Validating the Al Habtoor Risk Index Methodology as a Country-Level Risk Assessment Tool

The Al Habtoor Risk Index (AHRI) is a newly proposed composite methodology for assessing country-level political and economic risk. This paper provides a comprehensive validation of the AHRI framework through methodological explanation, literature review, and comparative analysis. The AHRI methodology is detailed, including its definitions of key components (claims, confidence levels, scope and severity weights, opposing factors with mitigation scores) and the formulas that aggregate these elements into quantitative threat measures. We situate each aspect of the index in the context of established risk assessment theory and practice. We demonstrate that the use of sub-indicators such as likelihood (confidence) estimates, weighted scope and severity of impact, mitigation scoring of opposing factors, and normalisation techniques are grounded in well-established approaches to risk analysis and composite index construction. A literature review highlights theoretical and empirical support for combining these factors, drawing on risk management frameworks and prior composite indices. We further compare the AHRI with other prominent country risk assessment models – including World Bank governance indicators, the Fragile States Index, and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s risk ratings – to evaluate similarities, differences, and improvements offered by the AHRI structure. Finally, a critical discussion examines the assumptions and structure of the AHRI, noting its strengths in integrating expert judgement and multi-dimensional factors as well as potential limitations (such as subjectivity, normalisation choices, and data aggregation). While the present paper focuses on conceptual and methodological validation, we outline a concrete agenda for future empirical testing, including back-testing AHRI scores against historical crises and comparing its predictive performance with existing indices. We conclude that the Al Habtoor Risk Index methodology is a theoretically sound and practically relevant tool for country-level risk assessment, aligning with best practices from political and economic risk indices while introducing a flexible claim-based approach to incorporate context-specific threats and mitigating factors.

Risk Index, Claims, Confidence Levels

1. Dikmen, Elif Karakocak, and Talat Birgonul. “Communication of Project Risk Assessment Information Through Visuals.” Project Leadership and Society 5 (July 15, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2024.100141. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Hillson, David, Sabrina Grimaldi, and Carlo Rafele. “Managing Project Risks Using a Cross Risk Breakdown Matrix.” Risk Management 8, no. 1 (2006): 61–76. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3867943. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cox, Louis Anthony Jr. “What's wrong with risk matrices?.” Risk analysis: an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis vol. 28,2 (2008): 497-512. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2025: 20th Edition. Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Castellano, Adrienne, and Carolina Figueres. “Systemic Risk and Transboundary Crises.” Journal of Risk Analysis 18, no. 3 (2018): 245–262. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. World Bank. World Bank Engagement in Situations of Conflict. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Kelman, Ilan, JC Gaillard, and Jessica Mercer. “Climate Change’s Role in Disaster Risk and Resilience.” In Science for Disaster Risk Management 2017: Knowing Better and Losing Less, edited by A. Casajus Valles, 97–118. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Cabinet Office. National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies: 2017 Edition. London: HM Government, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Aven, Terje. “Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Review of Recent Advances on Their Foundation.” European Journal of Operational Research 253, no. 1 (2016): 1–13. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission). Enterprise Risk Management: Integrating with Strategy and Performance. Durham, NC: COSO, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Marin-Ferrer, Mabel, Luis Vernaccini, and Kristaps Poljansek. Index for Risk Management: INFORM Concept and Methodology Report – Version 2017. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fund for Peace. State Resilience Index: Annual Report 2022. Washington, DC: The Fund for Peace, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Cox, Anthony G., Jr. “Some Limitations of ‘Risk = Threat × Vulnerability × Consequence’ for Risk Analysis of Terrorist Attacks.” Risk Analysis 28, no. 6 (2008): 1749–1761 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ezell, Barry C., et al. “Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‑VAM).” Risk Analysis 27, no. 3 (2007): 571–583. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Carment, David, and Yiagadeesen Samy. Exiting the Fragility Trap: Rethinking Our Approach to the World’s Most Fragile States. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations – Pathways to Human Development. New York: UNDP, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay, and Massimo Mastruzzi. “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5430. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Saisana, Michaela, Andrea Saltelli, and Stefano Tarantola. “Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Techniques as Tools for the Quality Assessment of Composite Indicators.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 168, no. 2 (2005): 307–323. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Freudenberg, Michael. “Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment.” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper 2003/16. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Greco, Salvatore, Alessio Ishizaka, Marianna Tasiou, and Giuseppe Torrisi. “On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness.” Social Indicators Research 141, no. 1 (2019): 61–94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Goldstone, Jack A., Robert H. Bates, David L. Epstein, Ted Robert Gurr, Michael B. Lustik, Monty G. Marshall, Jay Ulfelder, and Mark Woodward. “A Global Model for Forecasting Political Instability.” *American Journal of Political Science* 54, no. 1 (2010): 190–208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.