ABSTRACT
Joel Migdal once claimed that the study of the state is a proverbial mountain that each scholar of politics must one day climb. The existing literature on the state is vast and growing, despite repeated calls that the state, as an actor, is losing relevance, or that there is nothing new left to learn. The methodological critiques center on the index's use of the Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST) and the fact that although boasting twelve separate indicators drawn from a variety of open sources around the world for each of the 177 countries measured, the tool is too simplistic in its aggregation. The state, according to Buzan, is a combination of tangible and intangible elements that have enhanced meaning when considered together as a single unit. Buzan's state framework is the binding feature of the state. This last component is unique, setting Buzan's framework apart from other ways of thinking about the state.
