Welcome to the Periodic Table of States (PTOS)
The Periodic Table of States (PTOS) is a meta-index for our rapidly evolving geopolitical system. It holistically measures the Strength, Stateness and Stability of nearly 200 countries. Our typology also encompasses a diverse array of non-state units that exert power across space: terrorist groups, militias, corporations, civil society organizations, digital collectives and others. We aim to dynamically capture their capabilities and relations with each other using an array of methodological, analytical and visualization tools. Click through the tabs below to learn more about our approach and view our findings. We welcome your feedback!
The overall Stability score increases from the upper left to the lower right corners of the table
The Periodic Table of States (PTOS) represents a holistic taxonomy of units that are consequential across the diplomatic, economic, military, technological, cultural and other domains, as well as an effort to capture their complex interrelationships.
The overall ranking table of territorial states is displayed above and explained below, while the classification of non-state actors is elaborated below. The tabs to the right feature correlation analysis charts as well as diagrams and maps highlighting our findings related to both territorial state characteristics and the geographies of activity and degrees of salience of non-state actors.
Territorial States
After conducting a wide literature review related to formal state characteristics and metrics of international comparison, we organized the selected datasets into the categories of Strength and Stateness.
To assess Strength, we looked beyond traditional studies that narrowly focus on military capability, territorial size, population, and economic output to further include industrial capacity, infrastructure robustness, energy resources, innovation, investment position, debt levels, currency stability, stock market capitalization, and numerous other metrics represented by individual variables and composite sub-indices. The Strength score was generated by taking the equally weighted sum of the percentile scores across these component metrics.
Stateness refers to a country’s institutional capacity, societal resilience, social cohesion, and other metrics of wellbeing and quality of life. To measure Stateness, we selected variables such as rule of law, bureaucratic effectiveness, public service efficiency, income, social development, food security, climate adaptation, and number other individual variables and composite sub-indices. The Stateness score was generated by taking the equally weighted sum of the percentile scores across these component metrics.
In collecting and aggregating the Strength and Stateness metrics, higher rankings correspond to higher scores. For each variable, raw rankings are standardized into a percentile score on a 0-1 scale. For example, in the population dataset, Vatican City has a rank of 1 and India a rank of 196. This was then rescaled, giving Vatican City a percentile score of 0 and India a percentile score of 1. Countries for which data was unavailable were assigned a percentile score of 0 for that metric. (Percentile scores were rounded to two decimal places.)
The Stability score indicates overall robustness and durability. It is calculated as the sum of the Strength and Stateness scores, with Strength representing approximately two-thirds of the total weight due to the larger number of metrics used in its calculation.
In order to mimic the Periodic Table of Elements, the Strength score is analogous to the Atomic Number, which represents the number of protons in an atom’s nucleus, the Stateness score corresponds to the binding role of neutrons (“nuclear glue”), and the overall Stability score corresponds to the Atomic Mass, which captures the total number of protons and neutrons. States are arranged left to right and top to bottom according to their total Stability score.
[Note: In the Periodic Table, elements are arranged into “Periods” (rows) and “Groups” (columns). The Periodic Table has seven main periods and 18 main groups. Periods are arranged from top to bottom, with atomic number increasing with higher number periods (at the bottom). (Elements of the same period have the same number of electron shells and similar energy levels.) Groups are arranged from left to right, with groups further to the right exhibiting similar chemical properties such as valency (the propensity to form compounds). In future iterations, states may be more precisely clustered according to periods (Strength) and groups (Stateness).]
Non-State Actors
Non-state actors represent a very broad set of entities with varying degrees of geographic rootedness and scale of influence. We have provisionally organized them into the following taxonomy:
- Transnational Territorial Groups
- Multi-Stakeholder Coalitions (MSCs)
- State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs)
- Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
- Metanational (“stateless”) companies
- Digital collectives
- Diasporas
We selected specific entities based on criteria such as:
- Size (membership, employees, etc.)
- Autonomy (independent decision-making)
- Control over assets (capital or resources)
- Geographic distribution
- Influence over domestic and international affairs
The diagrams, charts and maps in the accompanying tabs capture our analysis of the principal locus of activity of the key non-state units.
Applications
Our holistic approach to indexing states offers numerous advantages over current methods and potential enhancements to existing indices:
- Integrating internal (domestic) and external (international) metrics rather than treating them separately
- Correcting against the bias towards territorial and/or population size while including measurements of state quality
- Offering a broad and diverse array of metrics that can be tested for meaningful correlations
- Enhancing efforts to predict state behavior based on spatial correlation analysis
- Grouping countries according to criteria for investment products and ratings
Future Plans
We plan to further enhance the PTOS in the following ways:
- Additional metrics related to Strength and Stateness
- Modified weighting of Strength and Stateness scores
- Subnational units (e.g. provinces, cities) to capture patterns of devolution
- API pipelines into our data lake
- Higher-frequency data updates
- Automatic data indexation enabling real-time updates of correlations
- Stress-testing and scenario-based simulations
- AI/ML training and predictive analytics
- Inclusion of more non-state units across diverse categories
- Additional thematic clustering of state and non-state groups
Stability Ranking
• The overall Stability score gives a two-thirds weight to Strength and one-third to Stateness, thus controlling somewhat for the traditional bias towards size while incorporating appropriate metrics such as quality of life, governance and other measures of aggregate welfare
• Japan and Germany rank higher than the US due to their superior Stateness scores, while China ranks slightly lower due to its lower Stateness score, and India significantly lower due to its under-development and weaker governance
• Small states such as Switzerland, Sweden and Singapore are elevated due to their strong governance and development and by not being penalized for their smaller geographic and population size
• Some geographically large states such as Russia and Brazil fall into the second and third deciles as their size is offset by their low quality governance and relative under-development; Nigeria ranks extremely low for similar reasons
• The most unstable countries tend to be fragile states experiencing conflict and humanitarian emergencies across Africa, the Middle East and Oceania
Stateness vs Strength
• There is overall a strong correlation between these two aggregate indicators
• Large and populous countries that perform best overall are US, Germany, Japan
• Small countries that rank higher in Strength due to the broader criteria and also high in Stateness come out near the top such as Switzerland, Singapore and Sweden
• Countries traditionally considered very strong show vulnerabilities when it comes to their Stateness
• China’s Stateness is weak because of low economic freedom, weak accountability and unsustainable development
• India ranks well behind China in both Strength and Stateness given its far lower state capacity
• A number of middle-to-high income states with diverse regime types exhibit high overall scores: Malaysia, Thailand, UAE, Saudi Arabia
• Most concerning are large countries that have relatively high Strength due to their population and area but exhibit very low Stateness such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt and Congo
Stability vs Governance
• There is a strong correlation between a country’s overall Stability score and its governance ranking
• Many of the top 20 countries in terms of overall Stability also rank at the top in governance (e.g. Switzerland, Singapore, etc.)
• Smaller countries ranking low in national Strength but high in governance include Brunei, Luxembourg, Taiwan, etc.
• Large countries that rank high in Stability but low in governance appear as outliers, e.g. Russia, China, Turkey, Mexico, etc.
Democracy vs Governance
• There is a fairly strong positive correlation between democracy and governance
• Overall, more countries do well in governance than democracy, indicating that governance related criteria should receive more emphasis
• Many of the countries that perform the best in both democracy and governance are European nations such as Norway, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, etc.
• A number of states do very well in governance but fall below the trendline in democracy such as Singapore, Qatar, and the UAE
• Key democracies across the developing world rank very poorly in governance such as India, Brazil and the Philippines
Governance vs Development
• There is a moderately positive correlation between governance and development but primarily concentrated among rich North American, European and Asian nations (i.e. Japan, South Korea, Singapore)
• Most countries rank low in both governance and development, suggesting that the number of “fragile states” is far higher than generally classified
• A number of large states rank moderately in both governance and development and could be viewed as potentially evolving in either direction: Russia, Turkey, Mexico, and Argentina
Democracy vs Development
• There is weak or even no correlation between democracy and development other than among countries that are already very wealthy
• A number of scattered countries in under-developed regions are highly ranked democracies as well as exhibiting adequate development such as Costa Rica, Uruguay and Botswana
• The most significant cluster of countries ranks higher in democracy than in development, a worrying sign given that most of them have been democracies since independence yet failed to develop
• Another large set of countries ranks low in democracy but higher in development – including countries such as Vietnam, Oman, Uzbekistan and China – suggesting that there are diverse pathways to development
Debt Gravity
• A significant number of countries active in sovereign debt markets owe more debt to China than to the Paris Club
• Poor countries across Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and Southeast Asia all have rising debt to China as a share of their overall debt profile
• Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Belarus are examples of Chinese lending pushing into Europe’s periphery
• Chinese lending is a prominent feature of its relations with South Asian states traditionally in India’s sphere of influence such as Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and India’s rival Pakistan
• Key African resource dependent states such as Congo and Zambia, as well as trade dependent countries Ethiopia and Kenya, have borrowed heavily from China to finance infrastructure
Crypto vs Stability
• There is a strong correlation between stability and crypto friendliness
• Crypto preparedness is measured according to public adoption, infrastructure, innovation, regulatory environment and related metrics
• Small European as well as Central American and Caribbean states are seizing on crypto opportunities (e.g. Panama, El Salvador, Antigua, etc.)
• Countries opportunistic about crypto exhibit motivations ranging from innovating digital asset markets, establishing parallel payment systems, evading capital controls or bypassing sanctions
• Weak states with low currency reserves and an unstable international environment may be responsive to crypto investors offering to transfer crypto-currency reserve assets in exchange for access to land and resources (e.g. Ukraine, Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey)
• Crypto collectives can work to elevate weak states into “info-states” either through SAZs or directly through engaging in governance reforms
• There is potential to create a blockchain-based digital marketplace of real assets traded using smart contracts
Stability vs International Influence
• There is an overall strong positive correlation between Stability and influence, suggesting that states that are both strong and well-governed are best able to exert their influence internationally
• Large states such as the US, China, Germany, UK, France and South Korea have established experience in translating their Stability into influence
• Innovation capabilities have been a key factor in propelling small countries such as Singapore and Israel higher up the influence ranking
Trade Gravity
• China and EU are far more exposed to and dependent on trade as a share of GDP than the US
• Many African countries have either the EU or US as their largest trading partner
• While China is the top trading partner of more than 100 nations, for most of them China is not more than 25% of their total trade
• China is the top trade partner for major GCC powers, representing just under 25% of total trade for each Saudi Arabia and the UAE; China also represents 23% of Iran’s total trade, indicating how trade played a role in China’s brokering of the 2023 Saudi-Iranian mutual recognition accord
• Most of the countries with the highest dependence on trade with the US are in the Western hemisphere
• Key American allies or security partners in Asia such as Australia, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam depend heavily on China as an export market (e.g. Japan’s trade with China is 21% of its total trade versus 18% with the US)
• Many countries reliant on China run significant trade deficits
• Countries with multiple SEZs exhibiting substantial foreign corporate ownership tend to have high levels of multi-directional trade: Vietnam, Cambodia, Morocco, UAE, Mauritius, Malaysia, Philippines
Competing Alliances
• SCO core members (China, Russia) are also core BRICS powers and have recruited dialogue partner states from West, Central, South and Southeast Asia
• Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Mongolia are geographically vital states associated with both SCO and NATO (of which Turkey is a full member)
• BRICS official membership growing rapidly with ~20 countries applying to join
• Saudi Arabia, UAE and India practicing shrewd multi-alignment by associating with all major strategic bodies
De-dollarization
• Wealthy US allies also have largest share of total reserves in non-USD assets
• China, Russia and India have the highest potential to de-dollarize based on all three criteria
• Numerous strong states are re-denominating bilateral trade into their own currencies (e.g. RMB, rupee, ruble)
• New Development Bank (“BRICS Bank”) enables accelerated non-USD finance (currency, banks, exchanges)
• “BRICS Bridge” portends significant expansion of non-SWIFT dependent international transactions via CBDCs and blockchain smart contracts
New Hanseatic League
• The "Innovation Composite" incorporates economic and technological agility (Innovation Index, ICT Development and Legatum Prosperity Index) versus a "Size Composite" that aggregates geographic and demographic size
• The top left quadrant features small and innovate states such as Singapore, Estonia, Israel, Denmark, Iceland and Israel, while the top right quadrant includes large innovative states such as US, UK, Germany, Japan, Australia
• Small and innovative states are increasingly forming functional partnerships in key areas of technological cooperation
• City-building in the form of stabilizing functional sub-national urban zones could be prioritized over the larger long-term challenge of state-building in terms of centralized federal institutions
Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)
Migration vs Stability
• Most countries have flat net migration and are also clustered around the middle ranks of overall Stability scores
• The US leads in net inward migration, while Ukraine has the highest net negative migration
• Net migration tends to be positive for countries with an overall stability score of 16.5 or higher, with the exceptions of China and Poland
• On a cumulative basis over the past decade, India, Poland and Syria have the highest total net outward migration, illustrating the diverse drivers of migration
RBI/CBI Programs vs Stability
• Citizenship-by-investment (CBI) and residency-by-investment (RBI) programs have dramatically expanded since COVID as countries seek to capitalize on the remote work trend and attract innovative entrepreneurs while also attracting “sovereign equity” investors to manage fiscal strain
• Mediterranean European and Caribbean countries offer the most comprehensive programs
• Higher Stability countries offering RBI/CBI programs are more restrictive North American and larger southern European countries, charging higher fees and applying more rigorous vetting of applicants• Malta and Portugal have been perennially the most attractive programs for American expats
• By volume, Turkey has the largest number of new RBI/CBI applicants, primarily from Pakistan, Iran and Iraq
• Arab and Asian countries are gaining ground as lifestyle hubs and as their passports gain higher levels of global access
• Countries may offer external organizations the privileges of (a) managing borders (b) determining immigration eligibility (c) autonomous governance (d) independent financial system (e) identity documentation
• By volume, Turkey has the largest number of new RBI/CBI applicants, primarily from Pakistan, Iran and Iraq
• Arab and Asian countries are gaining ground as lifestyle hubs and as their passports gain higher levels of global access
• Countries may offer external organizations the privileges of (a) managing borders (b) determining immigration eligibility (c) autonomous governance (d) independent financial system (e) identity documentation
Stability vs Migration Background
• All countries that are high in-migration are also high in Stability (lowest ranking of 17.5)
• English speaking countries all have similar percentages of migrant populations
• Countries that are stronger in governance but lower in democracy are currently performing better in the orderly management of migration than Western democracies
Migrant Destinations
Top destinations for migrants | % of population who are migrants or have migration background |
|---|---|
| United States | 14 |
| Germany | 18 |
| Saudi Arabia | 42 |
| United Kingdom | 16 |
| UAE | 88 |
| France | 10 |
| Canada | 23 |
| Australia | 31 |
| Spain | 18 |
| Singapore | 43 |
| Sweden | 20 |
Labor Migration Complementarities
• Largest origin countries for out-migration and their multiple top destinations
• Chinese and Indian populations growing in North America but also notably in Europe
• The GCC has become a key destination not only for South Asians but also Chinese, Russians and Ukrainians
• Labor shortages are pronounced in countries that have high in-migration, indicating that even more migration may be needed to sustain their labor force
Emigration Origins
Country | Number of annual outbound migrants (000s) |
|---|---|
| Poland | 910,475 |
| Ukraine | 1,784,718 |
| Syrian Arab Republic | 757,103 |
| India | 486,136 |
| Venezuela | 321,106 |
| Turkey | 318,067 |
| China | 310,220 |
| Bangladesh | 309,977 |
| Romania | 254,616 |
| Lebanon | 177,331 |
| Colombia | 175,051 |
| Pakistan | 165,988 |
| Jordan | 157,392 |
| Hungary | 156,677 |
| Russia | 136,414 |
Labour Shortages
Country | Percentage of businesses surveyed reporting difficulty in finding qualified skilled employees |
|---|---|
| Japan | 81 |
| Greece | 42 |
| Australia | 41 |
| Germany | 40 |
| United States | 40 |
| Italy | 34 |
| Canada | 31 |
| China | 24 |
| France | 21 |
| United Kingdom | 20 |
| Spain | 18 |
Diasporas
• The largest diasporas in the world are all Asian countries, with China’s the largest but India’s the most globally dispersed
• Factoring (a) size of diaspora (b) geographic distribution and (c) annual remittance value together reveals both the cohesiveness of the diaspora, privileging countries such as India, the Philippines and Mexico
• From Anglosphere to Indosphere and Bollystan: revival and expansion of Indian commercial and cultural sphere of influence into former British colonial realm and UK itself
• Conflict prone countries with large refugee diasporas such Ukraine and Syria have been unable to leverage their geographic footprint or remittances to accelerate reconstruction and development
Transnational Territorial Groups
• A wide typology of political communities and non-state groups have influence over territorial affairs at the local, regional and global level
• Religious extremist groups are concentrated in the Arab/Muslim world
• State-backed militias such as the IRGC and Hamas are highly active in cross-border conflicts in the Middle East
• Organized criminal groups trafficking drugs, weapons and people are particularly active across Latin America, the Mediterranean, and East Asia
• Wagner Group mercenaries have secured Niger’s uranium mines on behalf of the Russian government while French and US troops have withdrawn
• Countries with strong indigenous tribes also have highly devolutionary political systems (e.g. Canada, Australia)
Independent Republic of the Supply Chain
State Owned Enterprises (SOEs)
• SOEs are fully or significantly owned by the government and serve to promote its national interests
• Emerging markets tend to use SOEs more actively to promote their national interests in sectors ranging from energy to technology to infrastructure
• In state capitalist systems, SOE revenues can be leveraged to finance other force multiplying vehicles such as SWFs
• Weaker SOEs tend to operate more regionally while stronger SOEs exercise global influence on behalf of the state
Multinational Corporations (MNCs)
• In contrast to SOEs, the ranks of MNCs are generally dominated by Western and OECD economies (except for China)
• MNCs tend to be headquartered in their country of founding which is generally also their largest source of revenue, amount of taxes paid, location of employees, and regulatory jurisdiction
Metanationals / (“Stateless Superpowers”)
• Metanationals have no dominant home market, focusing on connecting supply and demand globally and arbitraging taxes, technology and talent
The range of sectors represented by metanationals has expanded considerably since the 1970s from primarily shipping and commodities to finance, consulting, digital technology and others
• Metanational commodities producers and traders are generally headquartered in Switzerland, London or Singapore, creating joint ventures wherever they operate to take advantage of favorable local laws and regulations
• Consulting and financial services firms have regularly shifted their headquarters across jurisdictions ranging from the Caribbean to Ireland to Switzerland as regulations change and markets compete to attract corporate investment
• America is home to a growing number of metanational firms, particularly in global asset management, digital payments, and Internet-related technologies that are globally distributed
• Social media companies have resisted pressure to locate servers onshore (data localization) but have complied with national censorship laws to avoid having their services shut down
• Many poor commodities producers depend on metanational companies such as Glencore, Trafigura or Vitol to finance, operate and export their key raw materials such as copper, coal and zinc)
• Some states are effectively becoming supply chain protectorates, governed through commercial arrangements between metanational investors and operators alongside local government service providers
• SAZs are arrangements whereby foreign investors are given substantial ownership and operational control of local assets, e.g. Honduras announced the establishment of Prospera city under its ZEDE law
Multi-Stakeholder Coalitions
• Civil society groups are largely domestic, while global NGOs are often multi-stakeholder coalitions of multiple international groups with support from philanthropies, government agencies and international organizations
• The agendas covered by multi-stakeholder coalitions range from civic and humanitarian to governance and regulatory
• Many multi-stakeholder groups are crucial on-the-ground service providers of public goods such as food and shelter as well as environmental protection
• The most influential multi-stakeholder groups negotiate on a peer-to-peer level with governments and corporations such as the WEF, ICRC and IUCN
• The Gates Foundation represents a significant share of public health financing and delivery across numerous countries in Africa and Asia
Human Rights | Global Witness | Open Society Foundation |
| Human Rights Watch | Save the Children | |
| Plan International | Amnesty International | |
| Health | Partners in Health | Gates Foundation |
| Clinton Health Access Initiative | Médecins Sans Frontières | |
| Governance | Transparency International |
Digital Collectives
Cloud community platforms | Platform users |
|---|---|
| Telegram | 900M |
| Signal | 40M |
| 400M (active) | |
| 1.2B | |
| GitHub | 100M+ developers and 420M repos |
DeFi Protocols | Further details |
|---|---|
DAOs | Most prominent in Marshall Islands, Switzerland, Wyoming, Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, Panama, Bahamas Top five DAO treasuries hold $11B (2023) |
The Open Network (TON) | Ethereum linked DAPP development ecosystem with Total Value Locked (TVL) exceeding $780M |
Hacker groups | Impact assessment |
|---|---|
| Anonymous | Prominent hacks against Stratfor, Scientology, Bank of America, Epik |
| Darkside | Hosting >2 TB of stolen data |
| Wikileaks | ~10M documents leaked with most prominent targets being US DoD (Iraq War, Gitmo), US DNC |
Digital asset marketplaces | Key activities |
|---|---|
| Binance | 350 currencies registered and 3M daily transactions; $324B market cap, $10B daily trading volume, 61M contracts executed |
| Ethereum | $324B market cap, $10B daily trading volume, 61M contracts executed |
| DeFi Swap | $60B market cap |
| Nation3 | web3 based legal and governance services with $NATION currency |
| DarkNet | Est. $20B in annual illicit transactions |
Digital currencies | Ownership and liquidity |
|---|---|
| Bitcoin | ~$1T market cap and $29B daily trading volume ~100M Bitcoin owners (active/inactive wallets) Broadening ownership across public companies, private companies, ETFs, governments, retail investors |