View previous stories
	The economics of peace (and war) by Talia Hagerty DW, Institute for Economics and Peace   How much better off would the world be if it stopped preparing for war and invested in peace instead? We asked a researcher with the Institute for Economics and Peace. The answer, expressed in dollars, is staggering.   DW: How much does war and armed violence cost per year?   Talia Hagerty: We''ve quantified the economic impact of violence on the global economy. What we found is that in 2016, the direct and indirect costs of violence amounted to about $14.3 trillion (12.2 trillion euros), including multiplier effects.   This number includes not only the costs of war, but also of other forms of violence, like terrorism, homicides and violent crimes.   How do you calculate the costs of war?   When a soldier is injured in war, there are direct costs, such as his or her medical care, and indirect costs like lost lifetime wages if he or she is disabled. But there''s more. Suppose it cost $100,000 to treat a wounded soldier, who loses five years of wages from inability to work, amounting to another $250,000. That''s not the whole cost because that money could have been spent on something productive, something that adds value.   When you manufacture a bomb, in the best-case scenario, it never gets used. In the worst-case scenario, the bomb gets used, and destroys human lives or physical capital, or most likely both.   Global peacebuilding expenditure is dwarfed by the direct economic losses from conflict. According to Institute for Economics and Peace (IPE) estimates, current spending on conflict prevention is less than 1 percent of the cost of the consequences of conflicts. By another measure, economic losses from conflicts are five times as large as total development aid from rich countries to poor countries ("official development assistance," ODA)   But isn''t war, or the threat of war, good for the economy of nations like the US, Russia, Great Britain, France, or other countries who have big militaries and export a lot of weapons?   Is it good for these nations? No. Might it be profitable for a certain number of firms? Sure. But that''s not the whole picture. These national economies you''ve mentioned prosper in a context of globalized trade. The economic impact of violence on the global economy far exceeds that of the 2008 global financial crisis, for example.   So if we want to have prosperous nations in a globalized world, that means we have to measure every country''s economy and look at the total picture — not just measure the prosperity of single nations or individual sectors, like weapons-manufacturing companies.   OK, but doesn''t military spending also generate technological innovation? The urgency of war, or war-like competition, seems to stimulate high creativity and performance in technological terms.   Of course. It''s undeniable that a number of technological advances have come from military pressures. But what I think you''re observing here is that organizing human beings in support of a common goal can achieve amazing things. So should we invest money in research? Of course we should. But does it have to be military research?   And in fact, those advancements actually came about because of high levels of positive peace, not in spite of them.   Positive peace? What''s that?   Positive peace is the attitudes, institutions and structures that sustain internally peaceful societies and create optimal environments for human potential to flourish.   We''ve identified eight major factors that are statistically associated with the absence of violence and high levels of internal peace within a country:   A well-functioning government. Equitable distribution of resources. Free flow of information. Good relations with neighbors. High levels of human capital which increases life expectancy and increases literacy. Acceptance of the rights of others. Low levels of corruption and a sound business environment.   What these reduce to is a combination of factors that contribute to basic human security, productive diversity, and fairness. By productive diversity, I mean we''re not "tolerating" diversity, we''re embracing it, and engaging it to bring together diverse perspectives and generate productive outcomes.   How does this all relate to the Cold War and the technologies it gave rise to?   You didn''t see the technological advancements, which gave rise to the internet, come about without high levels of human capital, for example. But you did see the pressure of the Cold War, and the threat of mutual annihilation between the US and Soviet Union.   The mistakes of the past don''t have to define the future. If we look at the question differently, we can certainly achieve amazing advances in the context of mobilizing for peace and prosperity instead of mobilizing for war.   * Talia Hagerty is a Research Fellow with the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), a think-tank dedicated to developing metrics to analyse peace and to quantify its economic benefits. Visit the related web page
	Acting together to secure a sustainable future by Mary Robinson, The Elders   As this year draws to a close, it is hard not to feel daunted by the challenges posed by the current wave of political and economic uncertainty.   All across the world, we see rising levels of xenophobia and intolerance and a narrowing of political vision focused on parochial introspection. Public discourse is increasingly tarnished by harsh and ugly rhetoric, especially online where women and minority groups are targeted for cowardly abuse. This dangerous rise of “uncivil society” threatens us all.   Yet the need for concerted action to tackle global challenges has never been greater. Despite the rise of populist, at times isolationist, figures in several countries I am happy to report that there are many leaders, organisations and ordinary citizens who are still determined to act together to secure a sustainable future for our people and planet.   I saw this for myself at the climate negotiations that took place in Marrakesh, Morocco. After the success of reaching the Paris Agreement at COP21 last year, the focus now is on the hard work of implementation, aiming to keep any rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius or below, holding governments to their word and asserting the imperative of climate justice.   This is painstaking, laborious work but it nevertheless needs leadership - just as much as the high-level political negotiations that gave us the Paris Agreement in the first place.   Fortunately, this leadership exists – even if many of the most developed (and most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions) countries still need to take quicker, bolder action to meet their commitments. In Marrakech, I was very impressed by the Climate Vulnerable Forum: a group of around 47 countries, who are most vulnerable to the impact of climate change, and most committed to a rapid transformation to a carbon-neutral, climate resilient economy.   I was inspired by their call for “a new era of the pursuit of development, ending poverty, leaving no person behind, and protecting the environment”, and for an international cooperative system fully equipped to address climate change. This is precisely the right vision and attitude, and a powerful antidote to the fatalistic gloom that pervades so much of our public discourse.   Only by embracing this holistic approach can we successfully implement not only the Paris Agreement but also the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Taken together – which is absolutely essential, because without action on climate change, the rest of the 2030 Development Agenda will be unachievable – they have the potential to improve the life chances of millions of people across the planet.   This must be a bottom-up approach, where leaders and policymakers show humility, and listen to the experiences and voices of people at the sharp end of climate change, poverty, violence and injustice.   This is no time for naïve or complacent optimism – the challenges ahead are stark, and the voices of hostility are strident.   But as so often the words of Nelson Mandela provide inspiration in dark times. Speaking in 2003, Madiba said that “Those who conduct themselves with morality, integrity and consistency need not fear the forces of inhumanity and cruelty.”   I can think of no better counsel as we move together to continue the fight for our values in the months and years ahead. Visit the related web page
	View more stories