This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
World Internal Security and Police Index
The Index aims to measure the ability of the security apparatus within a country to respond to internal security challenges, both now and in the future.
The WISPI adds to the relatively few indices dealing with peace at the global level, such as the Global Peace Index (GPI) and the Fragile States Index (FSI). WISPI was conceptualised and championed by the founder of International Police Science Association (IPSA) and developed independently by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) for IPSA.
Most of the aforementioned indices only look at results and outputs like homicide, terrorism, and violent crime. They do not measure the ability of security bodies to render security services. To date there has not been a composite index that measures internal security.
The WISPI takes a holistic perspective towards security, covering the general public’s perception of the police and security as well as measuring the level of safety provided and the forces needed to provide that level of security. The WISPI adopts a wide range of qualitative and quantitative data in order to classify countries’ levels of internal security. It measures the ability of security institutions to maintain security, the effectiveness of those services, the public's trust in rendered services, and police operations and activities. The results of the Index provide a unique perspective on internal security. The WISPI stands apart from other measures of peacefulness and violence by providing an assessment of internal security outcomes, general public’s perception of quality and the ability of police to respond to future internal security issues.
Why is WISPI unique?
editAs the world becomes increasingly data-driven, international organizations such as the UN and national governments rely on indices issued by internationally recognized organizations in order to understand the factors that are driving global policy issues. WISPI has been created to go beyond the existing measures of violence or peace, as an international index measuring the ability of police institutions worldwide to render security services that establish security within society and achieve safety of its members. WISPI focuses on both effective rendering of security services and the outcome of rendered services. WISPI is considered the first international index to measure indicators of internal security worldwide; rank countries according to their ability to provide security services and boost security performance in general.
Methodolgy
editThe Index measures the ability of the police and other security providers to address internal security issues in 127 countries, across four domains, using sixteen indicators. Countries with insufficient data, as well as countries currently involved in protracted internal conflict are not included in the Index.
The WISPI looks at four domains of internal security: capacity, process, legitimacy, and outcomes.
The capacity domain examines the resources that a nation devotes to internal security.
The process domain ooks at whether the resources devoted to internal security are used in an effective manner.
The legitimacy domain is a measure of whether the public view security providers, particularly the police, in a favourable light.
Finally, the outcomes domain assesses current threats to internal security.
In addition to ranking 127 countries across the above four domains, this report looks at internal security issues and trends, by examining how the 16 indicators in the Index have changed in the modern era. The report reinforces the fact that as external security concerns have waned, and as wars between nations have become less common, internal security has become the predominant concern of the nation-state. Resources devoted to internal security have increased significantly, but serious threats remain. Migration, regional contagion, civil unrest, corruption, and terrorism all remain serious threats to internal security in the 21st century.
References
editExternal links
edit