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
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry