World Bank · Governance Indicators
Six governance dimensions help establish the structural background. Annual estimates are context, not weekly event evidence.
Explore the WGI methodology ↗How we measure instability
What does 78/100 actually mean?
A number is useful only when you understand where it comes from. Here is how SafeExpat turns verified political developments into a structured country-level assessment.
Explore the calculation Plain language. Visible weights. No guesswork presented as fact.
Political instability score · example
78
out of 100
HIGH
Higher means greater assessed instability.
This is a fictional example, not a live country score.
6weighted factors
7 daysreviewed for change
0–100points, not a probability
The simple explanation
Think of six gauges, not one headline.
A protest, election or political argument alone does not determine a country’s score. We look at the bigger picture and ask what is changing, what the evidence supports and whether daily life or operations could be affected.
01 / BASELINE
How resilient is the system?
Longer-term governance information provides context. It does not become “breaking news” just because it appears in a new report.
02 / RECENT CHANGE
What happened this week?
We compare political developments, unrest and state responses with the previous seven days and the country’s normal conditions.
03 / PRACTICAL EFFECT
What could it change?
We examine possible consequences for mobility, services, work and people living or travelling internationally.
Important: A score of 78/100 does not mean a 78% chance of unrest, violence or government collapse. It is a weighted assessment of current conditions and exposure.
Inside the number
See how the points add up.
Six factors contribute to the total. Every factor has a maximum weight. Move any slider to see how the calculation changes.
The six parts of the score
The starting example totals 78. Slide the controls to test the arithmetic; these are not validated country data.
0–19 · LOWLimited instability indicators
20–39 · GUARDEDSome manageable pressure
40–59 · ELEVATEDIncreased monitoring warranted
60–79 · HIGHMultiple indicators are active
80–100 · SEVERESignificant institutional or operational stress
The category weights and risk bands follow SafeExpat’s political-instability assessment framework. An analyst may make a reasoned classification adjustment when arithmetic does not reflect the evidence; any adjustment should be disclosed and explained. The slider exercise does not independently validate real-world scores.
Reliability through method
Why this is more than a number.
Confidence comes from showing the work—not asking readers to trust a mysterious algorithm. SafeExpat’s analytical process checks sources, separates facts from judgments and revisits assessments as conditions change.
01
Find the original signalIdentify what happened, where and when. A freshly published article is not necessarily a new event.
02
Check the evidenceCompare credible and, where possible, independent reporting; distinguish claims from confirmation.
03
Compare over timeUse the preceding seven days and the longer-term baseline to identify meaningful changes.
04
Assess real exposureConsider whether people, essential services, transport or operations could actually be affected.
05
ReassessIdentify uncertainty, watch concrete triggers and update the judgment when new evidence warrants it.
What a report should make visible
Evidence and analytical accountability
- Country, assessment date and seven-day lookback
- Major developments and source references
- Six component scores and their reasoning
- Change direction: improving, stable or deteriorating
- Confidence rating and important evidence gaps
- Triggers to watch over the next seven days
What the score cannot promise
No false precision
- It is not a percentage probability of an event
- It is not a guarantee of safety or future conditions
- It is not an independent certification or external audit
- Data availability varies among countries and periods
- Analytical judgment affects individual component points
- One national score cannot describe every local area
Where evidence can come from
Recognisable sources. Clear limitations.
A credible assessment combines longer-term context with current, dated observations. These are examples of authoritative and specialised source families relevant to the methodology—not a claim that every source is consulted in every report.
ACLED · Event monitoring
Specialist datasets and event coding can inform the analysis of demonstrations and political violence, subject to coverage limits and verification.
Read ACLED methodology ↗Official notices and primary records
Government announcements, electoral and court records, central-bank publications, transport operators and consular advice can establish observable changes.
How SafeExpat checks information ↗Source quality and confidence are not the same thing as instability severity. A country may have a HIGH assessed score but only MODERATE evidence confidence. Readers should see both whenever an assessment is published.
Do not confuse two numbers
Risk level is not monitoring priority.
SafeExpat uses separate assessments for two different questions. The number may look the same; its meaning depends on the label attached to it.
“How unstable are conditions?”
Political Instability Score
Measures country-level instability through the six weighted dimensions explained above. On this scale, an illustrative 78/100 means HIGH.
“How closely should we watch it next week?”
Weekly Monitoring Priority Score
A different, forward-looking prioritisation of analyst attention. A priority score must not be read as the country’s political-instability severity or the probability of an event.
Common questions
The questions we’d ask, too.
Does 78/100 mean a 78% chance of a crisis?
No. A weighted index is not an event-probability model. A 78-point example falls inside the HIGH political-instability band, but it does not predict that an event will occur with 78% probability.
Why not simply count protests or alarming headlines?
One large peaceful protest may not destabilise institutions; a less visible court decision or emergency measure may be more consequential. The assessment considers context, escalation, geographic reach and real operational impact—not headline volume alone.
How do analysts choose 16 points instead of 15?
The weighting tells us each category’s maximum. Assigning a particular number of points requires an evidence-based analyst judgment. The existing framework specifies weights and bands; a more detailed, published point-by-point rubric would improve reproducibility. Real reports should explain notable category assignments and adjustments.
How often can the assessment change?
The weekly country methodology reviews the rolling previous seven days and evaluates the next seven. Significant new developments may justify a reassessment sooner. A structural indicator published annually should not be mistaken for a current-week event.
What if the information is incomplete or contradictory?
That uncertainty should appear separately as an intelligence-confidence judgment. A neat numerical score does not make weak underlying evidence strong. Important gaps or contested claims must not be hidden.
Can the same score mean different things locally?
Yes. National-level indicators do not capture every city or neighbourhood. Route, timing, sector, citizenship and individual exposure may matter more to a specific travel or operational decision.