Governing non-traditional security for sustainable development: Toward a framework for public administration

Imagine the world of science as a giant, bustling city. In one neighborhood, you have the "Security District," where people usually worry about big, loud threats like armies marching across borders or spies stealing secrets. But in the last few decades, the city has started noticing a different kind of trouble. Instead of soldiers, the threats are sneaky, invisible, and spread out: a virus jumping from person to person, the weather getting too hot, food running out, or hackers stealing data. Scientists call these "Non-Traditional Security" (NTS) challenges. They are tricky because they don't wear uniforms, they cross borders easily, and they can mess up your life just as badly as an invasion.

To handle these new problems, governments need a way to check if they are doing a good job. Think of it like a school report card. For a long time, schools only graded students on math and history. But now, the school needs to grade them on teamwork, creativity, and how they handle a fire drill. The problem is, nobody had a good "report card" for these new security challenges. There were no clear rules to measure if a government was actually protecting people from climate change or pandemics. This paper steps in to build that missing report card, using a mix of expert interviews and surveys to see how well public administrators are handling these modern, messy threats.

---

The Missing Report Card for a Chaotic World

The authors of this study, a team from Vietnam National University, noticed a big gap in how we manage safety. For years, governments have been trying to deal with non-traditional security issues like climate change, food shortages, and cyberattacks. But they were flying blind. They didn't have a standardized tool to measure their success. It was like trying to bake a cake without a thermometer; you might guess it's done, but you don't really know.

The researchers wanted to create a "Non-Traditional Security Performance" (NTSP) framework. Think of this as a new, high-tech dashboard for a car. Instead of just showing speed (how fast the government is moving), this dashboard shows fuel efficiency, tire pressure, and engine health. It's designed to tell public officials exactly how well they are navigating the stormy seas of modern security threats.

Building the Tool: From Expert Opinions to a Real-World Test

To build this dashboard, the team didn't just guess. They followed a strict, step-by-step recipe used by scientists to create new measurement tools.

Step 1: Gathering the Experts
First, they needed to know what questions to ask. They invited 14 public sector managers from two provinces in Vietnam (Quang Ninh and Hai Phong) to a brainstorming session. These weren't just random people; they were experts who had taken special courses on non-traditional security. The researchers interviewed them to see what they thought were the most important threats.

• The Result: The experts agreed on a list of critical areas. They talked about things like economic stability, environmental safety, and cyber resilience. The researchers used a computer program to map out these keywords, ensuring they covered all the bases.

Step 2: Picking the Best Questions
Next, the team had to decide which questions were the most important. They asked the 14 experts to rank 14 different security goals from "least important" to "most important."

• The Filter: They used a mathematical rule to find the "consensus." If at least 75% of the experts (that's 11 out of 14 people) agreed an item was in the top 10, it stayed.
• The Cut: Four items didn't make the cut. They were removed because the experts didn't agree they were top priorities. This left a clean, focused list of 10 key items that would make up the final measurement scale.

Step 3: The Big Test
Now came the real test. The researchers took their new 10-item scale and sent it out to 583 public sector employees in those same two provinces. These weren't just any employees; over 80% of them had been working in their jobs for more than ten years, meaning they knew the system inside and out.

• The Analysis: The team ran the numbers through a statistical engine. They checked if the 10 questions were all measuring the same thing (reliability) and if they actually measured what they were supposed to (validity).

What the Numbers Say: A Strong New Tool

The results were promising. The data showed that the new framework is solid.

• One Big Picture: All 10 questions pointed to a single, unified concept of "security performance." It wasn't a jumbled mess of unrelated ideas; it was a cohesive tool.
• High Confidence: The statistical scores were high. The "reliability" score was 0.92 (where anything above 0.70 is considered excellent), and the "validity" score was 0.54 (passing the required 0.50 threshold).
• Model Fit: When they tested how well the model fit the real-world data, the scores were strong. The "fit" indices (CFI and TLI) were 0.972 and 0.959 respectively, both well above the 0.90 mark needed to say the model works.

Why This Matters: From Theory to Action

The paper suggests that this new framework is a game-changer for public administration, but it's not a magic wand that solves everything instantly. Here is what the authors propose:

1. A Better Way to Measure Success
Before this, governments might have measured their success by looking at one thing at a time, like "how many trees we planted" or "how many vaccines we gave." This new tool allows them to look at the whole picture. It helps them see if they are good at handling a mix of threats, from economic shocks to environmental disasters, all at once.

2. Understanding "Securitization"
The paper also tweaks a famous theory called "Securitization." Usually, this theory says that when a problem becomes a "security" issue, the government treats it like an emergency and uses special, extreme powers. The authors suggest there is a middle ground they call "Non-traditional securitization."

• The Analogy: Imagine a fire. "Securitization" is calling the fire department and shutting down the whole city because the fire is raging. "Non-traditional securitization" is like installing smoke detectors and fire extinguishers before the fire starts. It's about being prepared and alert without panicking. The new framework helps governments measure how well they are doing this "prevention" work.

3. Accountability and Planning
The authors argue that having a standard scorecard helps with accountability. If a government knows its score, it can see where it is weak. Maybe it's great at cyber security but terrible at food safety. With this data, they can plan better, allocate resources where they are needed, and report their progress to the public. It turns vague promises into concrete numbers.

The Limits and the Future

The paper is careful to admit it's not perfect. The study was done in Vietnam, and the participants were already quite knowledgeable about these topics because of government training. The authors suggest that if this tool is used in other countries, or with people who know less about the subject, the results might look different. They also note that the world changes fast; what is a big threat today might be different tomorrow, so the tool will need to be updated.

However, the core finding is clear: the team has successfully built and tested a new, reliable instrument. It suggests that public organizations can now measure their ability to handle complex, non-military threats in a structured way. It's a step toward moving from reacting to crises to proactively managing the safety of the future. As the authors put it, failing to plan is planning to fail, and this new report card is a crucial tool for that planning.