Stories of conflict fill today’s headlines: Whether it is Syria’s civil war, street battles in Ukraine, terrorism in Nigeria, or police crackdowns in Brazil, the gruesome immediacy of violence is all too apparent. However, while commentators debate geostrategic considerations, deterrence, ethnic strife and the plight of ordinary people caught in the middle, dispassionate discussion of another, vital aspect of conflict — its economic cost — is rare.
Violence comes with a hefty price tag. The global cost of containing violence or dealing with its consequences reached a staggering US$9.5 trillion (11 percent of global GDP) in 2012.
This is more than twice the size of the global agriculture sector and dwarfs total spending on foreign aid.
Given these colossal sums, it is essential that policymakers properly analyze where and how this money is spent, and consider ways to reduce the total.
Unfortunately, these questions are seldom given serious consideration. To a large extent, this is because military campaigns are usually motivated by geostrategic concerns, not financial logic.
Although opponents of the Iraq war might accuse the US of coveting the country’s oil fields, the campaign was uneconomical, to say the least.
The Vietnam War and other conflicts were also financial catastrophes.
Similar doubts accompany arms spending during peacetime.
One might, for example, question the financial logic of Australia’s recent decision to spend US$24 billion on the purchase of problem-plagued Joint Strike Fighters while simultaneously preparing for the most stringent budget cuts in decades.
Wasteful, violence-related spending is not just a matter of war or deterrence. For example, tough and expensive law-and-order campaigns — though appealing to voters — generally have little effect on underlying crime rates.
Whether it is a world war or local policing, conflicts typically involve big increases in government spending; the question is whether they are worth the cost.
Of course, money spent to contain violence is not always a bad thing. The military, police or personal security details are often a welcome and necessary presence, and, if properly deployed, can be expected to save taxpayers’ money in the long run.
The pertinent issue is whether the amount spent in each instance is appropriate.
Certainly, a few countries have struck a fair balance, addressing violence for a relatively small outlay; so there are ways to reduce unnecessary expenditure.
Effective budgeting for potential or ongoing conflict is best achieved by emphasizing prevention.
We know what underpins peaceful societies: an equitable distribution of income, respect for minority rights, high education standards, low levels of corruption and an attractive business environment.
Moreover, when governments overspend to contain violence, they waste money that could otherwise be invested in more productive areas, such as infrastructure, business development or education.
The higher productivity that would result, say, from building a school rather than a jail, would improve citizens’ wellbeing, thereby reducing the need to invest in violence prevention. Consider this the “virtuous cycle of peace.”
Compare, for example, the almost US$10 trillion spent worldwide in 2012 on violence containment to the global costs of the recent global financial crisis.
Former Standard & Poor’s chief credit officer Mark Adelson estimates that total global losses from the crisis were as high as US$15 trillion from 2007 to 2011, which is just half the cost of spending on violence during the same period.
If policymakers dedicated the same amount of time and money to preventing and containing conflict, the payoff in terms of decreased violence and faster economic growth, could be huge.
Governments might begin by re-evaluating their aid spending.
Globally, they already spend 75 times more on violence containment than their total combined overseas development aid.
And it is no coincidence that countries with the highest expenditure on violence as a percentage of GDP are also among the world’s poorest — North Korea, Syria, Liberia, Afghanistan and Libya to name a few.
Might this money be better directed toward investments that reduce or prevent conflict?
Apart from the obvious humanitarian reasons for investing in peace, especially when carried out within established international development frameworks, such investment is also one of the most cost-effective ways to develop an economy and balance a budget.
That makes it a discussion well worth having.
Steve Killelea is executive chairman of the Institute for Economics and Peace.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with