Each year, the Institute for Economics and Peace releases the Global Peace Index, which determines numerical rankings of peacefulness between nations around the globe. The Index is based on three main determinants, of which there are many subcategories: the level of safety and security in the society, the extent of domestic or international conflict, and the degree of militarization. Beyond that, the nations are ranked according to 22 quantitative and qualitative assessments of peace, including weapons imports and exports, levels of organized conflict, incarceration rates, and the number of armed service personnel occupying a nation, among many others.
The 2014 Global Peace Index finds Iceland, Denmark, Austria, and New Zealand as the world’s most peaceful nations, while Zambia, Haiti, Argentina, and Chad are some of the least peaceful and “most likely to deteriorate in peace in the next two years,” according to the Index’s media release, which includes their use of new statistical modeling techniques to identify burgeoning unrest with a 90 percent accuracy. Key indicators of change in the development or destruction of peace include the rise or fall in homicide rates, violent crime, access to small arms, and terrorist activity, among many others.
The Index notes that 7 of the 10 most peaceful nations globally are in Europe, while the 5 least peaceful countries in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. This year, Georgia showed the largest improvement in peace levels, falling 0.272 in its Index level (where lower number implies a more peaceful nation), while South Sudan showed the largest global fall in peace over the year, with its Index level rising 0.795, bringing it to the rank of third least peaceful nation in the world after Syria and Afghanistan. This loss in peace can be attributed to the nation’s armed resistance to the young sovereign state in late 2013, resulting in the beginnings of a civil war that has persisted into 2014. Similarly, Egypt has seen widespread protests, coups and reform elections over the last few years, and because of such, have held a place of distinct volatility in the Peace Index.
In the seven years the Global Peace Index has been compiled, organizers have noticed some evolving trends: the largest decreases have been in the societal safety and security category, with noticeable decreases in the amount of homicides and instances of personal violence. No change in global militarization score has been seen; some countries have been gradually reducing militarization while others have increased their use of military force and balanced the unchanging statistical trends observed. The globe has also seen an ongoing deterioration in global peacefulness; over seven years, the Institute has observed a steady rise in the number of instances of terrorist activity and homicides. The data also shows that 53 countries have seen their Index score improve over the course of the seven years, while 103 countries have become less peaceful.
The Index also notes that the economic repercussions of political unrest continually hurt the global economy, with the consequences of violence in 2013 reaching USD 9.8 trillion, according to the Index’s highlights. The economic impact of global unrest equates to roughly 11 percent of global GDP and USD 1,350 per person. Periods of limited economic growth are statistically followed by higher levels of violence, which in turn futher limits growth and creates a feedback loop of developmental stagnation. According to Steve Killelea, the founder of the Institute for Economics and Peace, research has shown that peace is unlikely to flourish without a deep commitment to structural stability and a willingness to reform; however, we are just beginning to see that these are required prerequisites for economic development as well.
At the 2014 Global Peace Index Release on June 18th, the Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted a panel with key members of the Institute for Economics and Peace that contributed to the work done for this year’s Global Peace Index, including Robert D. Lamb, Gary J. Milante, Paul B. Stares, Alexandra I. Toma, and Aubrey Fox. The group spoke to the importance of the Index and its ability to raise global awareness for conflict regions. The organization hopes to channel this more successfully into practical action, but questions how success can be measured without clearly defined goals to “peacefulness”—which can mean something different for every nation—still exist.
The group also distinguished some difficulties that arise through these statistics. The panel noted the fundamental limitations of a “Peace Index,” stating that, at times, a single numerical value representing the entirety of a nation’s peacefulness can be an issue. Aggregating data at an annual interval can also prove problematic for nations in flux and can also be seen as a limitation of the Index. The ambiguity of a single definition for the word “peace” across many cultural boundaries also leads to some confusion.
However, David Hammond concluded in the Q&A portion of the panel that the Institute for Economics & Peace has worked with anthropologists based in the Netherlands to work with other cultures directly to find cultural consistencies to define peace, though it was unclear the extent of their work at this point. For example, some nations, like the United States—ranked at a shocking 101 out of 162 of peaceful nations—have a high standard of living, high GDP, and are ultimately some of the most developed nations in the world. The low level of peace seen can be attributed to their involvement in international wars and their high incarceration rate—outliers that do not necessarily equate with peace in a conventional sense. Developed nations that fit the “world’s police” role (chiefly the United States) do not fit well into the categories under which the Global Peace Index judges.
Ultimately, the Global Peace Index brings to light the weaknesses in our global system in creating more sustainable peace, but quantifying peace is not always easy or totally accurate.
Photo: Ross Pollack (cc).
a global affairs media network
Quantifying World Peace: Peacefulness Levels Continue to Fall
August 21, 2014
Each year, the Institute for Economics and Peace releases the Global Peace Index, which determines numerical rankings of peacefulness between nations around the globe. The Index is based on three main determinants, of which there are many subcategories: the level of safety and security in the society, the extent of domestic or international conflict, and the degree of militarization. Beyond that, the nations are ranked according to 22 quantitative and qualitative assessments of peace, including weapons imports and exports, levels of organized conflict, incarceration rates, and the number of armed service personnel occupying a nation, among many others.
The 2014 Global Peace Index finds Iceland, Denmark, Austria, and New Zealand as the world’s most peaceful nations, while Zambia, Haiti, Argentina, and Chad are some of the least peaceful and “most likely to deteriorate in peace in the next two years,” according to the Index’s media release, which includes their use of new statistical modeling techniques to identify burgeoning unrest with a 90 percent accuracy. Key indicators of change in the development or destruction of peace include the rise or fall in homicide rates, violent crime, access to small arms, and terrorist activity, among many others.
The Index notes that 7 of the 10 most peaceful nations globally are in Europe, while the 5 least peaceful countries in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. This year, Georgia showed the largest improvement in peace levels, falling 0.272 in its Index level (where lower number implies a more peaceful nation), while South Sudan showed the largest global fall in peace over the year, with its Index level rising 0.795, bringing it to the rank of third least peaceful nation in the world after Syria and Afghanistan. This loss in peace can be attributed to the nation’s armed resistance to the young sovereign state in late 2013, resulting in the beginnings of a civil war that has persisted into 2014. Similarly, Egypt has seen widespread protests, coups and reform elections over the last few years, and because of such, have held a place of distinct volatility in the Peace Index.
In the seven years the Global Peace Index has been compiled, organizers have noticed some evolving trends: the largest decreases have been in the societal safety and security category, with noticeable decreases in the amount of homicides and instances of personal violence. No change in global militarization score has been seen; some countries have been gradually reducing militarization while others have increased their use of military force and balanced the unchanging statistical trends observed. The globe has also seen an ongoing deterioration in global peacefulness; over seven years, the Institute has observed a steady rise in the number of instances of terrorist activity and homicides. The data also shows that 53 countries have seen their Index score improve over the course of the seven years, while 103 countries have become less peaceful.
The Index also notes that the economic repercussions of political unrest continually hurt the global economy, with the consequences of violence in 2013 reaching USD 9.8 trillion, according to the Index’s highlights. The economic impact of global unrest equates to roughly 11 percent of global GDP and USD 1,350 per person. Periods of limited economic growth are statistically followed by higher levels of violence, which in turn futher limits growth and creates a feedback loop of developmental stagnation. According to Steve Killelea, the founder of the Institute for Economics and Peace, research has shown that peace is unlikely to flourish without a deep commitment to structural stability and a willingness to reform; however, we are just beginning to see that these are required prerequisites for economic development as well.
At the 2014 Global Peace Index Release on June 18th, the Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted a panel with key members of the Institute for Economics and Peace that contributed to the work done for this year’s Global Peace Index, including Robert D. Lamb, Gary J. Milante, Paul B. Stares, Alexandra I. Toma, and Aubrey Fox. The group spoke to the importance of the Index and its ability to raise global awareness for conflict regions. The organization hopes to channel this more successfully into practical action, but questions how success can be measured without clearly defined goals to “peacefulness”—which can mean something different for every nation—still exist.
The group also distinguished some difficulties that arise through these statistics. The panel noted the fundamental limitations of a “Peace Index,” stating that, at times, a single numerical value representing the entirety of a nation’s peacefulness can be an issue. Aggregating data at an annual interval can also prove problematic for nations in flux and can also be seen as a limitation of the Index. The ambiguity of a single definition for the word “peace” across many cultural boundaries also leads to some confusion.
However, David Hammond concluded in the Q&A portion of the panel that the Institute for Economics & Peace has worked with anthropologists based in the Netherlands to work with other cultures directly to find cultural consistencies to define peace, though it was unclear the extent of their work at this point. For example, some nations, like the United States—ranked at a shocking 101 out of 162 of peaceful nations—have a high standard of living, high GDP, and are ultimately some of the most developed nations in the world. The low level of peace seen can be attributed to their involvement in international wars and their high incarceration rate—outliers that do not necessarily equate with peace in a conventional sense. Developed nations that fit the “world’s police” role (chiefly the United States) do not fit well into the categories under which the Global Peace Index judges.
Ultimately, the Global Peace Index brings to light the weaknesses in our global system in creating more sustainable peace, but quantifying peace is not always easy or totally accurate.
Photo: Ross Pollack (cc).
