In 1949, then-US president Harry S. Truman laid out a bold vision that would shape global policy for generations. Poverty, he said, was not merely a humanitarian concern but a threat to peace itself, and development was the remedy.
The logic was compelling in its simplicity: raise living standards and the risk of conflict would diminish. The linear model that cast development as the pathway to stability became the intellectual foundation of international aid.
Today, the world looks very different. Violent conflict has reached levels not seen since World War II, even as extreme poverty has fallen to historic lows. Taken together, these trends might suggest it is time to reassess the linear development model and its underlying logic.
Illustration: Yusha
Conventional wisdom, as articulated in the UN 2030 Agenda, holds that conflict undermines development, while poverty and inequality fuel conflict. This framing implies that progress on one front reinforces the other, enabling policymakers to present development aid as a moral imperative and a strategic investment that promotes a virtuous cycle of prosperity and peace.
That view has always rested more on assumption than evidence. While a growing body of empirical research has documented the devastating effects of conflict on economic output, human capital and institutional capacity, the link between development and peace has proven far harder to establish.
How strong is the causal relationship between development and geopolitical stability? Research offers a sobering answer and shows a striking asymmetry. When conflict erupts, its effects on development are profound and long-lasting. The average time it takes for the damage to diminish by half — its half-life — is about eight years.
By contrast, development’s pacifying effects are fleeting. Across multiple dimensions, the impact of improved development outcomes on conflict has a half-life of roughly 13 months. Within two years, any measurable reduction in conflict intensity has effectively disappeared.
This asymmetry reflects the scale of the damage armed conflicts cause. War does not simply disrupt livelihoods and public services; it wipes out assets that took generations to build: physical infrastructure, human capital, functioning institutions and basic social trust that makes collective action possible. Development interventions work differently. Cash transfers, clinics and irrigation systems can improve lives and ease grievances, but they rarely transform the underlying political conditions that sustain violence, let alone on a global scale.
The policy implications are far-reaching. If development yields only short-lived reductions in violence, then the case for development aid as a tool of conflict prevention is weaker than often assumed. That is an uncomfortable conclusion for institutions that have long justified aid budgets on security grounds.
To be sure, the argument that investing in development today helps avoid the far higher costs of war tomorrow is not entirely wrong. There is evidence that aid to conflict-affected areas can reduce violence, although the effects are often modest and not always statistically robust. While development spending is justified on humanitarian and ethical grounds, regardless of the strategic implications, the evidence does not support the claim that sustained investment can reliably prevent or resolve armed conflicts.
What the evidence does show is the inverse: sustainable development depends on peace to a far greater extent than the Truman-era paradigm recognized. Preventing conflict yields enormous development gains, as each year without war preserves years of progress that would otherwise be lost. Investments in conflict prevention — including political settlements, power-sharing arrangements and credible peace processes — are not substitutes for development spending but rather preconditions for it.
We must rethink the theory of change that underpins development economics. In developing countries plagued by distrust, poor services and recurring violence, political stability and state legitimacy must come first. Only after that foundation is in place can institutional reform and sustained development spending deliver tangible results.
None of this is meant to suggest that Truman was wrong to say that poverty poses a threat to global peace. However, the cause and effect is more complex, asymmetric and contingent than the linear model assumed. While development can help sustain peace, it is far less effective at creating it.
Recognizing this distinction obviously does not mean abandoning the pursuit of development. Rather, it calls for an honest reckoning with the limitations of the model and to lay the groundwork for a more realistic and effective approach to development policy.
Rabah Arezki, a former vice president at the African Development Bank, is director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research and a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS