Description
Security scholars have long questioned whether ‘security’ should be widened beyond state security to include ‘human security’ and other concerns such as climate change. Today, many national security strategy documents do identify a wider range of security threats and risks than in previous decades. However, whether this is lip service or corresponds to a wider approach to security backed by deep policy commitments has not been tested empirically or systematically on a global scale. Using a unique new comprehensive dataset of national security strategy documents this paper will use a combination of inductive content analysis and natural language processing to analyse, compare, and rank the ‘wideness’ and policy 'depth' of declared state approaches to security.
It is common for security strategy documents to discuss a wide range of threats, risks, and challenges, but not necessarily to offer correspondingly wide security approaches or deep policy commitments to address them. Indeed, the ‘widening of security’ theme is on its way to becoming ubiquitous in national security strategy documents. However, the mere presence of these wider threats and risks may be superficial. Many security strategy documents make only loose and even banal policy commitments to respond to the threats and risk they have identified. For example, claimed intentions to ‘strengthen’, ‘increase’ or ‘promote’ different areas could be as vague as commitments to strengthen the economy or increase the level of education with no time scale, plan, or indication of what achieving the goals looks like. This may be articulated only at state level, with no implementing agency or ministry. In contrast, Finland’s 2017 ‘Security Strategy for Society’ specifies detailed responsibilities, tasks and operating modalities for all government ministries and many other state agencies.
To create a meaningful comparison between the width and policy depth of different states’ approaches, this paper will offer two indices: a ‘security approach wideness index’ and a ‘policy depth index’. By weighing and ranking the detail, responsibilities, and actions states attach to their security policy commitments, the indices will make visible whether a state is merely stating a policy position or tasking its ministries and agencies in detail.
