Global Peace Index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is an attempt to measure the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness.[1]It is the product of the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) and developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks with data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The list was launched in May 2007 and updates have been made on an annual basis since then. It is claimed to be the first study to rank countries around the world according to their peacefulness. It ranks 162 countries, up from 121 in 2007. The study is the brainchild of Australian technology entrepreneur Steve Killelea, founder of Integrated Research, and is endorsed by individuals such as Kofi Annan, the Dalai Lama, archbishopDesmond Tutu, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, economist Jeffrey Sachs, former president of Ireland Mary Robinson, current Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations Jan Eliasson and former US president Jimmy Carter. The GPI has been criticised for not including indicators specifically relating to violence against women and children. Factors examined by the authors include internal factors such as levels of violence and crime within the country and factors in a country's external relations such as military expenditure and wars. The updated index is released each year at events in London, Washington DC and at the United Nations Secretariat in New York. The GPI currently indicates Iceland, Finland, Austria, and New Zealand to be the most peaceful countries and Syria, Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Iraq to be the least peaceful.
Contents
[hide]Expert panel[edit]
The expert panel for the 2014 GPI consisted of:[2]
- Professor Kevin P. Clements
- Dr Sabina Alkire
- Dr Ian Anthony
- Mr Vasu Gounden
- Dr Manuela Mesa
- Mr Nick Grono
- Dr Ekaterina Stepanova
Methodology[edit]
In attempting to gauge peacefulness, the GPI investigates the extent to which countries are involved in ongoing domestic and international conflicts. It also seeks to evaluate the level of harmony or discord within a nation; ten indicators broadly assess what might be described as a safety and security in society. The assertion is that low crime rates, minimal incidences of terrorist acts and violent demonstrations, harmonious relations with neighboring countries, a stable political scene and a small proportion of the population being internally displaced or refugees can be equated with peacefulness.
Countries' peacefulness is measured on a wide range of indicators, 22 in all (originally 24 indicators, but one was dropped[which?] in 2008, and another in 2013). A table of the indicators is below.[3] In the table, UCDP stands for the Uppsala Conflict Data Program maintained by the University of Uppsala in Sweden, EIU for The Economist Intelligence Unit, UNSCT for the United Nations Survey of Criminal Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, ICPS is the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London, IISS for the International Institute for Strategic Studies publication The Military Balance, SIPRI for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Arms Transfers Database, and BICC for the Bonn International Center for Conversion.
| # | Indicator | Source | Year(s) | Coding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Number of external and internal conflicts fought | UCDP and EIU | 2004 to 2009 | Total number[4] |
| 2 | Number of deaths from organised conflict (external) | UCDP | 2010 | Total number[4] |
| 3 | Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal) | IISS | 2010 | Total number[4] |
| 4 | Level of organised conflict (internal) | EIU | 2010 to 2011 | Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
| 5 | Relations with neighbouring countries | EIU | 2010 to 2011 | Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
| 6 | Level of perceived criminality in society | EIU | 2010 to 2011 | Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
| 7 | Number of refugees and displaced persons as percentage of population | UNHCR and IDMC | 2009 to 2010 | Refugee population by country or territory of origin, plus the number of a country's internally displaced people (IDP's) as a percentage of the country's total population |
| 8 | Political instability | EIU | 2010 to 2011 | Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
| 9 | Terrorist activity | Global Terrorism Index and IEP | 2009 | Quantitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
| 10 | Political terror scale | Amnesty International and US State Department | 2010 to 2011 | Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
| 11 | Number of homicides per 100,000 people | UNCTS and EIU | 2005 to 2009 | Intentional homicides, including infanticide and excluding minor road traffic and other petty offences |
| 12 | Level of violent crime | EIU | 2010 to 2011 | Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
| 13 | Likelihood of violent demonstrations | EIU | 2010 to 2011 | Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
| 14 | Number of jailed persons per 100,000 people | ICPS | 2010 | Rate of incarcerated persons as compared to the total population of the country |
| 15 | Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people | UNCTS and EIU | 2008 to 2010 | Civil police force distinct from national guards or local militia [5] |
| 16 | Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP | The Military Balance and IISS | 2009 to 2010 | Cash outlays of central or federal government to meet costs of national armed forces, as a percentage of GDP[6] |
| 17 | Number of armed-services personnel | The Military Balance and IISS | 2010 | All full-time active armed-services personnel |
| 18 | Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as recipient (imports) per 100,000 people | SIPRI | 2009 to 2010 | Imports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people[7] |
| 19 | Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people | SIPRI | 2009 to 2010 | Exports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people[7] |
| 20 | Financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions | United Nations Committee on Contributions and IEP | 2007 to 2010 | Total number |
| 21 | Nuclear and heavy weapons capability | The Military Balance, IISS, SIPRI, and IEP | 2009 | The Military Balance, IISS; SIPRI; and IEP[8] |
| 22 | Ease of access to small arms and light weapons | EIU | 2010 to 2011 | Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5 |
Indicators not already ranked on a 1 to 5 scale were converted by using the following formula: x=(x-Min(x))/(Max(x)-Min(x)) where Max(x) and Min(x) are the highest and lowest values for that indicator of the countries ranked in the index. The 0 to 1 scores that resulted were then converted to the 1 to 5 scale. Individual indicators were then weighted according to the expert panel's judgment of their importance. The scores were then tabulated into two weighted sub-indices: internal peace, weighted at 60% of a country's final score, and external peace, weighted at 40% of a country's final score.[9] ‘Negative Peace’ which is defined as the absence of violence, or fear of violence is used as the definition of peace to create the Global Peace Index.[10] An additional aim of the GPI database is to facilitate deeper study of the concept of positive peace, or those attitudes, institutions, and structures that drive peacefulness in society.[10] The GPI also examines relationships between peace and reliable international measures, including democracy and transparency, education and material well-being. As such, it seeks to understand the relative importance of a range of potential determinants, or "drivers", which may influence the nurturing of peaceful societies, both internally and externally.
The main findings of the Global Peace Index are:[11]
- Peace is correlated to indicators such as income, schooling and the level of regional integration
- Peaceful countries often shared high levels of transparency of government and low corruption
- Small, stable countries which are part of regional blocks are most likely to get a higher ranking.
Statistical analysis was applied to discover more specific drivers of peace. Specifically, the research team looked for indicators that were included and excluded from the index that had high levels of correlation with the overall score and rank of countries. Among the statistically significant indicators that were not used in the analysis were the functionality of a country's government, regional integration, hostility to foreigners, importance of religion in national life, corruption, freedom of the media and GDP per capita.[12]
Notably absent from the 2007 study were Belarus, Iceland, many African nations, Mongolia, North Korea, and Afghanistan. They were not included because reliable data for the 24 indicators was not available.[13] Most of these countries were included in subsequent editions of the Global Peace Index, which now ranks 162 countries worldwide.
Endorsements, criticism and response[edit]
The Index has received endorsements as a political project from a number of major international figures, including the former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, former President of Finland and 2008 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, the Dalai Lama, archbishop Desmond Tutu, Muhammad Yunus, and former United States PresidentJimmy Carter.[14] Steve Killelea, the Australian philanthropist who conceived the idea of the Index, argues that the Index "is a wake-up call for leaders around the globe."[15]
The Index has been widely recognized. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University said: "The GPI continues its pioneering work in drawing the world’s attention to the massive resources we are squandering in violence and conflict. The lives and money wasted in wars, incarcerations, weapons systems, weapons trade, and more, could be directed to ending poverty, promoting education, and protecting the environment. The GPI will not only draw attention to these crucial issues, but help us understand them and to invest productively in a more peaceful world."[16]
The Economist, in publishing the first edition of the index in 2007, admitted that, "the index will run into some flak." Specifically, according to The Economist, the weighting of military expenditure "may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often the USA) care for their defense." The true utility of the index may lie not in its specific rankings of countries now, but in how those rankings change over time, thus tracking when and how countries become more or less peaceful.[17]
The GPI has been criticised for not including indicators specifically relating to violence against women and children. Riane Eisler, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, argued that, "to put it mildly, this blind spot makes the index very inaccurate."[18] She mentions a number of specific cases, including Egypt, where she claims 90% of women are subject to genital mutilation and China, where, she says, "female infanticide is still a problem," according to a 2000 UNICEF study.[18]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.