How Good Data Can Help Build World Peace
By Steve Killelea, Founder and Executive Chairman of the Institute for Economics and Peace
The world has witnessed a historic decline in world peace over the past decade that interrupts the long-term improvements since the Second Word War.
This trend is largely driven by the intensifying conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa. Terrorism is at an all-time high, battle deaths from conflict are at a 25-year high, and the number of refugees and displaced people are at a level not seen in sixty years. Notably, the sources for these three dynamics are intertwined and driven by a small number of countries, demonstrating the global repercussions of breakdowns in peacefulness.
So intense is the current concentration of violence and conflict in the Middle East that it drags down the global average. When considered separately, the rest of the world’s average peace levels actually improved. Many countries are at record-high levels of peacefulness, while the bottom twenty countries have progressively become much less peaceful, increasing the levels of global inequality in peace.
This striking data comes from the latest edition of the Global Peace Index, produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), which I founded. Our aim is to provide the world with the research, data and insight required to inform decisions we take to secure a more peaceful future.
Measuring peace is, of course, a difficult task. However, thanks to the Global Peace Index, now in its tenth year, we have solid quantitative analysis that can shed light on the questions of whether we are becoming more or less peaceful, and what are the underlying factors that help maintain peace.
For example, our research shows that, amidst the global deterioration, the world continues to spend enormous resources on creating and containing violence but comparatively little on promoting peace. The economic impact of violence in 2015 was estimated at $13.6 trillion, or 13.3 per cent of world GDP. Of this amount, the economic losses caused by armed conflict amount to $742 billion. The corresponding global investment in peacekeeping and peacebuilding was around $15 billion — or less than 2 per cent of the economic losses from conflict.
The economic impact of violence in 2015 was estimated at $13.6 trillion, or 13.3 per cent of world GDP. Of this amount, the economic losses caused by armed conflict amount to $742 billion.
I believe that the key to reversing the global decline is through support for Positive Peace, a holistic framework made up of eight pillars which together create an optimum environment for human potential to flourish. Derived from a statistical analysis of over 4,000 datasets, we identified pillars for peace — including well-functioning government, low levels of corruption, equitable distribution of resources and free flow of information — and established three indicators in each category. This provides a baseline measure of the effectiveness of a country’s institutions and attitudes to build and maintain peace. It also provides a measure for policymakers, researchers and corporations to use for monitoring and evaluation efforts.
Many of the challenges facing humanity are fundamentally global in nature, such as climate change, decreasing biodiversity, continued economic instability and increasing migration. All of these challenges are interconnected and multifaceted, requiring new ways of conceptualising the relations between countries and the larger systems upon which humanity depends. We need to use systems thinking, as it has developed in the study of ecology, and consider how it applies to nation states.
As part of this effort, the Institute for Economics and Peace has also conducted an audit of the available data to measure the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) related to the promotion of peace, justice and strong institutions, SDG16. For the first time, UN member states have formally recognised the critical nature of peacefulness in advancing the global development agenda, alongside issues like poverty, inequality, and climate change. We believe that SDG 16 incorporates key aspects of both Negative Peace, which is defined as “the absence of violence and the fear of violence”, as well as Positive Peace, which is defined as “the attitudes, institutions and structures that support and sustain peaceful societies”.
At the IEP, we found that measuring Goal 16 presents a number of methodological concerns. In the spirit of the SDGs being country-led, the intention is for many of the measurements to be guided by National Statistical Offices. However, national statistical data is non-existent for many of the targets and indicators. In addition, the majority of targets in Goal 16 face potential conflicts of interest in measurement by the state. We recommend that independent third-party organisations provide complementary support to the national offices, and offer a useful benchmark against which to compare results. We have joined the SDG16 Data Initiative, which brings together a coalition of well-respected international organisations that will collaborate to identify information gaps and useful alternative data sources in SDG16 target areas.
Thanks to data and research, we can develop better informed analyses and insights on peace — enabling more intelligent, focused action to reverse the terrible recent trend toward more deadly conflict.
Measuring Goal 16 is not an easy task, but it is one that injects accountability into an otherwise elusive yet coveted ambition for the world. This is a serious challenge that needs greater investment and levels of cooperation.
Thanks to data and research, we can develop better informed analyses and insights on peace — enabling more intelligent, focused action to reverse the terrible recent trend toward more deadly conflict.
This article represents the view of the individual writer, not that of International Crisis Group or of its Board.
