[Ms. Schippa] What We Can Learn From Measuring Peace
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
0 recomendaciones•441 vistas
Date: Dec. 6th 2013 Session: Interfaith Partnerships: Living For the Greater Good: The Moral Foundation for Inspiring Innovative Change Speaker: Ms. Camilla Schippa; Director, Institute for Economics and Peace, Commonwealth of Australia
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a [Ms. Schippa] What We Can Learn From Measuring Peace
Similar a [Ms. Schippa] What We Can Learn From Measuring Peace (20)
Más de GlobalPeaceFoundation
Más de GlobalPeaceFoundation (20)
Último
Último (20)
[Ms. Schippa] What We Can Learn From Measuring Peace
- 1. What We Can Learn From Measuring Peace Camilla Schippa Institute for Economics and Peace Global Peace Convention Kuala Lumpur, 6 December 2013 www.economicsandpeace.org
- 2. What do we know about PEACE? www.economicsandpeace.org
- 3. Why Measure Peace? Never been done before Peace is poorly understood Peace should and can be measured Through measuring peace its texture can be analysed Without measurement, it is hard to know whether our actions are helping or hindering us in achieving our goals www.economicsandpeace.org
- 4. Defining Peace Peace is more than the absence of war Defined peace as the “Absence of Violence” This definition allows for measurements of both internal and external peacefulness “Positive Peace” is uncovered via the correlation of other data sets and indexes www.economicsandpeace.org
- 5. The Global Peace Index Now in its seventh year Ranks 162 nations (up from 121 in 2007) According to their relative states of peace Using 22 indicators weighted on a 1-5 scale Developed by the Institute for Economics & Peace Guided and overseen by a Panel of International Experts With data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit www.economicsandpeace.org
- 6. 22 Indicators 5 measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict such as: number of conflicts fought and number of deaths from organised conflict 10 measures of societal safety and security including: number of displaced people, terrorist activity, number of homicides, number of jailed population 7 measures of militarisation such as: military expenditure, number of armed service personnel, ease of access to small weapons Overall score weighted 60% for internal peace & 40% for external peace. www.economicsandpeace.org
- 7. Global Peace Index 2013 GPI MAP www.economicsandpeace.org
- 8. Six-Year Trends 2008 - 2013 Publication Year GPI average Score Countries whose peace increased Countries whose peace decreased Countries with no score change 2008 1.958 2009 1.995 52 84 2 2010 2.025 58 83 2 2011 2.038 79 69 0 2012 2.046 73 80 0 2013 2.057 73 73 12 1 being peaceful, 5 being un-peaceful The GPI score deteriorated by 5% over the period www.economicsandpeace.org
- 9. 2008 compared to 2013 The bottom ten nations have become less peaceful, Afghanistan less peaceful in 2013 than Iraq in 2008 % of GPI countries with score in that band 18.0% Split = unequal distribution of peace 16.0% 14.0% Longer and bigger tail = less peaceful bottom ten 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.45 1.60 1.75 1.90 2.05 2.20 2.35 2.50 2.65 GPI scorings bands --- 2008 www.economicsandpeace.org --- 2013 2.80 2.95 3.10 3.25 3.40 3.55 3.70 3.85 4.00
- 10. The fall in global peacefulness is largely driven by changes in internal peacefulness Internal Overall External 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Global Peace Index Score - 2008 to 2013, increases in score reflect decrease in peace www.economicsandpeace.org
- 11. Number of deaths from organised internal conflict have significantly increased 2007 World Total Number of Deaths from Internal Conflict 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 37,269 114,705 112,999 96,009 128,178 178,287 Source: IISS Armed Conflict Database; EIU data, www.economicsandpeace.org
- 12. The Pillars of Peace “The attitudes, institutions and structures that encourage and sustain a peaceful society” www.economicsandpeace.org
- 13. The Pillars of Peace The attitudes, institutions and structures that sustain a peaceful society Analysed over 4,700 variables covering: The macro-economy; o Social relationships and attitudes; o Economic and social development; o Economic and social integration; o The functioning and structure of government. o www.economicsandpeace.org
- 14. The Pillars of Peace www.economicsandpeace.org
- 15. Positive Peace 2013 Positive Peace Index Indicators INSERT MAP www.economicsandpeace.org
- 16. Negative Peace versus Positive Peace www.economicsandpeace.org
- 17. Weak Pillars = Greater Vulnerability Big fallers with positive peace deficits in 2008: Syria Rwanda Madagascar Egypt www.economicsandpeace.org
- 18. Global Monetary Value of Peace IEP has developed a methodology to calculate the: - Global Cost of Violence Containment The economic activity that is related to the consequences or prevention of violence where the violence is directed against people or property. www.economicsandpeace.org
- 19. Global Monetary Value of Peace Estimated to be US$9.46 trillion or 11% of Gross World Product in 2012 US$25 billion per day US$1,300 per person, per year www.economicsandpeace.org
- 20. Violence Containment is larger than… www.economicsandpeace.org
- 21. Virtuous Cycle of Reducing Violence and Violence Containment Spending www.economicsandpeace.org
Notas del editor
- We are here at a peace conference, we use the word peace commonly, in all our languages, in our daily lives, yet, what do we really know about peace?Most used word, yet not a clear definition, means different things to diff people. Not germane to any uni course, no course on the literature of peace yet there are profound works, no peace eco in business schools yet…history of peace…P&C centres, yet study conflictUN exampleAnalogy with medical science
- Peace is poorly understoodWithout measurement how can we know if our actions are helping or hindering the achievement of our goal?-IEP wants to strip the word of its utopian connotations and make it an achievable policy objective.
- Negative peace is the conceptual foundation of the GPI, the definition in the Global Peace Index is ‘absence of violence’ and ‘absence of fear of violence’. positive peace is more about measuring what we want rather what we don’t want. I will discuss later how we have determined this. Positive peace index is derived through statistical analysis of the structures, attitudes and institutions which are associated with violence or negative peace.
- 99% popTriumvirate for independencethe Global Peace Index (GPI) was developed as one of the first serious attempts to measure the relative level and position of nations’ and regions’ peacefulness. Defining peace as the absence of violence, it is necessary to use a composite index to measure peace as direct violence, and its potential, is expressed in different social, political and economic forms. Peacefulness cannot be directly observed so its magnitudes have to be estimated.
- Indicators are qualitative and quantitative
- Despite the world having a higher degree of peace today than at any time in the past centuries, there is cause for concern which makes conventions and forums such as this ne ever more important. We have registered a 5% decrease in wrld peace over the last 6 years.
- GPI helps us understand global trends, looking at the distribution of the GPI scores since 2008 peace has become more dispersed there is unequal spread of peace towards the top and there is a longer tail as the bottom ten have become less peaceful To illustrate Afghanistan is less peaceful in 2013 than Iraq in 2008 and Syria largest fall in history of GPI, less peaceful than Iraq in 2008. Other bottom ten countries, Somalia, DRC and Rwanda are less peaceful according to the GPI in 2013 than in 2008.
- Peace of course is about much more than the absence of violence, It is important to highlight that trends in conflict (and so the GPI) show short- term deterioration or progress, but do not help identify an ability of a country to become more resilient or develop the institutional capacity to resist and recover from political, economic, environmental or social shocks.However, it is thanks to the comprehensive base of data that GPI provides that we have been able to statistically analyse the key institutions and factors that are associated with countries that are more peaceful as measured by the GPI. What are those characteristics, be they formal or informal institutions, that support peace in the long term?
- Norms, formal informal institutions, believes, To capture the multidimensional aspect of peaceThe only empirically derived statistical taxonomy of the elements that sustain peace
- So with our 7 years of GPI data we have now been able to empirically derive an 8 part taxonomy which describe the institutions, attitudes, and structures which shape a peaceful society. Importantly it is attempting to account for both formal and informal institutions and behaviours. This approach emphasises Positive peace is multidimensional – this means it isn’t determined by just one factor. It is dependent on a variety of factors. They are Interdependent, and do not describe causality, rather a holistic set of factors necessary for a society to resolve conflict in mutually beneficial and peaceful ways. Good relations with neighbours – be their individuals, communities or statesA well functioning government – rule of law, gov effectiveness, governance as well as accountabilityAn equitable distribution of resources – not just income distribution but also edu, health..The free flow of information A sound business environment – is crucial to peace, provides employment, and in turn taxation baseHigh levels of human capital – a country’s stock of skills, knowledge and behaviours The acceptance of the rights of others; - both formal and informal institutions that ensure ensure basic rights and freedoms, norms on behaviour of citizens, tolerance between different groups be they ethnic, religious or linguistic, socio economicLow levels of corruption
- Those countries which tended to score more favourably in terms of ‘Positive Peace’ also tended to be those who scored favourably in terms of the Global Peace Index.Where there were large differences between a country’s potential for peace (as measured by the PPI) and actual peace (as measured by the GPI) it is said there is a ‘peace deficit’.Data challenges are significant, There is a significant lack of data, many of the most vulnerable countries lack national average data on the most elementary metrics; You need to measure formal and informal institutions to account for it; 36 key countries missing
- By comparing negative peace to positive peace we can identify ‘peace deficits’. Correlating GPI versus PPI we can see the relationship between the absence of violence and positive peace or institutional capacity.Countries in the blue area tend to be more resilient, they tend to be higher income, full democracies, although there are some exceptions with some hybrid regimes like Qatar quite close to the blue area. Red area shows countries in a vicious cycle of high levels of violence and poor institutional capacity. Countries above the red line score worse on positive peace indicating they have poor institutional capacity in relation to their relative level of violence, These are Laos, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Mozambique.
- Same chart, but over time. We can see movement over past 6 years and it becomes clear that those countries with lower level of positive peace have shown grater vulnerability. A red line indicates an increase in violence.We can see countries which tend to rank lower on positive peace experience more volatility in terms of their relative levels of violence, as can be seen many long arrows showing large rank changes. Countries that improve significantly are usually bouncing back after the end of a conflict. Correlating Negative Peace against Positive Peace highlights areas where a lack of violence might be illusory, or where current violence may be short term.-Thus, indicators can provide a metric not only of short term progress, but long term development.
- What’s been the impact of this increased violence. We know that violence impact social and economic. Something that we do each year is to look at the economic impact of this violence. By counting the economic activity that is related to the consequences or prevention of violence. IEP defines violence containment spending as economic activity that is related to the consequences or prevention of violence where the violence is directed against people or property.Aim to assess the violence industry in the same way we do with the health industry. Only counts direct costs. if someone sets fire to a school and the school burns down, the direct costs are the bricks/mortar, labor to rebuild in a year, indirect costs such as lost wages of the teachers who are not working are NOT counted. What doesn’t count:Other questions regarding some difficult-to-measure direct costs include: How do you account for the pain and suffering of the physically and mentally injured?population displacementlower current and future physical investmentreduction in educational opportunitiesbrain drain (that is, emigration of educated work force)reduced tourism from abroadother macroeconomic effects (inflation, further unemployment, reduced economic growth)overall welfare costs
- VCI – last year, we did a much more detailed study of the US. Which found that it was 15%, given stock of data. VC in the US equals the size of the entire UK economy!If policymakers dedicated the same amount of time to the violence crisis as they have to the economic crisis…the payoff would be huge!A loss of a percentage point of GDP is little when compared to the cost that violence imposes on people, their families, communities, businesses, governments and, ultimately, their economies.
- What we see when we look at that 9/46 trillion is that it is bigger than the world agriculture sector, tourism and airline industry put together so it is a useful way to illustrate not just the social imperative but economic imperative of peace
- We are not saying that we do not need to spend some resources on VC. Of course we do. But what is the appropriate amount? Consider this: We are spending money unproductively and peace is a tangible and measurable way to conceptualize the allocation of funds more efficiently. If policy-makers focused on improving access to education, economic, and health opportunity (as we saw from the Pop analysis), it would lead to savings in violence-related expenditures. Investing those savings back into education, health, jobs and infrastructure would lead to increased opportunity, productivity, and violence reduction, ultimately lowering the need for spending on violence containment. More efficient allocation of violence containment Better accounting and assessment for how VCI is being spent and looking at more efficient ways of containing violence.