Measuring peace: A Critical Appraisal of the Global Peace Index 2010.

The fourth annual Global Peace Index was released in June 2010 with presentations in London, Washington and at the United Nations. It was published both in written form and on the website Vision for Humanity with an interactive map of the 149 countries which it ranks according to their peacefulness or lack thereof. Carrying the endorsement of many notable individuals (from the Dalai Lama through Muhammed Yunus and Jeffrey Sachs to Jimmy Carter), the GPI is the product of the Institute for Economics and Peace set up by Australian enterpreneur, Steve Killelea. It employs data collected by the Economist Intelligence Unit (yes, that is connected with The Economist) and vetted by an international panel of experts. All of this carries a great deal of credibility, of course, in certain, very significant, circles. Indeed, the GPI is intended to have an impact in those circles, as Killelea explains on his website and in the accompanying discussion paper. It aims not only to track the trends of national peacefulness but to make the crucial link between increased peacefulness and economic growth. As a point of reference, it is claimed that a twentyfive percent increase in world peacefulness would add 7.07 trillion worth of income (new and redirected) to the global economy. While this dispels the lingering myth about the importance of the military-industrial complex to the global economy, it might also raise some questions about what the real point of peace is, after all (more on that below). The connection between peace and economic growth is understandable if one reflects on the history of modern measurement indices; all of the newly emerging systems of econometric measurement are in large part a reaction to the baseline of the GDP, the measurement of the Gross Domestic Product. The GDP rose to prominence in the 1990s through the urging of the World Bank, the IMF and the EU as an international index of measurement used to rank countries according to their economic vitality (by adding together consumption, investment, government spending and imports/exports). It was criticized from the start for isolating economic data from other aspects of life and society. In response, a broader approach based on the notion of human well-being was pioneered by Robert Chambers of the Development Institute. This was formalized through the work of the Indian economist and Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen and led to the UNs now prominent instrument, Human Development Index. The HDI added life expectancy and adult literacy to GDP in order to have a more people-centred understanding of development. The result, it was hoped, would support shifts in policy by developed countries toward developing ones. There continues to be dissatisfaction with the fact that we are still measuring only material data to determine well-being when it is obvious that emotional, social and mental factors play a key role. Some have tried to expand the idea of a Gross National Happiness Index, developed first in the kingdom of Bhutan. The GNH (or other variants like the Genuine Progress Index) aim to factor in environmental, physical, mental, workplace, social, and political well-being. So far, however, all of these factors have proven much more difficult to quantify and measure--and that explains why the achievement of the Global Peace Index is, by and large, to be welcomed and acknowledged.

How well do we understand peace? For the GPI 2010, this question is not a theoretical one but a demand for research and analysis. This is because it is asking about peace not just as the absence of conflict but also, in the positive sense (defined by Johan Galtung), as a state created and maintained by structures and institutions. Yet, it is argued, the small number of peace research and study programs and their lack of integration with other major academic disciplines have so far left the question unanswered. Here, the need for the kind of analysis taken up GPI is clearly stated: peace research is poorly funded and without appropriate funding it is difficult to improve the knowledge base. There are many significant and inter-related challenges facing humanity. These challenges are global in nature. What creates peace also creates the optimum environment to solve these challenges as well as creating the additional economic wealth to fund the solutions. Therefore peace is a prerequisite for the survival of society as we know it in the 21st century. (Peace, Wealth and Human Potential, 7) The first key achievement of the GPI is its framework of analytic criteria for peacefulness or indicators. The study attempts to create a measurement of peace to determine what cultural attributes and institutions are associated with states of peace. (GPI Results Report, 4) To do this, the GPI identifies 23 indicators of the existence or absence of peace in three general categories: 1) ongoing domestic and international conflict, 2) safety and security in society, 3) and militarization. The identification of domestic and international conflict is straightforward enough. The selection of the 10 indicators for safety and security in society is, however, clearly more complex. Among theses are identifiable and perceived structural features such as respect for human rights, or political instability, level of criminality, violent crime, numbers of refugees and potential for terrorism but also such institutionalized violence reflected in the per capita proportion of incarcerations, security or police forces and homicides. Finally, there are eight indicators to identify the level of militarization in a country including levels of spending on weapons, number of troops under arms, import and export of weapons, support for UN peacekeeping, general military capability and sophistication as well as ease of access to weapons. Culling out these particular indicators of peace and not others (more on that below) is the foundation for all that follows. The complex weighting of each of these 23 factors in relation to each other, adds the next dimension of subjective assessment to the study. Finally, internal peace is weighted slightly higher than external peace (60% to 40%) on the assumption that a peaceful country is less likely to engage in external conflicts. The ranking of the 149 countries--from New Zealand (1st at 1.188) to Iraq (149th at 3.406)--is, then, really a ranking in relationship to each other. In addition to that, four years of these rankings allow for an assessment of increased/decreased peacefulness for each country. From the rankings, there follow a series of narrative analyses. There are regional analyses (Western Europe, Central/Eastern Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East/North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa, though no North America), an

analysis of the top ten and bottom ten countries and finally one of those countries with the greatest increases and decreases in peacefulness over the year. All of this leads to the second achievement of the GPI, namely an analysis which identifies the drivers for peace by correlating certain economic or social characteristics with the states of peace or violence. To do this, the GPI develops a list of 33 further economic and societal measurements (from perceptions of criminality to infant mortality) and analyzes their correlation with the states of peace/violence already identified. This complex analysis ultimately yields the summary following conclusion: peaceful societies can be described as those exhibiting very low levels of internal conflict with efficient, accountable governments, strong economies, cohesive/integrated populations and good relations within the international community.(GPI 2010, 49) This, is how well we understand peace after the GPI, as it were. Finally, there are the rankings themselves. I have postponed discussing them in order to highlight the choices within the methodologies of selection. The bottom ten countries will perhaps hold little surprise (though Israel certainly stands out in this company): North Korea (139) Congo (140), Chad (141), Georgia (142), Russia (143), Israel (144), Pakistan (145), Sudan (146), Afghanistan (147), Somalia (148) and Iraq (149), The top ten are equally unsurprising: New Zealand (1), Iceland (2), Japan (3), Austria (4), Norway (5), Ireland (6), Denmark(7) , Luxembourg (8), Finland (9), and Sweden (10). There is much more to comment on when we turn to the relative rankings of some notable countries. Germany (16) is considerably more peaceful than the UK (31) and France (32), based on the higher military adventures, arms trade and high homicide rates of the latter two. India (128) has a level of violence which is not far behind that of Kenya (121) South Africa (122) Ethiopa (127) and ranks just ahead of its war-torn neighbour, Sri Lanka (133). China (80), whose rates of execution are higher than the US or Pakistan(though not Iran, on a per capita basis) still finishes ahead of tiny Nepal (82) and the United States (85). At that ranking the US , if this is any consolation, is still well ahead of Iran (104), Mexico (107) and Saudi Arabia (108). Bhutan, the kingdom concerned with happiness, comes in at the relatively high spot of 36th. It is gratifying, indeed, to have peace in the mix of measurables on the world stage, where it is correlated with the GDP no less. Still if the GPI has crossed over bravely into the territory of real life with the tools of the econometrist, it must also be judged by the complexity of real life factors at work there. In this light, it must be said that there are some obvious and troubling omissions among the basic indicators. Violence against women and children does not appear, for example. This is an inexplicable and distorting absence, as Riane Eisler noted in 2007, and it has not been yet addressed in any subsequent GPI.i Levels of poverty are also never alluded to and yet they are clearly a systemic violence on the underside of economic growth. It would also seem that the daily struggle with hunger waged by over a billion people does not register as an indicator of violence; yet with a globalized food supply system, this cant simply be dismissed as a misfortune any longer. From another vantage, the presence of extensive, socially accepted and highly profitable media violence also passes unnoticed here; yet it

is consumed as a daily diet by millions where it clearly shapes attitudes, approaches and actions. The fact that we have created a culture of violence to entertain ourselves may be a symptom, but it is also almost certainly a cause. Would these factors change the rankings? Perhaps not, but they would bring some crucial issues of peace to the table as we look for a vision to direct the future of the planet and our life together on it. Ranking is a very modern, very western, temptation, satisfying to both our internal and public sense of progress and development. Yet there are risks in filtering the experience of peace/violence through a ranking system. Not the least of which, is that it oversimplifies both the problems and the potential solutions. The Global Peace Index has achieved a great deal by bringing the issue of peace to this level of prominence; for that reason, however, it needs to be open to an ongoing revision in the identification of the reality of peacefulness, as it emerges from experiences at the grassroots as well in the boardroom. Peace may be sustained in structures but it is most often created through a process of conflict transformation going against the grain of embedded structures of injustice. That kind of peace is a creative act of cultural self-expressionoften made against all odds. One can think of many examples of this, but few are as inspiring as that Mairead Corrigan and her impact on the troubles in Northern Ireland. That is a story still worth telling, even if it doesnt appear here. This is an enriching document and debate. I have only two caveats: it isnt always about growth economics; it cant always be captured by indicators. Oh, Canada? 14th down from 8th in 2007.
i

Eisler, Riane (July 26, 2007). "Dark underbelly of the world's most 'peaceful' countries". Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0726/p09s01-coop.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-09. As she notes, this skews the rankings for many countries where violence against women is tolerated.

Global Peace Index. 2010 METHODOLOGY, RESULTS & FINDINGS, Institute for Economics and Peace Global Peace Index. 2010 Discussion Paper: Peace, Wealth and Human Potential. Institute for Economics and Peace.