Preventing governance breakdown in the EU’s southern neighbourhood: fostering resilience to strengthen security perceptions

Figures & data

Figure 1. Limited statehood in Libya and Tunisia. Source: Author’s illustration. Based on statehood data by Stollenwerk and Opper, The Governance and Limited Statehood Dataset.

Figure 2. Order contestation in Libya and Tunisia. Source: Author’s illustration. Based on ACLED data for protests and riots, https://acleddata.com.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics Libya and Tunisia.

	Libya					Tunisia
Variables	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Personal security	991	0.313	0.464	0	1	569	0.589	0.492	0	1
Country security	991	0.258	0.438	0	1	569	0.418	0.494	0	1
State legitimacy	991	2.222	1.077	1	4	569	2.682	0.969	1	4
EU legitimacy	991	1.656	0.956	1	4	569	1.991	1.046	1	4
Social trust	991	0.352	0.478	0	1	569	0.306	0.461	0	1
Limited statehood	991	32.46	34.91	0	89	569	2.022	3.814	0	24
Order contestation	991	11.77	9.455	0.333	26.67	569	26.46	29.37	0	94.33
Democratic input-mechanisms	991	1.862	0.927	1	4	569	2.822	0.928	1	4
Procedural justice	991	1.738	0.870	1	4	569	1.772	0.796	1	4
Economic well-being	991	1.981	0.965	1	4	569	2.232	0.759	1	4
Education	991	2.893	1.109	1	4	569	3.764	0.497	1	4
Female (ref. male)	991	0.149	0.357	0	1	569	0.355	0.479	0	1
Age^a	991	1.912	1.013	1	5	569	33.56	9.228	19	71

Source: Author’s illustration.

^a Please note that for Tunisia the survey includes data for the exact age in years. For Libya the survey includes data for age groups respondents placed themselves in. These were 1 = 16 – 25, 2 = 26 – 35, 3 = 36 – 45, 4 = 46 – 55, 5 = 56 and older.

Figure 3. Resilience in Libya and Tunisia. Source: Author’s illustration.

Table 2. Multilevel models Tunisia and Libya.

	Tunisia		Libya
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
	Personal Security	Country Security	Personal Security	Country Security
Resilience
State legitimacy	0.282**	0.923***	0.645***	0.684***
	(0.105)	(0.127)	(0.097)	(0.108)
EU legitimacy	−0.116	0.043	0.008	0.190*
	(0.091)	(0.104)	(0.086)	(0.094)
Social trust	0.059	0.484*	0.205	0.456*
	(0.204)	(0.223)	(0.186)	(0.199)
Risks
Limited statehood	0.096	0.133*	−0.006	−0.013
	(0.055)	(0.057)	(0.017)	(0.013)
Order contestation	−0.009**	−0.012***	0.039	0.043
	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.065)	(0.050)
Control variables
Democratic input-mechanisms	0.232*	0.225	0.059	0.658***
	(0.106)	(0.121)	(0.102)	(0.110)
Procedural justice	−0.007	0.408**	0.070	0.526***
	(0.130)	(0.140)	(0.114)	(0.125)
Economic well-being	0.330*	0.160	0.507***	0.279*
	(0.131)	(0.146)	(0.099)	(0.109)
Education	−0.080	0.084	0.022	0.117
	(0.183)	(0.205)	(0.087)	(0.105)
Female (ref. male)	−0.376*	−0.954***	−0.654*	−0.605*
	(0.190)	(0.222)	(0.269)	(0.306)
Age	0.003	−0.011	0.384***	−0.110
	(0.010)	(0.011)	(0.089)	(0.099)
N	569	569	991	991
No. of Governorates/Shabiyas	24	24	21	21

Source: Author’s illustration.

Figure 4. Comparing aspects of (in-)security in Libya and Tunisia. Source: Author’s illustration. Note: Violent event and deaths data come from ACLED for the year 2019. The data for perceptions of (in-)security come from the original surveys in Libya and Tunisia evaluated in this study. The right hand y-axis shows the percentages of individuals feeling insecurity and the left hand y-axis absolute counts of violent events/deaths.

Figure 5. Analysing security perceptions in Tunisia. Source: Author’s illustration.

Figure 6. Analysing security perceptions in Libya. Source: Author’s illustration.