Global Peace Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global Peace Index 2023. Countries appearing with a deeper shade of green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as more violent.[1]

Global Peace Index (GPI) is a report produced by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) which measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness.[2] The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (collectively accounting for 99.7 per cent of the world's population) according to their levels of peacefulness. In the past decade, the GPI has presented trends of increased global violence and less peacefulness.[3]

The GPI is 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 Index was first launched in May 2009, with subsequent reports being released annually. In 2015 it ranked 165 countries, up from 121 in 2007. The study was conceived by Australian technology entrepreneur Steve Killelea, and is endorsed by individuals such as former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Dalai Lama, archbishop Desmond Tutu, former President of Finland and 2008 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, economist Jeffrey Sachs, former president of Ireland Mary Robinson, former Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations Jan Eliasson and former United States president Jimmy Carter.[citation needed] The updated index is released each year at events in London, Washington, DC, and at the United Nations Secretariat in New York.

The 2023 GPI indicates Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, and Austria to be the most peaceful countries, and Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, South Sudan, and Democratic Republic of the Congo to be the least peaceful.[4] The key findings of the 2023 GPI include a less peaceful world over the last 15 years, a 5 per cent deterioration in the global level of peace over the last 15 years and a growing inequality in peace between the most and least peaceful countries.

The main findings of the 2023 Global Peace Index are:[4]

  • The overall score for the 2023 GPI deteriorated this year due to a reduction in six of the nine geographical regions represented. However, more countries improved their levels of peacefulness than deteriorated: 84 compared to 79.
  • The total number of conflict-related deaths increased by 96 per cent.
  • The global economic cost of violence was $17.5 trillion PPP in 2022, equivalent to 12.9 per cent of global GDP, or $2,200 per person.
  • Last year saw a shift in the global distribution of violence. Major conflicts in the MENA region and South Asia declined, while conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and Asia-Pacific intensified.

Methodology[edit]

In assessing peacefulness, the GPI investigates the extent to which countries are involved in ongoing domestic and international conflicts and seeks to evaluate the level of harmony or discord within a nation. Ten indicators broadly assess what might be described as safety and security in society. Their assertion is that low crime rates, minimal incidences of terrorist acts and violent demonstrations, harmonious relations with neighbouring countries, a stable political scene, and a small proportion of the population being internally displaced or refugees can be suggestive of peacefulness.

In 2017, 23 indicators were used to establish peacefulness scores for each country. The indicators were originally selected with the assistance of an expert panel in 2007 and are reviewed by the expert panel on an annual basis. The scores for each indicator are normalized on a scale of 1–5, whereby qualitative indicators are banded into five groupings, and quantitative ones are scored from 1–5, to the third decimal point. A table of the indicators is below.[5] 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 Centre for Prison Studies at King's College London, IISS for the International Institute for Strategic Studies publication The Military Balance, and SIPRI for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Arms Transfers Database.

Indicator Source Coding
1 Number and duration of internal conflicts[a] UCDP, IEP Total number
2 Number of deaths from external organized conflict UCDP Armed Conflict Dataset Total number
3 Number of deaths from internal organized conflict International Institute for Strategic Studies, Armed Conflict Database Total number
4 Number, duration, and role in external conflicts UCDP Battle-related Deaths Dataset, IEP Total number
5 Intensity of organized internal conflict EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
6 Relations with neighbouring countries EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
7 Level of perceived criminality in society EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
8 Number of refugees and displaced persons as percentage of population UNHCR and IDMC 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
9 Political instability EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
10 Impact of terrorism Global Terrorism Index (IEP) Quantitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
11 Political terror Amnesty International and US State Department Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
12 Number of homicides per 100,000 people UNODC Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (CTS); EIU estimates Total number
13 Level of violent crime EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
14 Likelihood of violent demonstrations EIU Qualitative scale, ranked 1 to 5
15 Number of jailed persons per 100,000 people World Prison Brief, Institute for Criminal Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London Total number
16 Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people UNODC CTS; EIU estimates Total number; Civil police force distinct from national guards or local militia[b]
17 Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP The Military Balance and IISS Cash outlays of central or federal government to meet costs of national armed forces, as a percentage of GDP, scores from 1 to 5 based on percentages[c]
18 Number of armed-services personnel per 100,000 The Military Balance and IISS All full-time active armed-services personnel
19 Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as recipient (imports) per 100,000 people SIPRI Arms Transfers Database Imports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people[d]
20 Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people SIPRI Arms Transfers Database Exports of major conventional weapons per 100,000 people
21 Financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions United Nations Committee on Contributions and IEP Percentage of countries' "outstanding payments versus their annual assessment to the budget of the current peacekeeping missions" over an average of three years, scored from 1–5 scale based on percentage of promised contributions met
22 Nuclear and heavy weapons capability The Military Balance, IISS, SIPRI, UN Register of Conventional Arms and IEP 1–5 scale based on accumulated points; 1 point per armoured vehicle and artillery pieces, 5 points per tank, 20 points per combat aircraft, 100 points per warship, 1000 points for aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine[e]
23 Ease of access to small arms and light weapons EIU 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. "Negative Peace", defined as the absence of violence or of the fear of violence, is used as the definition of peace to create the Global Peace Index. 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. 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.[6]

Statistical analysis is applied to GPI data to uncover specific conditions conducive of peace. Researchers have determined that Positive Peace, which includes the attitudes, institutions, and structures that pre-empt conflict and facilitate functional societies, is the main driver of peace. The eight pillars of positive peace are well-functioning government, sound business environment, acceptance of the rights of others, good relations with neighbours, free flow of information, high levels of human capital, low levels of corruption, and equitable distribution of resources. Well-functioning government, low levels of corruption, acceptance of the rights of others, and good relations with neighbours are more important in countries suffering from high levels of violence. Free flow of information and sound business environment become more important when a country is approaching the global average level of peacefulness, also described as the Mid-Peace level. Low levels of corruption is the only Pillar that is strongly significant across all three levels of peacefulness. This suggests it is an important transformational factor at all stages of a nation's development.

Global Peace Index ranking[edit]

Legend
  •   Very high impact
  •   High impact
  •   Medium impact
  •   Low impact
  •   Very low impact
2023 Global Peace Index Ranking[7]
Rank Country Score Change
1  Iceland 1.124 Steady
2  Denmark 1.310 Increase 1
3  Ireland 1.312 Decrease 1
4  New Zealand 1.313 Increase 2
5  Austria 1.316 Decrease 1
6  Singapore 1.332 Increase 4
7  Portugal 1.333 Increase 1
8  Slovenia 1.334 Decrease 4
9  Japan 1.336 Steady
10   Switzerland 1.339 Increase 1
11  Canada 1.350 Increase 2
12  Czechia 1.379 Decrease 5
13  Finland 1.399 Increase 3
14  Croatia 1.450 Increase 1
15  Germany 1.456 Increase 2
16  Netherlands 1.490 Increase 5
17  Bhutan 1.496 Decrease 5
18  Hungary 1.508 Decrease 4
19  Malaysia 1.513 Steady
20  Belgium 1.523 Increase 4
21  Qatar 1.524 Increase 1
22  Australia 1.525 Increase 4
23  Mauritius 1.546 Increase 5
24  Norway 1.550 Decrease 6
25  Estonia 1.563 Increase 1
26  Slovakia 1.578 Decrease 6
27  Latvia 1.582 Increase 3
28  Sweden 1.625 Increase 1
29  Poland 1.634 Decrease 6
30  Bulgaria 1.643 Decrease 5
31  Romania 1.649 Increase 4
32  Spain 1.649 Steady
33  Taiwan 1.649 Increase 2
34  Italy 1.662 Decrease 2
35  Kuwait 1.669 Increase 3
36  Lithuania 1.671 Decrease 2
37  United Kingdom 1.693 Decrease 1
38  North Macedonia 1.713 Decrease 1
39  Costa Rica 1.731 Increase 2
40  Albania 1.745 Steady
41  Vietnam 1.745 Increase 4
42  Botswana 1.762 Increase 6
43  South Korea 1.763 Increase 6
44  Mongolia 1.765 Decrease 5
45  Montenegro 1.772 Increase 5
46  Laos 1.779 Increase 3
47  Sierra Leone 1.792 Steady
48  Oman 1.794 Increase 18
49  Timor Leste 1.796 Increase 3
50  Uruguay 1.798 Decrease 5
51  Ghana 1.799 Decrease 8
52  Senegal 1.827 Increase 4
53  Indonesia 1.829 Decrease 12
54  Argentina 1.837 Increase 10
55  Madagascar 1.846 Steady
56  Namibia 1.859 Increase 6
57  Moldova 1.873 Increase 4
58  Chile 1.874 Decrease 5
59  The Gambia 1.888 Decrease 8
60  Greece 1.890 Decrease 6
61  Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.892 Decrease 4
62  Jordan 1.895 Increase 6
63  Zambia 1.898 Decrease 4
64  Cyprus 1.904 Increase 1
65  Serbia 1.921 Decrease 7
66  Armenia 1.929 Increase 3
67  France 1.939 Steady
68=  Panama 1.942 Increase 8
68=  Paraguay 1.942 Increase 12
70=  Trinidad and Tobago 1.946 Increase 1
70=  Kosovo 1.946 Increase 5
70=  Liberia 1.946 Increase 8
73  Cambodia 1.947 Decrease 1
74  Malawi 1.970 Decrease 4
75  United Arab Emirates 1.979 Increase 3
76  Kazakhstan 1.980 Increase 21
77  Jamaica 1.986 Increase 3
78  Bolivia 2.001 Decrease 1
79    Nepal 2.006 Decrease 5
80  China 2.009 Increase 6
81  Tunisia 2.010 Increase 1
82  Equatorial Guinea 2.013 Decrease 19
83  Dominican Republic 2.019 Increase 5
84=  Angola 2.020 Decrease 9
84=  Morocco 2.020 Decrease 1
86  Uzbekistan 2.033 Decrease 2
87  Guinea Bissau 2.045 Increase 12
88=  Bangladesh 2.051 Increase 8
88=  Rwanda 2.051 Increase 3
90  Ivory Coast 2.053 Increase 18
91  Tanzania 2.058 Increase 2
92  Thailand 2.061 Increase 13
93  Gabon 2.068 Decrease 6
94  Georgia 2.071 Increase 1
95  Azerbaijan 2.090 Increase 15
96  Algeria 2.094 Increase 8
97=  Ecuador 2.095 Decrease 24
97=  Papua New Guinea 2.095 Decrease 8
99  Cuba 2.103 Increase 1
100  Turkmenistan 2.107 Increase 3
101  Kyrgyzstan 2.110 Decrease 16
102  Tajikistan 2.114 Decrease 8
103=  Guatemala 2.130 Increase 2
103=  Peru 2.130 Decrease 1
103=  Togo 2.130 Increase 4
106  Guyana 2.134 Decrease 5
107  Sri Lanka 2.136 Decrease 18
108  Bahrain 2.145 Increase 1
109  Swaziland 2.168 Decrease 17
110  Benin 2.177 Increase 1
111  Lesotho 2.193 Increase 13
112  Djibouti 2.196 Increase 1
113  Republic of the Congo 2.210 Increase 1
114  Mauritania 2.228 Increase 4
115  Philippines 2.229 Increase 6
116  Belarus 2.248 Increase 4
117  Kenya 2.254 Increase 2
118  Mozambique 2.259 Decrease 2
119  Saudi Arabia 2.260 Increase 5
120  Honduras 2.265 Decrease 5
121  Egypt 2.267 Increase 5
122  El Salvador 2.279 Decrease 6
123  Nicaragua 2.294 Steady
124=  Zimbabwe 2.300 Increase 3
124=  Uganda 2.300 Increase 1
126  India 2.314 Increase 2
127  Guinea 2.359 Increase 2
128  Burundi 2.393 Increase 6
129  Haiti 2.395 Decrease 17
130  South Africa 2.405 Decrease 8
131  United States 2.448 Steady
132  Brazil 2.462 Steady
133  Eritrea 2.505 Steady
134  Palestine 2.538 Decrease 4
135  Lebanon 2.581 Increase 1
136  Mexico 2.599 Increase 3
137  Libya 2.605 Increase 14
138  Niger 2.625 Increase 2
139  Cameroon 2.660 Increase 5
140=  Venezuela 2.693 Increase 5
140=  Colombia 2.693 Increase 2
142  Chad 2.699 Decrease 5
143  Israel 2.706 Decrease 8
144  Nigeria 2.713 Decrease 3
145  Myanmar 2.741 Decrease 7
146  Pakistan 2.745 Increase 2
147=  Turkey 2.800 Increase 5
147=  Iran 2.800 Decrease 1
149  North Korea 2.848 Increase 4
150  Burkina Faso 2.868 Decrease 3
151  Ethiopia 2.872 Decrease 2
152  Central African Republic 2.934 Increase 2
153  Mali 2.963 Decrease 4
154  Iraq 3.006 Increase 3
155  Sudan 3.023 Steady
156  Somalia 3.036 Increase 2
157  Ukraine 3.043 Decrease 14
158  Russia 3.142 Decrease 5
159  Democratic Republic of the Congo 3.214 Steady
160  South Sudan 3.221 Steady
161  Syria 3.294 Steady
162  Yemen 3.350 Steady
163  Afghanistan 3.448 Steady

Note: The GPI's methodology is updated regularly and is improved to reflect the most up-to-date datasets. Each year's GPI report includes a detailed description of the methodology used. Also, the data is revised periodically and so values from previous years may change accordingly.
These tables contain the scores and ranking published in the official annual reports, for the latest revised data please visit the Interactive world map of the Global Peace Index.

Responses[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 President Jimmy Carter.[8]

Jeffrey Sachs 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."[9] Some at Australian National University say that the GPI report presents "the latest and most comprehensive global data on trends in peace, violence and war" and "provides the world's best analysis of the statistical factors associated with long-term peace, as well as economic analysis on the macroeconomic impacts of everyday violence and war on the global economy."[10]

Criticism[edit]

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 defence".[11]

The Global Peace Index has been criticized for not including indicators specifically relating to violence against women and children.[12]

The impact of Global Peace Index has been lower on the academic study of war and peace than on international organizations.[13]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ In this case, a conflict is defined as, "a contested incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year."
  2. ^ Excludes militia and national guard forces.
  3. ^ This includes, "cash outlays of central or federal government to meet the costs of national armed forces—including strategic, land, naval, air, command, administration and support forces as well as paramilitary forces, customs forces and border guards if these are trained and equipped as a military force."
  4. ^ This includes transfers, purchases, or gifts of aircraft, armoured vehicles, artillery, radar systems, missiles, ships, engines
  5. ^ Rates the destructive capability of a country's stock of heavy weapons via a categorized system. As of 2013, countries with nuclear capabilities receive a score of five, the highest possible score.

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Global Peace Index Map » The Most & Least Peaceful Countries". Vision of Humanity. June 2023. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
  2. ^ Institute for Economics & Peace. "Global Peace Index 2017" (PDF). visionofhumanity.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-04-01. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  3. ^ Wang, Monica. "The World's Most And Least Peaceful Countries In 2016". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-11-26.
  4. ^ a b "Global Peace Index 2023" (PDF). Institute for Economics & Peace. June 2023. Retrieved 2 July 2023.
  5. ^ Information about indicators and methodology "2013 Global Peace Index"(PDF). Institute for Economics and Peace. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-10. Retrieved 2013-06-24.
  6. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace. "Global Peace Index Report, Methodology, pg. 113–136" (PDF). Visionofhumanity.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-04-01. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  7. ^ "2023 Global Peace Index" (PDF). Institute for Economics & Peace. Institute for Economics & Peace. June 2023.
  8. ^ Endorsers for GPI — Vision of Humanity. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
  9. ^ "Global Peace Index: World Less Peaceful in 2010 Report, Violence Impacting Global Economy $7 Trillion Annually". Phil's Stock World. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  10. ^ "Giving peace a chance? 2017 Global Peace Index". ANU. 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  11. ^ "Give peace a rating". The Economist. 2007-05-31. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  12. ^ "Dark underbelly of the world's most 'peaceful' countries". Christian Science Monitor. 2007-07-26. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  13. ^ Firchow, Pamina, and Roger Mac Ginty. "Measuring peace: Comparability, commensurability, and complementarity using bottom-up indicators." International Studies Review 19.1 (2017): 6-27.

External links[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_Peace_Index&oldid=1222226119"