Oxford Development Studies

ISSN: 1360-0818 (Print) 1469-9966 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cods20

Economic Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts

and Measurements

Lino Briguglio , Gordon Cordina , Nadia Farrugia & Stephanie Vella

To cite this article: Lino Briguglio , Gordon Cordina , Nadia Farrugia & Stephanie Vella (2009)
Economic Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts and Measurements, Oxford Development
Studies, 37:3, 229-247, DOI: 10.1080/13600810903089893

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600810903089893

Published online: 14 Sep 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4543

View related articles

Citing articles: 111 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cods20
Oxford Development Studies,
Vol. 37, No. 3, September 2009

Economic Vulnerability and Resilience:

Concepts and Measurements
LINO BRIGUGLIO, GORDON CORDINA, NADIA FARRUGIA &
STEPHANIE VELLA

ABSTRACT In this paper, economic vulnerability is defined as the exposure of an economy to

exogenous shocks, arising out of economic openness, while economic resilience is defined as the
policy-induced ability of an economy to withstand or recover from the effects of such shocks.
The paper briefly reviews the work already carried out on economic vulnerability and extends the
research towards the development of a conceptual and methodological framework for the definition
and measurement of economic resilience. Towards this end, the paper proposes an index of
economic resilience gauging the adequacy of policy in four broad areas, namely macroeconomic
stability, microeconomic market efficiency, good governance and social development. The analysis
of economic resilience explains how small economies can attain a relatively high level of gross
domestic product per capita if they adopt appropriate policy stances. In other words, the relatively
good economic performance of a number of small states is not because, but in spite of, their small
size and inherent economic vulnerability. The results of this study can be used as a tool towards
the formulation of policies aimed at overcoming the adverse consequences of economic
vulnerability.

1. Introduction
Many small states1 manage to generate a relatively high GDP per capita in comparison
with other developing countries2 in spite of their high exposure to exogenous economic
shocks. This would seem to suggest that there are factors that may offset the disadvantages
associated with economic vulnerability. This phenomenon is termed by Briguglio (2003)
the “Singapore Paradox”, referring to the reality that although Singapore is highly exposed
to exogenous shocks, this small island state has managed to register high rates of economic
growth and to attain high GDP per capita. This reality can be explained in terms of the
ability of Singapore to build resilience in the face of external shocks.
Economic vulnerability, from the conceptual and empirical viewpoints, is well
documented in the literature (see e.g. Briguglio, 1995, 2003; Atkins et al., 2000). Most
studies on economic vulnerability provide empirical evidence that small states,
particularly island ones, tend to be characterized by high degrees of economic openness
and export concentration. These lead to exposure to exogenous shocks, that is, economic
vulnerability, which could constitute a disadvantage to economic development by

Lino Briguglio, Gordon Cordina, Nadia Farrugia and Stephanie Vella, Economics Department, University of Malta,
Msida, MSD2080, Malta. Emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
and [email protected]
ISSN 1360-0818 print/ISSN 1469-9966 online/09/0300229-19
q 2009 International Development Centre, Oxford
DOI: 10.1080/13600810903089893
230 L. Briguglio et al.

magnifying the element of risk in the growth process, without necessarily compromising
its overall viability. Cordina (2004a, b) shows that increased risk can adversely affect
economic growth, as the negative effects of downside shocks would be commensurately
larger than those of positive shocks. The high degree of fluctuations in GDP and in export
earnings registered by many small states is considered to be one of the manifestations of
exposure to exogenous shocks.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section revisits the so-called
“Singapore Paradox”. Sections 3 and 4, respectively, deal with the definitions of
economic vulnerability and economic resilience. Section 5 reviews alternative approaches
to constructing a resilience index and presents the results of a feasible methodology.
Section 6 deals with the relationship between GDP per capita, resilience and vulnerability.
The potential uses of the resilience index are discussed in Section 7. Section 8 concludes
the study with some implications relating to the resilience index.

2. The “Singapore Paradox”

The “Singapore Paradox” refers to the seeming contradiction that a country can be highly
exposed to exogenous shocks, rendering it economically vulnerable, and yet still manage
to attain high levels of GDP per capita. Briguglio (2003, 2004) explains this in terms of the
juxtaposition of economic vulnerability and economic resilience and proposes a
methodological approach in this regard. In this approach, economic vulnerability is
ascribed to inherent conditions affecting a country’s exposure to exogenous shocks, while
economic resilience is associated with actions undertaken by policy-makers and private
economic agents that enable a country to withstand or recover from the negative effects of
shocks. Actions that enable a country to benefit more from positive shocks are also
considered to be conducive to economic resilience.3
On the basis of this approach, Briguglio (2004) identifies four possible scenarios into
which countries may be placed according to their vulnerability and resilience
characteristics. These scenarios are termed best case, worst case, self-made and prodigal son.
The best-case category applies to countries that are not inherently vulnerable and which,
at the same time, adopt resilience-building policies. The worst-case category refers to
countries that compound the adverse effects of inherent high vulnerability by adopting
policies that run counter to economic resilience. Countries classified as self-made are those
with a high degree of inherent economic vulnerability, but which are economically
resilient through the adoption of appropriate policies that enable them to cope with or
withstand the effects of their inherent vulnerability. Countries falling within the prodigal
son category are those with a relatively low degree of inherent economic vulnerability but
whose policies are deleterious to economic resilience, thereby exposing them to the
adverse effects of shocks.4 These four scenarios are depicted in Figure 1, where the axes
measure inherent economic vulnerability and nurtured resilience, respectively.
This method of defining vulnerability in terms of inherent features and resilience in
terms of policy-induced changes has a number of advantages. First, the vulnerability index
would refer to permanent (or quasi-permanent) features over which a country can exercise
practically no control and therefore cannot be attributed to inadequate policies. In other
words, countries scoring highly on the index cannot be accused of inflicting vulnerability
on themselves through misguided policy approaches. Second, the resilience index
would refer to what a country can do to mitigate or exacerbate its inherent vulnerability.
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 231

Figure 1. The four scenarios.

Source: Briguglio (2004).

Scores on this index would, therefore, reflect the appropriateness of policy measures.
Third, the combination of the two indices would indicate the overall risk of being harmed
by external shocks due to inherent vulnerability features counterbalanced to different
extents by policy measures.
Given that vulnerability refers to inherent characteristics that render countries prone to
exogenous shocks, vulnerability scores for a particular country should not differ much
over time, and therefore it is not expected that a country will move vertically along the
quadrants of Figure 1; but horizontal movement is possible for those countries that adopt
measures that build resilience and vice versa. It would thus be possible for countries to
switch between the worst-case and the self-made scenarios, or the prodigal son and the
best-case scenarios, through changes in their economic policies.
By distinguishing between inherent economic vulnerability and nurtured economic
resilience, it is possible to create a methodological framework for assessing the risk of
being affected by external shocks, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows that risk has two elements, the first is associated with the inherent
conditions of the country that is exposed to external shocks and the second associated with
policy measures developed to absorb, cope with or bounce back from adverse shocks. The
risk of being adversely affected by external shocks is therefore the combination of the two
elements. The negative sign in front of the resilience element indicates that the risk is
reduced as resilience builds up.

3. Economic Vulnerability
Empirical work on the construction of an economic vulnerability index (see Briguglio,
1995; Briguglio & Galea, 2003; Farrugia, 2004) is often based on the premise that a
country’s proneness to exogenous shocks stems from a number of inherent economic
232 L. Briguglio et al.

Figure 2. Risks associated with being adversely affected by external shocks.

Source: Briguglio (2004).

features, including high degrees of economic openness, export concentration and

dependence on strategic imports.5

3.1 Economic Openness

Economic openness can be measured as the ratio of international trade to GDP. A high
degree of economic openness renders a country susceptible to external economic
conditions over which it has no direct control. Economic openness is, to a significant
extent, an inherent feature of an economy, conditioned mainly by: (1) the size of the
country’s domestic market affecting the exports-to-GDP ratio; and (2) the availability of
resources in a country and its ability efficiently to produce the range of goods and services
required to satisfy its aggregate demand, affecting the imports-to-GDP ratio. It may be
argued that openness to international trade may be influenced by policy and is therefore a
nurtured resilience issue.6 Practical experience, however, shows that trade policies tend to
influence more the type of a country’s external trade flows rather than the degree of
economic openness. Countries with a relatively small domestic market have very few
options but to resort to exports, and those with limited natural resources tend to be highly
dependent on imports. It can be argued further that openness to international trade could be
a source of strength, in that it may indicate that a country is successfully participating in
the international markets. This argument, however, does not detract from the fact that by
participating more actively in international trade, a country would be exposing itself to a
larger degree of shocks over which it has relatively little control.

3.2 Export Concentration

Dependence on a narrow range of exports gives rise to risks associated with lack of
diversification, and therefore exacerbates vulnerability associated with economic
openness. Again this condition is, to a large extent, the result of inherent features in the
production base of an economy and reflects the fact that small size restricts a country’s
ability to diversify its exports. Export concentration can be measured by the UNCTAD
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 233

index of merchandise trade (UNCTAD, 2003, Section 8). Briguglio (1997) and Briguglio &
Galea (2003) have devised an alternative index that also takes services into account.

3.3 Dependence on Strategic Imports

Another facet of the exposure argument relates to the dependence on strategic imports,
which would expose an economy to shocks with regard to the availability and costs of such
imports. This variable can be measured as the ratio of the imports of energy, food or
industrial supplies to GDP. Again, this condition is, to a large extent, inherent in that it
depends on country size, resource endowments and possibilities for import substitution.
All studies on vulnerability indices utilizing these or similar variables come to the
conclusion that there is a tendency for small states to be more vulnerable economically
than other groups of countries.

4. Economic Resilience
In this paper, economic resilience refers to the policy-induced ability of an economy to
recover from or adjust to the negative impacts of adverse exogenous shocks and to benefit
from positive shocks.7 The term is used in two senses in this paper, relating to the ability
to: (1) recover quickly from a shock; and (2) withstand the effect of a shock.8

4.1 Ability of an Economy to Recover from the Effects of Adverse Shocks

This is associated with the flexibility of an economy, enabling it to bounce back after being
adversely affected by a shock. This ability will be severely limited if, for example, there is
a chronic tendency for large fiscal deficits. On the other hand, this ability will be enhanced
when the economy possesses discretionary policy tools that it can utilize to counteract the
effects of negative shocks, such as a strong fiscal position, which would entail policy-
makers being able to utilize discretionary expenditure or tax cuts to counter the effects of
negative shocks. This type of resilience is therefore associated with “shock-
counteraction”.

4.2 Ability to Withstand Shocks

This relates to the ability to absorb shocks, so that the end effect of a shock is neutralized
or rendered negligible. This type of resilience occurs when the economy has mechanisms
in place to reduce the effects of shocks, which can be referred to as “shock absorption”.
For example, the existence of a flexible, multi-skilled labour force could act as an
instrument of shock absorption, as negative external demand shocks affecting a particular
sector of economic activity can be relatively easily met by shifting resources to another
sector enjoying stronger demand.

4.3 Importance of Resilience Considerations

The issue of resilience building is important for small states in view of the fact that such
states tend to be inherently economically vulnerable, as already explained. In an analysis
of the economic performance of small states, it is important to distinguish between
234 L. Briguglio et al.

vulnerability considerations and resilience factors. For example, some studies argue that
small economic size presents an economic advantage on the basis of simple correlations
between small size and indicators of economic performance, such as GDP growth and
GDP per capita. However, a proper analysis of the relationship between size of countries
and economic performance should factor in control variables, such as good economic
governance. This paper suggests that the relatively good performance of some small states
is certainly not due to small size, but can be attributed to nurtured economic resilience. In
other words, the relatively good economic performance of a number of small states is not
because of, but in spite of, their small size and inherent economic vulnerability.
Consideration of economic resilience building also conveys the message that small
vulnerable states should not be complacent in the face of their economic vulnerability, but
could and should adopt policy measures to enable them to improve their ability to cope
with or bounce back from external shocks.

5. The Construction of a Resilience Index

5.1 Underlying Difficulties of Index Construction
This section presents the results of an attempt to construct a composite index of economic
resilience. Some words of caution are warranted at this stage. The choice of variables that
compose the index is somewhat subjective. However, care was taken to base the choice on
a set of desirable criteria related to appropriate coverage, simplicity and ease of
comprehension, affordability, suitability for international comparisons and transparency.
A more detailed consideration of these criteria is given in Briguglio (2003) and Farrugia
(2007). In addition, the summing of the components of the index involves subjective
decisions, principally in selecting the weighting procedure. There is considerable debate in
the literature on composite indices on this issue. Again, these questions are discussed in
Briguglio (2003) and Farrugia (2007) and are not elaborated upon in this study.
The compilation of the index encountered a number of problems with regard to data
collection, the most important of which were associated with shortage of data and non-
homogenous definitions across countries. Briguglio (2003) considers these problems,
referring to the fact that data problems occur particularly in the case of small states.

5.2 The Components of the Resilience Index

The resilience index proposed in this section is intended to measure the effect of shock
absorption or shock counteraction policies across countries. It is hypothesized that the
variables that capture these effects are the following:
. macroeconomic stability;
. microeconomic market efficiency;
. good governance;
. social development.

Macroeconomic stability. Macroeconomic stability relates to the interaction between an

economy’s aggregate demand and aggregate supply. If aggregate expenditure in an
economy moved in equilibrium with aggregate supply, the economy would be
characterized by internal balance, as manifested in a sustainable fiscal position, low
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 235

price inflation and an unemployment rate close to the natural rate, as well as by external
balance, as reflected in the international current account position or by the level of external
debt. These can be considered to be variables that are highly influenced by economic
policy and that could act as good indicators of an economy’s resilience in facing adverse
shocks.
The macroeconomic stability component of the resilience index proposed in this study
consists of three variables, namely: (1) the fiscal deficit-to-GDP ratio; (2) the sum of the
unemployment and inflation rates; and (3) the external debt-to-GDP ratio. The variables
are available for a reasonably wide set of countries spread over a spectrum of stages of
development, size and geographical characteristics.

Fiscal deficit. The government budget position is suitable for inclusion in the resilience
index because it is the result of fiscal policy, which is one of the main tools available to
government, and relates to resilience of a shock-counteracting nature. This is because a
healthy fiscal position would allow adjustments to taxation and expenditure policies in the
face of adverse shocks. The fiscal deficit, standardized as a ratio to GDP, is thus included
in the resilience index proposed in this study.

Inflation and unemployment. Price inflation and unemployment are also considered to be
suitable indicators of resilience and at the same time they potentially provide additional
information to that contained in the fiscal deficit variable. This is because price inflation
and unemployment are strongly influenced by other types of economic policy, including
monetary and supply-side policies. They are associated with resilience because if an
economy already has high levels of unemployment and inflation, it is likely that adverse
shocks would impose significant costs on it. If, on the other hand, the economy has low
levels of inflation and unemployment, then it can withstand adverse shocks to these
variables without excessive welfare costs. In this sense, therefore, unemployment and
inflation are associated with resilience of a shock-absorbing nature. The sum of these two
variables, also known as the economic discomfort index (or economic misery index), is
thus included in the resilience index proposed here.

External debt. The adequacy of external policy may be gauged through the inclusion of
the external debt-to-GDP ratio. This is considered to be a good measure of resilience,
because a country with a high level of external debt may find it more difficult to mobilize
resources in order to offset the effects of external shocks. Thus, this variable would
indicate resilience of a shock-counteracting nature.9
The variables utilized for the macroeconomic component of the resilience index are
measured as period averages across business cycles so as to eliminate the effects of
cyclical fluctuations and policies. The sources of the data and country rankings associated
with this component are presented in Table A1 in the Appendix. As can be seen, a number
of small states, notably Singapore and Hong Kong, obtain relatively high scores on this
component.

Microeconomic market efficiency. The science of economics views markets and their
efficient operation through the price mechanism as the best way to allocate resources in the
economy. If markets adjust rapidly to achieve equilibrium following an external shock, the
risk of being negatively affected by such a shock will be lower than if market disequilibria
236 L. Briguglio et al.

tend to persist. Indeed, with very slow or non-existent market adjustment, resources will
not be efficiently allocated in the economy, resulting in welfare costs, manifested, for
instance, in unemployed resources and waste or shortages in the goods markets. These
considerations have important implications for shock-absorbing resilience.
Not many indicators of market efficiency that span a sufficiently wide range of
countries—as required for the purpose of this study—are available. Following a search for
suitable indicators, it was decided to use a component of the Economic Freedom of the
World Index (Gwartney & Lawson, 2005), titled “regulation of credit, labour and business”,
which is aimed at measuring the extent to which markets operate freely, competitively and
efficiently across countries. It is designed to identify the effect of regulatory restraints and
bureaucratic procedures on competition and the operation of markets.
In the financial market, this index assesses the extent to which: (1) the banking industry
is dominated by private firms; (2) foreign banks are permitted to compete in the market;
(3) credit is supplied to the private sector; and (4) controls on interest rates interfere with
the credit market. All these relate to the degree of interference by government in the
financial market, which could prevent the economy from reacting flexibly to shocks.
Similar considerations apply in the case of the labour market. Here interference relates
to unduly high unemployment benefits (which could undermine the incentive to accept
employment), dismissal regulations, minimum wage impositions, centralized wage
setting, extensions of union contracts to non-participating parties and conscription. All
these are viewed as possibly precluding work effort, thereby limiting the ability of a
country to recover from adverse shocks. A country would have a higher market efficiency
score if it allowed market forces to determine wages and establish conditions of dismissal,
avoid excessive unemployment and refrain from the use of conscription.
Bureaucratic control of business activities is also thought to inhibit market efficiency.
This subcomponent is designed to identify the extent to which bureaucratic procedures
limit competition and the operation of markets. When such activities retard entry into
business and increase the cost of production, when prices are not market-determined and
when governments use their power to extract financial payments and reward some
businesses at the expense of others, private sector involvement is discouraged, thereby
inhibiting the capacity of freely operating markets to absorb shocks.
The relative data and country-ranking results with regard to this component of the
resilience index are presented in Table A1 in the Appendix. Small vulnerable countries can
be found across the entire range of this component, indicating that such countries are
adopting different policy approaches in terms of microeconomic market efficiency.10

Good governance. Good governance is essential for an economic system to function

properly and hence to be resilient. Governance relates to issues such as rule of law and the
security of property rights. Without mechanisms of this kind in place, it would be
relatively easy for adverse shocks to result in economic and social chaos and unrest.
Hence, the effects of vulnerability would be exacerbated. On the other hand, good
governance can strengthen an economy’s resilience.
An explanation as to why the good governance component has been included alongside
a market efficiency component is warranted at this juncture. The market efficiency index
emphasizes the importance of freely and properly operating markets for allocative
efficiency and, hence, relates to the ability of an economy to reallocate resources quickly
and effectively following an economic shock. This fundamentally neo-liberal approach,
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 237

which has been questioned recently with the market failures associated with the financial
turmoil, is here balanced by an emphasis on appropriate government intervention to foster
economic resilience as measured by the governance index. Thus, the resilience index
proposed here views properly functioning markets and a framework of appropriate
governance as two essential aspects of economic resilience.
The Economic Freedom of the World Index has a component that focuses on legal
structure and security of property rights.11 This is considered to be useful in the context of
the present exercise in deriving an index of good governance. The component covers five
subcomponents, namely: (1) judicial independence; (2) impartiality of courts; (3) the
protection of intellectual property rights; (4) military interference in the rule of law; and
(5) the political system and the integrity of the legal system.
The relative data and country-ranking results are presented in Table A1 in the Appendix.
The highest rankings on the governance component are the more economically advanced
countries, with the first five placings occupied by major industrialized economies.
Singapore, which was among the most resilient economies according to economic criteria,
ranks fifteenth in terms of governance. Vulnerable economies tend to obtain lower rankings
on this count, but it still appears to be the case that the vulnerable economies enjoying a
higher per capita GDP also tend to have better systems of governance.

Social development. Social development is another essential component of economic

resilience. This factor indicates the extent to which relations within a society are properly
developed, enabling an effective functioning of the economic apparatus without the
hindrance of civil unrest. Social development can also indicate the extent to which
effective social dialogue takes place in an economy, which, in turn, would enable
collaborative approaches towards the undertaking of corrective measures in the face of
adverse shocks.
Social development in a country can be measured in a number of ways. Variables
relating to income, such as its dispersion and the proportion of the population living in
poverty, the long-term unemployment rate (indicating the proportion of the population
with low skills and inadequate employment prospects) and the proportion of the
population with low levels of education, could be useful indicators. Still another possible
approach would be to measure the number and extent of instances of industrial or civil
unrest. These approaches are interesting but rather narrow in scope and very difficult to
measure across countries.
The social development component of the resilience index in this paper consists of the
education and health indicators utilized to construct the UNDP Human Development
Index (HDI).
. Education: Educational advancement, measured by the adult literacy rate and
school enrolment ratios, is considered to be a good indicator of social
development. In addition, an improved standard of education could be indicative
of an improved ability to cohere in the face of external shocks—a condition
conducive to economic resilience.
. Health: Life expectancy at birth is considered to be suitable for measuring the
health aspects in a society. This in turn is likely to be related to medical facilities,
housing and degree of proneness to accident or risk of injury. Again, advancement
in health standards is considered to be conducive to economic resilience.
238 L. Briguglio et al.

Table 1. Correlation matrix

Macroeconomic stability 1.00
Market efficiency 0.17 1.00
Good governance 0.29 0.68 1.00
Social development 0.22 0.40 0.67 1.00

The relative data and country ranking results are presented in Table A1 in the Appendix.
Small island developing states occupy the entire range of the component, with those with a
high per capita GDP obtaining higher rankings.

Correlation between the components of the index. The components discussed above have
been found to be positively related to each other, as shown in Table 1, but the correlation is
somewhat weak. The highest correlation scores relate to good governance and social
development and good governance and market efficiency.
The question arises therefore as to whether or not the good governance component is
redundant. Given that its correlation with market efficiency and social development is not
unduly high, it was decided to retain all four components in the composite index.

Other determinants of economic resilience. Economic resilience can also be viewed as

being determined by a plethora of other factors apart from those mentioned above. It may be
argued, for example, that it could be useful to consider the effects of environmental
management in this regard. The environment can be an important source of vulnerability by
giving rise to shocks of an adverse nature, principally by rapid events, such as earthquakes
and floods. In turn, these would have important repercussions for the economy and society.
In this regard, the efforts undertaken to compile the Environmental Sustainability Index
(Esty et al., 2005) are commendable. Data on environmental matters are, however, not
readily and extensively available across countries of different sizes, and the inclusion of
environmental variables for the present exercise would have drastically reduced the
countries covered by the resilience index.12 In addition, there is the possibility that
incorporating an environmental management index could lead to the problem of
redundancy, that is, using indicators that are highly correlated that would add no new
information but would render the procedure unnecessarily complex. In the case of
environmental management factors, the socio-economic resilience aspects covered by the
variables discussed above are likely to be highly correlated with environmental
management, although in the absence of data, this assertion cannot be tested.

Computation of the composite index. The composite index was computed by taking a
simple average of the four components just described, namely: macroeconomic stability,
microeconomic market efficiency, good governance and social development. Data for 86
countries were obtained. All observations of the components of the index were
standardized using the well-known transformation:

XSij ¼ ðX ij 2 min X j Þ=ð max X j 2 min X j Þ j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 4; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 86:

where: XSij is the value of the standardized observation for country i of component j; Xij is
the actual value of the same observation; and min Xj and max Xj are the minimum and
maximum values of the same observations for component j.
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 239

This transforms the values of observations in a particular variable array so that they take
a range of values from zero to unity.

The results. The results of averaging the four components of the economic resilience
index are given in Table A1 in the Appendix. These show that most of the small island
states included in the index, namely Singapore, Barbados, Malta and Cyprus, register
relatively high resilience scores. Other small states with relatively high resilience scores
include Iceland, Hong Kong, Slovenia and Estonia. Unfortunately, data for small island
developing states that register low resilience scores were available for two countries only,
namely Jamaica and Papua New Guinea. It is, therefore, not possible to adequately
compare the performance of country groupings in this regard. However, it appears that the
worst performers in terms of resilience building were a number of larger African, Asian
and South American countries.

6. GDP Per Capita, Resilience and Vulnerability

It would be interesting to investigate the extent to which GDP per capita of the different
countries is related to vulnerability and resilience. Using the ordinary least squares (OLS)
method of regression, GDP per capita was regressed on the vulnerability index (as
proposed in Briguglio & Galea, 2003, reproduced here as Table A3 in the Appendix) and
on the resilience index produced in this study. The results are shown in Table 2.
In Table 2, G represents GDP per capita, R represents the resilience index and V
represents the vulnerability index. All variables have been standardized as explained
above, so that their values range between zero and unity.
This result confirms the hypothesis in Briguglio (2004) and Cordina (2004a, b) that the
performance of countries is related to their inherent vulnerability and their nurtured
resilience. It also confirms that the resilience index is highly correlated with GDP per
capita, with countries having the highest GDP per capita being, as expected, those with the
highest resilience scores.13 This is not an extraordinary finding because it validates a very
plausible assumption. However, the results of the regression exercise have some
interesting implications. In particular, the results show that the economic well-being
of nations is more dependent on man-made policies than on inherent vulnerabilities.
The results also confirm that adequate policy approaches can be used successfully to
overcome the handicaps posed by vulnerability.

6.1 The Country Scenarios

Going back to the scenarios proposed in Figure 1, it is possible to place the countries
included in the index in the four quadrants shown therein, using the resilience index
proposed in this study and the vulnerability index presented by Briguglio & Galea (2003).

Table 2. Regression results

G¼ 0.14 þ 0.95R 20.14V
t-statistics (3.5) (17.2) (2 2.4)
R 2 ¼ 0.78
Number of observations ¼ 86
240 L. Briguglio et al.

Figure 3. Economic resilience and economic vulnerability.

Source: Computed by the authors.

The results are shown in Figure 3. It should be pointed out that the cut-off values chosen
for the quadrants (represented by the dashed lines in Figure 3) are the averages of the
vulnerability and resilience scores for all countries. This decision is subjective and the
classification of countries will change if different cut-off points are chosen. Consequently,
it was decided to allow a “borderline” margin of ^ 5% for the vulnerability and resilience
indices (shown by the dotted lines on each side of the dashed lines), and countries falling
within these margins are classified as “borderline” cases.
Table A2 in the Appendix shows the classification of countries within the different
quadrants. The overall tendencies that can be derived from Table A2 are that:
. countries falling in the best-case quadrant are mostly the large “developed
countries”;
. countries falling in the self-made quadrant include a number of small states with a
high vulnerability score;
. countries that fall in the prodigal son quadrant include mostly large Third World
countries;
. countries falling in the worst-case quadrant include a few vulnerable small
countries with weak economic performance.

7. The Uses of the Resilience Index

The resilience index developed in this paper may be useful to support decision-making,
especially for setting directions and justifying choice of priorities for resilience building.
In particular it could help to:
. disseminate information on and draw attention to the issue of resilience building;
. focus the discussion on essential resilience-building issues;
. promote the idea of integrated action.
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 241

7.1 Dissemination of Information

An index is a very good instrument for drawing attention to the issue being investigated.
Thus, for example, the exercise of computing an index of resilience may itself make
decision-makers and stakeholders more aware of the factors that lead to resilience
building. Such an exercise may also generate academic discussion and enhance awareness
among scholars and practitioners on the issues involved.
The resilience index can also be used to give a high profile to certain policies that can
strengthen resilience. In this regard, the index can be useful for communication and for
alerting stakeholders about failures and success stories relating to resilience building.

7.2 Focusing the Discussion

Indices can help to develop a common language for discussion. One often finds that parties
engaged in debate go off at tangents because of lack of common definitions. In the case of
indices, the quantification of their components requires precise definitions, and this could
help focus the discussion on matters directly relevant to the issue.

7.3 Promoting the Idea of Integrated Action

Although a composite index yields a single-value measure of the phenomena under
consideration, it summarizes complex realities and therefore conveys the message that the
issue under investigation is not the outcome of a single factor. This could help to foster an
awareness of the interconnections between the components of the index. In the case of
economic resilience, for example, it is often not enough, and may even be
counterproductive, to take action in one area in isolation from others. The resilience
index proposed here could therefore promote the need for an integrated action in this
regard.

8. Concluding Considerations
This paper has dealt with conceptual and methodological aspects associated with
economic resilience and its measurement. The index developed here covers four aspects of
economic resilience, namely macroeconomic stability, microeconomic market efficiency,
good governance and social development. Each of these components contains variables
that are considered suitable to gauge the extent to which the policy framework is
conducive to absorbing and counteracting the effects of economic shocks.
The results of this exercise can provide an explanation as to why inherently vulnerable
countries may register high levels of GDP per capita. It is argued that countries may be
economically successful because they are inherently not vulnerable, or because they are
resilient in the face of the vulnerability they face. The obverse is also true, in that countries
may be unsuccessful because they are not sufficiently resilient.
The paper has also shown that GDP per capita is positively related to economic
resilience and negatively related to economic vulnerability. Furthermore, per capita GDP
was found to be more sensitive to resilience variables than to vulnerability variables.
242 L. Briguglio et al.

Notes
1
In this study, the words “state” and “country” are used synonymously. There is no generally agreed
definition as to which variable should be used to measure the size of countries and as to what should be
the cut-off point between a small country and other countries. Generally speaking, population is used
as an indicator of country size.
2
This finding is reported in many studies. See, for example, Briguglio (1995).
3
Cordina (2004a, b) introduces the concept of exposure to shocks within a mainstream model of
economic growth based on the neo-classical paradigm to show that the per capita GDP of a country
depends positively on its resources and productivity and negatively on its inherent vulnerability. It is
further shown that the negative impact of vulnerability depends on the degree of diminishing marginal
productivity in a country, which can be influenced by policy actions and is therefore consistent with the
notion of resilience. The application of this approach shows that capital formation and the fostering of
economic conditions that retard the onset of diminishing marginal productivity, including, among
others, macroeconomic buffers and microeconomic market flexibility, can be important sources of
resilience.
4
The analogy with the prodigal son is that these countries, though “born in a good family”, squander
their riches.
5
Farrugia (2004) elaborates further on these ideas by considering the economic strength of trading
partners as a proxy for the probability of shocks to exports.
6
This issue is discussed at length in Guillaumont (2004).
7
Most dictionaries define resilience in terms of the ability to recover quickly from the effect of an
adverse incident. This definition originates from the Latin resilire, “to leap back” or “to jump up
again”.
8
An analogy relating to an attack of influenza virus may help explain the two senses in which the term
“resilience” is used. A person exposed to the virus may: be infected but recover quickly; and/or
withstand the effect of the virus, possibly by being immunized.
9
It is recognized, however, that certain countries may have external debt not because of a weak policy
framework but because of highly developed international financial activity. This is a weakness in the
use of this indicator. However, the inclusion of other variables related to market efficiency and
governance would, to an extent, “correct” this weakness, as these variables either exacerbate the effect
of external debt in the presence of a weak policy framework or counteract it otherwise.
10
An attempt was made to augment the microeconomic market efficiency indicator used in the
resilience index by assessing the degree of exchange rate and financial controls exercised by
countries covered in the resilience index. The premise is based on the notion that countries that use
capital controls are not likely to have efficient financial markets. In turn, owing to the strong
interlinkages between financial markets and the entire economy, inefficiencies in the financial
markets are likely to reflect and result in inefficiencies in other sectors of the economy. The IMF
Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions (2006) was used to identify
the presence of such controls. This approach, however, met with a number of practical difficulties,
including the fact that the IMF yields a de jure classification of exchange rate regimes based on
the stated intentions of the central banks. However, difficulties arise when actual policies diverge
from the stated intentions. Moreover, given the numerous and often complicated controls exercised
by a number of countries, a relevant comparison of the controls across countries is difficult to
obtain.
11
An alternative governance index is presented by the World Bank (Kaufmann et al., 2006). A Pearson
correlation test of the World Bank governance indicators and the Economic Freedom of the World’s
“legal structure and security of property rights” component yielded a value of 0.92. Thus, both indices
are likely to be measuring a similar phenomenon. In fact, when the Kaufmann index was used in the
compilation of the resilience index, the ranking of countries changed only marginally.
12
Esty et al. (2005) did produce some results for a few small states, but they are reluctant to include them
in the Environmental Sustainability Index.
13
The relationship between GDP per capita and the resilience index (i.e. excluding the vulnerability
variable) exhibits a high correlation coefficient (R 2 ¼ 0.77) and t-statistic (t ¼ 16.7). However, the
inclusion of the vulnerability variable in the equation improves the results by producing a higher
correlation coefficient and a higher t-statistic on the resilience variable, as shown above.
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 243

References
Atkins, J., Mazzi, S. & Easter, C. (2000) A Commonwealth Vulnerability Index for Developing Countries: The
Position of Small States, Economic Paper No. 40 (London: Commonwealth Secretariat).
Briguglio, L. (1995) Small island developing states and their economic vulnerabilities, World Development,
23(9), pp. 1615–1632.
Briguglio, L. (1997) Alternative Economic Vulnerability Indices for Developing Countries, Report prepared for
the Expert Group on the Vulnerability Index, 17–19 December (New York: UNDESA).
Briguglio, L. (2003) The Vulnerability Index and small island developing states: a review of conceptual and
methodological issues, paper prepared for the AIMS Regional Preparatory Meeting on the Ten Year Review
of the Barbados Programme of Action, Praia, Cape Verde, 1–5 September.
Briguglio, L. (2004) Economic vulnerability and resilience: concepts and measurements, in: L. Briguglio &
E. J. Kisanga (Eds) Economic Vulnerability and Resilience of Small States (Malta: Islands and Small States
Institute of the University of Malta; London: Commonwealth Secretariat).
Briguglio, L. & Galea, W. (2003) Updating the Economic Vulnerability Index, Occasional Chapters on Islands
and Small States, 2003-04 (Malta: Islands and Small States Institute of the University of Malta).
Cordina, G. (2004a) Economic vulnerability, resilience and capital formation, in: L. Briguglio & E. J. Kisanga
(Eds) Economic Vulnerability and Resilience of Small States (Malta: Islands and Small States Institute of the
University of Malta; London: Commonwealth Secretariat).
Cordina, G. (2004b) Economic vulnerability and economic growth: some results from a neo-classical growth
modelling approach, Journal of Economic Development, 29(2), pp. 21– 39.
Esty, D., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. & de Sherbinin, A. (2005) Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking
National Environmental Stewardship (New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy).
Farrugia, N. (2004) Economic vulnerability: developing a new conceptual framework and empirically assessing
its relationship with economic growth, PhD Dissertation, University of Malta.
Farrugia, N. (2007) Conceptual Issues in Constructing Composite Indices, Occasional Paper on Islands and Small
States, 2007-01 (Malta: Islands and Small States Institute of the University of Malta).
Guillaumont, P. (2004) On the economic vulnerability of low income countries, in: L. Briguglio & E. J. Kisanga
(Eds) Economic Vulnerability and Resilience of Small States (Malta: Islands and Small States Institute of the
University of Malta; London: Commonwealth Secretariat).
Gwartney, J. & Lawson, R. (2005) Economic Freedom of the World 2005 Annual Report (Vancouver: Fraser
Institute).
IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2005) International Financial Statistics (Washington, DC: IMF).
IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2006) Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions
(Washington, DC: IMF).
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. & Mastruzzi, M. (2006) Governance Matters, V: Governance Indicators for 1996–2005
(Washington, DC: World Bank).
UNCTAD (2003) Handbook of Statistics (Geneva: UNCTAD).
UNDP (2002, 2003, 2004) Human Development Report (New York: Oxford University Press).
World Bank (2004) World Development Indicators (Washington, DC: World Bank).
244 L. Briguglio et al.

Appendix

Table A1. The resilience index: data and country rankings

Macroeconomic Market Good Social Country
Country stabilitya efficiencyb governancec developmentd Resilience indexe ranking
Albania 0.250 0.387 0.411 0.765 0.453 62
Argentina 0.534 0.259 0.227 0.868 0.472 58
Australia 0.472 0.800 0.971 0.988 0.808 9
Austria 0.693 0.531 0.928 0.956 0.777 12
Bangladesh 0.635 0.305 0.174 0.223 0.334 80
Barbados 0.632 0.627 0.722 0.915 0.724 17
Belgium 0.661 0.474 0.800 0.982 0.729 16
Belize 0.186 0.671 0.607 0.754 0.554 49
Bolivia 0.468 0.360 0.174 0.619 0.405 69
Brazil 0.388 0.210 0.423 0.721 0.436 65
Cameroon 0.443 0.451 0.344 0.232 0.368 76
Canada 0.633 0.798 0.910 0.977 0.829 6
Chile 0.636 0.562 0.611 0.859 0.667 28
China 0.653 0.095 0.468 0.704 0.480 56
Colombia 0.417 0.273 0.220 0.754 0.416 67
Costa Rica 0.609 0.470 0.623 0.853 0.639 31
Côte d’Ivoire 0.422 0.327 0.237 0.000 0.246 86
Croatia 0.524 0.516 0.451 0.824 0.579 40
Cyprus 0.360 0.407 0.687 0.886 0.585 38
Czech Republic 0.571 0.444 0.631 0.856 0.626 35
Denmark 0.716 0.682 1.000 0.944 0.836 5
Dominican Republic 0.657 0.470 0.305 0.654 0.521 52
Egypt, Arab Rep. 0.588 0.151 0.403 0.504 0.412 68
El Salvador 0.655 0.485 0.351 0.645 0.534 51
Estonia 0.635 0.705 0.673 0.850 0.716 18
Finland 0.638 0.671 0.997 0.971 0.819 7
France 0.494 0.526 0.744 0.962 0.681 23
Germany 0.551 0.349 0.932 0.947 0.695 20
Honduras 0.425 0.388 0.157 0.584 0.389 71
Hong Kong, China 0.650 1.000 0.731 0.865 0.811 8
Hungary 0.435 0.598 0.656 0.830 0.630 34
Iceland 0.722 0.912 0.960 0.968 0.890 1
India 0.501 0.309 0.555 0.396 0.440 64
Indonesia 0.420 0.060 0.285 0.633 0.350 78
Iran, Islamic Rep. 0.595 0.000 0.555 0.630 0.445 63
Ireland 0.748 0.632 0.855 0.927 0.790 11
Israel 0.599 0.348 0.730 0.933 0.652 29
Italy 0.564 0.277 0.669 0.930 0.610 36
Jamaica 0.404 0.413 0.468 0.783 0.517 53
Japan 0.473 0.530 0.745 0.974 0.681 24
Jordan 0.388 0.480 0.637 0.727 0.558 48
Kenya 0.489 0.471 0.283 0.299 0.385 73
Kuwait 0.579 0.656 0.705 0.748 0.672 27
Latvia 0.523 0.490 0.555 0.824 0.598 37
Lithuania 0.548 0.391 0.471 0.848 0.564 46
Luxembourg 0.170 0.752 0.910 0.894 0.682 22
Madagascar 0.362 0.266 0.256 0.255 0.285 84
Malaysia 0.732 0.493 0.625 0.748 0.649 30
Malta 0.484 0.631 0.708 0.871 0.674 25
Mauritius 0.602 0.371 0.625 0.701 0.575 43
Mexico 0.607 0.281 0.294 0.777 0.490 55
Morocco 0.496 0.373 0.566 0.405 0.460 60
Nepal 0.492 0.458 0.310 0.261 0.380 74
Netherlands 0.483 0.656 0.971 0.979 0.772 13
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 245

New Zealand 0.690 0.882 0.951 0.974 0.874 2

Nicaragua 0.024 0.486 0.187 0.566 0.316 82
Nigeria 0.472 0.509 0.219 0.232 0.358 77
Norway 0.557 0.550 0.910 0.982 0.750 14
Pakistan 0.395 0.414 0.148 0.205 0.291 83
Panama 0.582 0.536 0.384 0.806 0.577 42
Papua New Guinea 0.509 0.434 0.310 0.290 0.386 72
Paraguay 0.578 0.164 0.106 0.730 0.395 70
Peru 0.568 0.401 0.316 0.739 0.506 54
Philippines 0.451 0.388 0.285 0.771 0.474 57
Poland 0.569 0.304 0.520 0.874 0.567 45
Portugal 0.595 0.458 0.768 0.915 0.684 21
Romania 0.388 0.290 0.409 0.765 0.463 59
Russian Federation 0.517 0.092 0.348 0.751 0.427 66
Senegal 0.403 0.225 0.342 0.067 0.260 85
Singapore 1.000 0.730 0.888 0.877 0.874 3
Slovak Republic 0.446 0.446 0.536 0.830 0.564 47
Slovenia 0.660 0.308 0.664 0.903 0.634 33
South Africa 0.576 0.600 0.664 0.446 0.571 44
Spain 0.545 0.556 0.625 0.968 0.673 26
Sri Lanka 0.318 0.407 0.356 0.751 0.458 61
Sweden 0.474 0.574 0.949 1.000 0.749 15
Switzerland 0.557 0.744 0.912 0.950 0.791 10
Thailand 0.399 0.473 0.582 0.733 0.547 50
Trinidad and Tobago 0.641 0.562 0.557 0.780 0.635 32
Tunisia 0.511 0.484 0.683 0.651 0.582 39
Turkey 0.000 0.213 0.391 0.674 0.320 81
Uganda 0.516 0.424 0.370 0.199 0.377 75
UK 0.062 0.844 0.977 0.971 0.714 19
United States 0.646 0.907 0.860 0.944 0.839 4
Uruguay 0.523 0.376 0.537 0.874 0.577 41
Venezuela, RB 0.511 0.091 0.000 0.777 0.345 79
a
The macroeconomic stability sub-index is made up of the simple average of the following three variables:
the fiscal deficit-to-GDP ratio; the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates; and the external
debt-to-GDP ratio. Sources: IMF, 2005, World Bank, 2004; National Statistical Offices were consulted for
ab few countries.
The microeconomic market efficiency index is a component of the Economic Freedom of the World Index
(Gwartney & Lawson, 2005), namely “regulation of credit, labour and business”, and is intended to
measure the extent to which regulatory restraints and bureaucratic procedures limit competition and the
operation
c
of financial, labour and product markets. Data pertain to 2001– 03.
The governance index consists of five components, namely: judicial independence; impartiality of courts;
the protection of intellectual property rights; military interference in the rule of law; and the political
system
d
and the integrity of the legal system. Source: Gwartney & Lawson, 2005. Data pertain to 2001– 03.
The social development index is the sum of the education and health indices of the HDI for the years
2000 –02 (see UNDP, 2002, 2003, 2004). Education is measured by the adult literacy rate and school
enrolment
e
rates, whereas health is measured by life expectancy at birth.
The resilience index is the simple average of the four indices in the previous four columns.
246 L. Briguglio et al.

Table A2. Four country scenarios

Resilience Vulnerability Resilience Vulnerability

Country index index Country index index
Self-made Worst case
Barbados 0.741 0.717 Belizec 0.478 0.768
Costa Rica 0.609 0.436 Côte d’Ivoire 0.000 0.524
Croatiaa 0.516 0.480 Dominican Republic 0.427 0.768
Cyprus 0.526 0.840 Egypt, Arab Rep. 0.257 0.658
Estonia 0.729 0.908 Honduras 0.221 0.534
Hong Kong, China 0.877 0.713 Iran, Islamic Rep. 0.309 0.508
Iceland 1.000 0.607 Jamaica 0.420 0.922
Israel 0.630 0.443 Jordanc 0.484 0.725
Kuwait 0.661 0.731 Kenya 0.216 0.511
Latvia 0.546 0.718 Lithuaniac 0.494 0.466
Luxembourg 0.676 0.615 Madagascar 0.060 0.465
Malaysia 0.626 0.587 Nicaragua 0.107 0.578
Malta 0.663 1.000 Nigeria 0.173 0.677
Mauritiusa 0.509 0.632 Papua New Guinea 0.216 0.508
Norway 0.781 0.543 Philippines 0.353 0.485
Panamaa 0.514 0.837 Senegal 0.020 0.464
Singapore 0.974 0.971 Sri Lankad 0.328 0.415
Tunisiaa 0.521 0.426 Uganda 0.203 0.597
Trinidad and Tobago 0.603 0.533 Venezuela, RB 0.153 0.465
Best case Prodigal son
Australia 0.872 0.184 Albania 0.321 0.344
Austria 0.824 0.216 Argentina 0.350 0.100
Belgium 0.750 0.384 Bangladesh 0.136 0.313
Canada 0.905 0.117 Bolivia 0.247 0.299
Chile 0.653 0.379 Brazil 0.294 0.001
Czech Republic 0.589 0.309 Cameroona 0.188 0.397
Denmarkc 0.915 0.407 China 0.363 0.000
Finland 0.889 0.286 Colombia 0.263 0.254
France 0.675 0.129 El Salvador 0.447 0.362
Germany 0.696 0.100 India 0.301 0.201
Hungary 0.596 0.294 Indonesia 0.161 0.174
Ireland 0.845 0.371 Mexico 0.378 0.046
Italy 0.564 0.082 Morocco 0.332 0.272
Japan 0.674 0.106 Nepal 0.208 0.327
Netherlands 0.817 0.364 Pakistan 0.069 0.349
New Zealand 0.975 0.320 Paraguay 0.230 0.297
Portugal 0.680 0.242 Peru 0.403 0.242
Slovenia 0.601 0.307 Polandb 0.497 0.175
South Africad 0.505 0.147 Romania 0.336 0.206
Spain 0.663 0.250 Russian Federation 0.281 0.241
Sweden 0.780 0.208 Slovak Republica 0.494 0.357
Switzerland 0.845 0.178 Thailand 0.467 0.363
UK 0.725 0.106 Turkey 0.114 0.182
USA 0.921 0.060
Uruguayd 0.514 0.288
a

b
Borderline with worst case.
c
Borderline with best case.
d
Borderline with self-made.
Borderline with prodigal son.
 Economic Vulnerability and Resilience 247

Table A3. The Briguglio and Galea vulnerability index

Country Index Rank Country Index Rank

Albania 0.263 50 Latvia 0.550 11
Argentina 0.077 81 Lithuania 0.357 32
Australia 0.141 71 Luxembourg 0.471 18
Austria 0.166 67 Madagascar 0.356 34
Bangladesh 0.240 53 Malaysia 0.449 21
Barbados 0.549 12 Malta 0.765 1
Belgium 0.294 42 Mauritius 0.484 17
Belize 0.588 7 Mexico 0.035 85
Bolivia 0.229 56 Morocco 0.208 61
Brazil 0.001 86 Nepal 0.250 51
Cameroon 0.304 41 Netherlands 0.279 45
Canada 0.089 78 New Zealand 0.245 52
Chile 0.290 43 Nicaragua 0.442 22
China 0.000 87 Nigeria 0.518 14
Colombia 0.194 62 Norway 0.416 23
Costa Rica 0.334 37 Pakistan 0.267 49
Côte d’Ivoire 0.401 26 Panama 0.640 6
Croatia 0.368 31 Papua New Guinea 0.389 29
Cyprus 0.643 5 Paraguay 0.227 57
Czech Republic 0.236 54 Peru 0.186 64
Denmark 0.311 40 Philippines 0.371 30
Dominican Republic 0.588 8 Poland 0.134 74
Egypt, Arab Rep. 0.504 15 Portugal 0.185 65
El Salvador 0.277 47 Romania 0.158 69
Estonia 0.695 4 Russian Federation 0.184 66
Finland 0.219 60 Senegal 0.355 35
France 0.099 77 Singapore 0.743 2
Germany 0.076 82 Slovak Republic 0.273 48
Honduras 0.409 24 Slovenia 0.235 55
Hong Kong, China 0.546 13 South Africa 0.113 76
Hungary 0.225 58 Spain 0.192 63
Iceland 0.465 19 Sri Lanka 0.318 39
India 0.154 70 Sweden 0.159 68
Indonesia 0.133 75 Switzerland 0.136 73
Iran, Islamic Rep. 0.389 28 Thailand 0.278 46
Ireland 0.284 44 Trinidad and Tobago 0.408 25
Israel 0.339 36 Tunisia 0.326 38
Italy 0.062 83 Turkey 0.140 72
Jamaica 0.706 3 Uganda 0.457 20
Japan 0.081 79 UK 0.081 80
Jordan 0.555 10 USA 0.046 84
Kenya 0.391 27 Uruguay 0.221 59
Kuwait 0.560 9 Venezuela 0.356 33
Source: Briguglio & Galea (2003).