Measuring Peace Beyond Violence
•
1 like•1,298 views
The document discusses measuring peace and introduces the Positive Peace Index, which aims to understand the drivers of peace beyond just the absence of violence. It summarizes that the Positive Peace Index measures eight pillars of peace: well-functioning government, sound business environment, equitable distribution of resources, acceptance of rights of others, good relations with neighbors, free flow of information, high levels of human capital, and low levels of corruption. The document presents the indicators used to measure each pillar and introduces maps showing the results of the Positive Peace Index for countries.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Measuring Peace Beyond Violence
Similar to Measuring Peace Beyond Violence (20)
More from Geneva Declaration
More from Geneva Declaration (20)
Measuring Peace Beyond Violence
- 1. Camilla Schippa Institute for Economics and Peace FROM MEASURING NEGATIVE PEACE TO UNDERSTANDING POSITIVE PEACE
- 2. WHY DO WE MEASURE PEACE? • Shift focus from conflict to peace as the drivers of peace are poorly understood - they are not necessarily the opposite of the drivers of violence • Peace is multidimensional and the absence of violence and fear of violence are represented in different cultural, political and economic forms • Data advocacy
- 3. 22 INDICATORS OF PEACE Number of conflicts fought Number of deaths from organized conflict (external) Number of deaths from organized conflict (internal) Level of organized conflict Relations with neighbouring countries Political Terror Scale Number of homicides Level of violent crime Likelihood of violent demonstratio ns Number of people in jail Number of police and security office Level of perceived criminality Number of refugees and displaced people Political instability Volume of conventional weapons imports Volume of conventional weapons exports Financial contribution to UN peacekeepin g missions Nuclear and heavy weapons Ease of access to small arms and light weapons Military expenditure as a % of GDP Number of armed service personnel Domestic and international conflict Societal safety and security Militarisation
- 4. GPI MAP GLOBAL PEACE INDEX 2013 Report and maps: VisionofHumanity.org
- 5. DISTRIBUTION OF GPI SCORES, 2008 COMPARED TO 2013 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.45 1.60 1.75 1.90 2.05 2.20 2.35 2.50 2.65 2.80 2.95 3.10 3.25 3.40 3.55 3.70 3.85 4.00 %ofGPIcountrieswithscoreinthatband GPI scorings bands 2008 2013 Longer and bigger tail = less peaceful bottom ten Split = unequal distribution of peace The bottom ten nations have become less peaceful, Afghanistan less peaceful in 2013 than Iraq in 2008
- 6. PEACE, MDGS AND DEVELOPMENT Iraq Haiti Guinea-Bissau Montenegro Liberia Kenya Burundi Papua New Guinea UkraineTanzania Zimbabwe Gabon Somalia Central African Republic Democratic Republic of the CongoCote d'Ivoire Afghanistan Libya -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.3 MDGProgressScore2010-2011 2008 Global Peace Index Bottom 18 MDG Progress Score vs. Internal Peace r = -0.62
- 7. THE PILLARS OF PEACE THE ATTITUDES, INSTITUTIONS AND STRUCTURES THAT SUSTAIN A PEACEFUL SOCIETY High levels of human capital Peace & Resilience Acceptance of the rights of others Low levels of corruption Free flow of information Sound business environment Well functioning government Good relations with neighbors Equitable distribution of resources
- 8. POSITIVE PEACE INDEX indicators PPI Domain PPI Indicator Weighting Source Well-Functioning Government Government effectiveness 5% World Governance Indicators, World Bank Rule of law 5% World Governance Indicators, World Bank Political culture 5% Sub-Index, Democracy Index, Economist Intelligence Unit Sound Business Environment Ease of doing business 4% Ease of Doing Business Index, World Bank Economic freedom 4% Heritage Foundation Gdp per capita 4% World Bank Equitable Distribution of Resources Life expectancy index loss 4% Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme Gini coefficient 2% Economist Intelligence Unit Population living below $2/day 5% World Bank, IEP Acceptance of the Rights of Others Hostility to foreigners 3% Economist Intelligence Unit Empowerment index 4% Cignarelli-Richards Human Rights Dataset Gender inequality 4% Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme Good Relations with Neighbours Satisfaction with community 3% Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme Regional integration 4% Economist Intelligence Unit Intergroup cohesion 5% Indices for Social Development, International Institute for Social Studies Free Flow of Information Freedom of the press index 4% Freedom House World press freedom index 4% Reporters without borders Mobile phones subs per 1000 3% International Telecommunications Union High levels of human capital Youth development index 4% Commonwealth Secretariat Non income HDI 4% Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme Number of scientific publications 4% World Bank and UNDP Low Levels of Corruption Control of corruption 5% World Governance Indicators, World Bank Factionalised elites 5% Fund for Peace Perceptions of corruption 5% Transparency International
- 9. Positive Peace Index Indicators INSERT MAP POSITIVE PEACE INDEX 2013
- 10. Negative Peace versus Positive Peace
- 11. Low Positive Peace = Vulnerability Big fallers with positive peace deficits in 2008: Syria Rwanda Madagascar Egypt Rank change 2008-2013
Editor's Notes
- We work to uncover the drivers of peace and the economic benefits of peace. We aim to shift the focus from conflict to peace because we believe that what leads to peace is not necessarily the opposite of what leads to violence (just like psychology studies have shown causes of divorce have nothing to do with happy marriages). We consider peace a multidimensional phenomenon – so not just embodied in one factor: the homicide rate, violent crime rate or number of violent demonstrations alone, do not explain it. We are also advocates for new indicators and better data – especially within the post-2015 debate. We cannot limit our development goals by what has been measured to date, we need to identify what we want and need to measure.
- GPI is truly a measure of negative peace – it measures the absence of violence and fear of violence. The index uses 22 indicators to cover the spectrum of violence: interpersonal conflict, violence related to crime, fear of violence, state violence, potential for violence (political instability), interstate violence etc.Helps raise awareness internationally
- GPI not only measures so many different types of violence, but importantly it also combines them into a composite measure. We have found that this measure more closely correlates with other development indicators than single measures of violence alone. The 2013 index was released only about 2 weeks ago. I will not present this year findings and results, only 2 slides to show you the kind of things it can tell us
- Help us understand global trends, looking at the distribution of the GPI scores since 2008 we can see peace has become more dispersed. There is an unequal spread of peace towards the top and there is a longer tail as the bottom ten countries have become less peaceful. Other bottom ten countries, Somalia, DRC and Rwanda are less peaceful according to the GPI in 2013 than in 2008.
- Helps prove the point that not only is eradication of physical violence and building peace a fundamental part of human wellbeing and progress it is significantly associated with progress in development. It also shows Violence is a continuum that affects all development contexts, low, middle and high income.
- 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.Using the comprehensive base of data that GPI provides we can statistically analyse the key institutions and factors that are associated with countries that are more peaceful. Taking the available stock of data that on formal and informal institutions IEP has developed a framework to think about the key factors associated with negative peace or absence of violence over the long term.The aim is to measure the existence of positive states. These were developed by IEP as a taxonomy to understand, attempt to capture the multidimensional nature of the institutions which shape peace. They are Interdependent, and do not describe causality, rather a holistic set of factors.
- From this framework we have developed a measure that takes into account the key multidimensional drivers of violence which is the positive peace index. It helps us understand longer term resilience and capacity building, in 126 nations. with 24 indicators in 8 domains. Using publically available sourcesThis index stands in contrast to the GPI as it measures the attitudes, institutions and structures associated with peace. Also importantly we try to aggregate as much of the available perception and informal data available in order to try and capture informal institutions of trust and norms around acceptances of the rights of others and good relations with neighbours.
- Darker blue indicates stronger institutional capacityMuch less movement, so change is much slower on PPI than GPI. Positive peace improved 1.7% from 2005 to 2010. Institutional Capacity develops slowly over time, scores move slowly.Data challenges- 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.Simply, countries with less internal violence will tend to have more equitable distribution of resources, lower levels of corruption, greater acceptance of the rights of others and better business environments. 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.
- 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.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.