% of low-income students attend learning institutions that provide a complete range of academic courses (The Top, 2023). Other challenges affected areas experience due to lack of adequate resources include insufficient teacher training, inequality in school, ineffective teaching strategies, high dropout rates, absence of cultural competency, and lack of access to quality education (The Top, 2023). Such challenges make it difficult for many learners to benefit from schooling, which creates opportunities for social unrest and high poverty levels.

Poor or lack of health services is a significant adverse implication on underserved areas associated with human fragility. Diaconu et al. (2020) argue that fragility presents a range of threats that slow and potentially reverse advances in population health outcomes risk. Widely utilized and analyzed in the development field, fragility is increasingly gaining space and becoming applicable in global health, where its connection to service delivery, population health, reach, and use remains scantly specified. However, a growing body of scholars now have considerable interest in learning how issues such as marginalization and inequality, economic and political instability, conflict and prolonged violence, weak and distorted administrative processes, and structures contributing to high fragility levels affect health outcomes. Besides, researchers now commit considerable resources to understanding the potential effects of high substance abuse levels, environmental threats, and natural disasters that determine health. Diaconu et al. (2020) link the identified threats to the concept of fragility, contending that worst hit areas experience extensive problems. Whereas the Affordable Care Act of 2010 has served instrumental purposes in ensuring more Americans have health coverage, which caused the rate of uninsured African Americans to decline, this group is still more likely to record high insurance rates compared to White Americans (Taylor, 2019). In underserved communities in Texas with large Black communities, for instance, the uninsured rate among the population was nearly 10% compared to just 5% among Whites in 2018 (Taylor, 2019). A keener analysis of communities with evident challenges accessing healthcare records high drug use, rampant unemployment, gender imbalance, and violence (Taylor, 2019). Lack of coverage leaves many people grappling with high treatment costs, and many others fail to get this vital service altogether.

How Lack of Health Impact Well-Being

As a potential effect of human fragility, poor health hurts well-being. Research confirms that physical health can affect individual mental health and vice versa. However, a prolonged or terminal illness is more likely to cause worry, anxiety, or stress (Mental Health, 2024). Besides, affected persons may exhibit low self-esteem, stigma, or feelings around discrimination. Moreover, physical disease can affect overall well-being when a person develops sleep problems, which might be because of sickness, pain, or side effects of some medicinal drugs, anger management complications, and social isolation or loneliness because of either extensive hospitalization or other personal reasons (Mental Health, 2024). In some cases, untreated mental health issues or chronic ailments that receive inadequate attention from medical experts can result in the utilization of alcohol or drugs to self-alleviate symptoms. Often, drug users develop severe complications, including exposure to substance use disorder (SUD), and at times, people with addiction develop suicidal thoughts. In addition, dependence developing from unstable mental health can cause disturbed persons to slip into poverty (Understanding the Relationship, 2018). Those who work and battle psychiatric problems such as post-traumatic stress depression, anxiety disorder, or SUD while using alcohol and substances at the same time increasingly develop complications that affect their performance at the workplace. This might include skipping shifts, arriving past set time, failing to meet deadlines, and getting into unnecessary arguments with other staff members. Eventually, this can result in job loss (Understanding the Relationship, 2018), which directly affects well-being due to the inability to meet one’s bills. This illustration confirms that lack of good health because of incapacity to access needed services affects various dynamics of human life that influence well-being.

How Lack of Education Impacts Well-Being

Similarly, lack of education has adverse implications on well-being, an implication that calls for a practical and workable plan to avert human fragility. In their paper, Raghupathi and Raghupathi (2020) show the connection between education, health, and well-being. They assert that understanding the macro-level contexts in which education influences health is essential to enhancing national health policy and administration. Based on the outcomes of their research that utilized a visual analytic technique to examine the link between health and education over a two-decade period around the globe, Raghupathi and Raghupathi (2020) contend that adults with higher educational achievements have prolonged lifespan, better health, and increased well-being compared to less-educated individuals. In addition, people with tertiary education, according to the research outcomes, acknowledge the essence of creating opportunities for others to learn, take measures to avert infant mortality, advocate for practices that encourage life expectancy, and prioritize child vaccination, all of which contribute toward well-being (Raghupathi & Raghupathi, 2020). Therefore, responsible organs in areas that experience high human fragility levels that disrupt access to education should propose, implement, and follow up on appropriate interventions to guarantee as many people as possible their well-being.

Several other reasons explain why lack of education affects well-being and emphasize the adoption of proper remedies to counter human fragility. Learned individuals can adopt practices that benefit their social and psychological being. Through school, people learn how to engage with others socially in a manner that reduces stress, fosters psychosocial skills, and builds social networks (Why Education, 2019). All these aspects influence well-being and confirm the essence of schooling. Furthermore, people who go to school and progress to considerably higher levels achieve beneficial skills that enable them to embrace healthy behaviors that impact well-being (Why Education, 2019). For instance, through the knowledge one gains in school, it is easier to stay away from drugs and alcohol, knowing the socioeconomic effects associated with a destructive lifestyle. Besides, chances are highly learned persons can foster healthier relationships with their loved ones and those they interact with in different places (Why Education, 2019). Hence, much focus must go to areas that still experience fragility levels and inhibit access to education.

Conclusion

High levels of human fragility have adverse effects on underserved areas, which call for quick and effective intervention to avert such unwanted implications. An overview of the fragility status confirms that more regions are increasingly experiencing considerable challenges that derail their capacity to respond to issues affecting people, the economy, and the environment. While the United States experiences considerably lower fragility levels, certain underserved areas face considerable constraints that have undesirable effects on residents. Such places cannot use their human capital well and battle higher levels of inequalities and vulnerabilities. In addition, access to healthcare and education remains a crucial concern in such affected areas. This analysis discusses the effects of inadequate reach to health and education on well-being and provides valuable information that creates the urge to respond accordingly. It explains that lack of access to health leads to physical illness that causes mental problems. In some situations, those who fail to get necessary aid for their psychiatric complications turn to drugs, which worsens individual well-being. Those who fail to get enough education might not make wise choices that safeguard their well-being. Practical interventions will help to alleviate the situation in underserved areas and counter constraints associated with human fragility.

References

Diaconu, K., Falconer, J., Vidal, N., O’May, F., Azasi, E., Elimian, K., & Ager, A. (2020). Understanding fragility: Implications for global health research and practice. Health Policy and Planning, 35(2), 235-243. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czz142.

Executive Summary. (2024). OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/c7fedf5e-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/c7fedf5e-en.

Fragile states index annual report 2022. (2022). Fund for Peace. https://fragilestatesindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/22-FSI-Report-Final.pdf.

Key characteristics of fragile contexts. (2024). OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/c7fedf5e-en/1/2/6/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/c7fedf5e-en&_csp_=ed992425c7db5557b78226a6c98c6daf&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book.

Mental health and physical illness. (2024). National Health Service. https://www.google.com/search?q=NHS&oq=NHS+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg8MgYIAhBFGDzSAQgzMjEzajBqOagCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

Miller-Grandvaux, 2019). Education and fragility: A new framework. Journal of Education for International Development, 4(1), 1-14. https://www.edu-links.org/sites/default/files/media/file/MillerGrandvaux-EducationFragilityANewFramework.pdf.

Raghupathi, V., & Raghupathi, W. (2020). The influence of education on health: An empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015. Archives of Public Health, 78(20). https://archpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13690-020-00402-5.

Taylor, J. (2019, December 19). Racism, inequality, and health care for African Americans. The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/report/racism-inequality-health-care-african-americans/.

The top 10 education problems in America and possible solutions. (2023). High School of America. https://www.highschoolofamerica.com/the-top-10-education-problems-in-america-and-possible-solutions/.

UCLA Latino advocacy groups highlight shocking gender wage gap for Latinas. (2023). Latino Policy & Politics Institute. https://latino.ucla.edu/press/ucla-latino-advocacy-groups-highlight-shocking-gender-wage-gap-for-latinas/.

Understanding fragility: Adding the human dimension to the OECD fragility framework. (2022). https://www.oecd.org/dac/2022-human-dimension-fragility.pdf.

Understanding the relationship between poverty and addiction. (2018). St. Joseph Institute. https://stjosephinstitute.com/understanding-the-relationship-between-poverty-and-addiction/.

Why education matters to health: Exploring the causes. (2019). Center on Society and Health. https://societyhealth.vcu.edu/work/the-projects/why-education-matters-to-health-exploring-the-causes.html#gsc.tab=0.