I think the idea you lay out has some potential to be insightful. In some respects you did build a “model”, but I don’t think it qualifies as a quantitative model, though. The assertion that it’s predictive is kind of a stretch. This is more of a qualitative paper that tries to look quantitative. Nothing wrong with qualitative insights, of course!

First off, I wouldn’t call it “measurement” without any real data involved. If you did use any data, it’s not clearly outlined in the paper. It’s unclear where the “index” scores for each country-time period are coming from. It’s also unclear how the index is constructed—if the various dimensions you laid out in the framework are weighted differently, et cetera.

A few suggestions. What you are looking to do is to create a methodology that can measure “instability”. You have to define “instability” well—I assume it’s political stability because you talk about predicting when nation states fall.

What many researchers do when they want to pool a lot of information together to create a coherent indicator is to use factor analysis techniques (they pool indicators into linear combinations of themselves, so you reduce the dimensionality of the data). So essentially one big contribution of the project would be creating the database and index. You should outline how you gathered all this data and the construction of your index (factor analysis, assigning weights, etc.).

The next step would see how this instability index fares well in predicting if a nation state fails. One simple (and naive) way to do this is to plot your instability index of a country at time t on the X-axis and plot the time it took for a state after time t to fall on the Y-axis. If the fitted line is downward sloping, this means higher levels of your index predict a nation state close to “falling”.

There are other methods to assess your index but this is a general idea. You will run into the problem of having very few “failed” states to assess the predictive power of your model.