Global Peace Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Global Peace Index 2018 (countries appearing with a deeper shade of green are ranked as more peaceful, countries appearing more red are ranked as less peaceful)[1]

Global Peace Index (GPI) measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness.[2] The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (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 a report produced by 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 Index was first launched in May 2007, with subsequent reports being released annually. In 2017 it ranked 163 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. The updated index is released each year at events in London, Washington, DC; and at the United Nations Secretariat in New York.

The 2019 GPI indicates Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal, Austria, and Denmark to be the most peaceful countries and Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Yemen, and Iraq to be the least peaceful.[4] Long-term findings of the 2017 GPI include a less peaceful world over the past decade, a 2.14 per cent deterioration in the global level of peace in the past decade, growing inequality in peace between the most and least peaceful countries, a long-term reduction in the GPI Militarization domain, and a widening impact of terrorism, with historically high numbers of people killed in terrorist incidents over the past 5 years.[2]

International panel[edit]

The international panel for the 2016 and 2017 GPI consisted of:

  • Professor Kevin P. Clements, Foundation Chair of Peace and Conflict Studies and Director, National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand
  • Dr Sabina Alkire, Director, Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative (OPHI), University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Dr Ian Anthony, Research Coordinator and Director of the Programme on Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-proliferation, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Sweden
  • Ms Isabelle Arrandon, Director of Research and Deputy Director of Communications & Outreach, International Crisis Group, Belgium
  • Dr Manuela Mesa, Director, Centre for Education and Peace Research (CEIPAZ) and President, Spanish Association for Peace Research (AIPAZ), Madrid, Spain
  • Mr Nick Grono, CEO, The Freedom Fund, United Kingdom
  • Dr Ekaterina Stepanova, Head, Unit on Peace and Conflict Studies, Institute of the World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia

Methodology[edit]

In assessing 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 suggestive of peacefulness.

In 2017, 23 indicators were used to establish each country's peacefulness score. 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 Center 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[6] UCDP, IEP Total number
2 Number of deaths from external organized conflict UCDP Armed Conflict Dataset Total number
3 Number of deaths from internal organised 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 organised 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[7]
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[8]
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[9]
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[10]
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’ 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. 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.[11]

The main findings of the 2017 Global Peace Index are:[2]

  • The overall score for the 2017 GPI improved slightly this year due to gains in six of the nine geographical regions represented. More countries improved their levels of peacefulness, than deteriorated: 93 compared to 68.
  • Peacebuilding activities can be highly cost-effective, providing cost savings 16 times the cost of the intervention.
  • The global economic impact of violence was $14.3 trillion PPP in 2016, equivalent to 12.6 per cent of global GDP, or $1,953 per person.
  • In Low-Peace environments, the factors that matter the most are related to Well-Functioning Government, Low Levels of Corruption, Acceptance of the Rights of Others and Good Relations with Neighbours
  • Due to armed conflict in MENA, many related indicators such as deaths from internal conflict, number of refugees and IDPs, and organised internal conflict are at high levels.
  • Safety and Security improved due to many countries recording a lower homicide rate and lower levels of political terror.

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 neighbors, 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 nations’ development.

Global Peace Index rankings (2008–2019)[edit]

Nations considered more peaceful have lower index scores. In 2013 researchers at the Institute for Economics and Peace harmonized the Global Peace Index database to ensure that the scores were comparable over time. The GPI Expert Panel decided that the Index would include nations and territories, but not micro-states. Countries covered by the GPI must either have a population of more than 1 million or a land area greater than 20,000 square kilometers.[2]

Country 2019 rank 2019 score[12] 2018 rank 2018 score[13] 2017 rank 2017 score[2] 2016 rank 2016 score[14] 2015 rank 2015 score[15] 2014 rank 2014 score[16] 2013 rank 2013 score[17] 2012 rank 2012 score[18],[19] 2011 rank 2011 score[20] 2010 rank 2010 score[21] 2009 rank 2009 score 2008 rank 2008 score
 Iceland 1 1.072 1 1.096 1 1.084 1 1.138 1 1.142 1 1.160 1 1.164 1 1.159 1 1.099 1 1.143 1 1.160 1 1.111
 New Zealand 2 1.221 2 1.188 2 1.216 3 1.238 3 1.263 3 1.271 3 1.291 3 1.276 2 1.255 2 1.251 2 1.260 2 1.261
 Portugal 3 1.274 5 1.315 3 1.273 5 1.324 12 1.418 16 1.466 17 1.525 16 1.520 16 1.485 14 1.472 13 1.437 10 1.387
 Austria 4 1.291 3 1.273 4 1.292 4 1.249 4 1.264 4 1.287 4= 1.309 7 1.407 9 1.416 5 1.383 5 1.369 5 1.337
 Denmark 5 1.316 4 1.313 5 1.299 2 1.201 2 1.179 2 1.179 2 1.197 2 1.235 3 1.290 4 1.334 3 1.269 3 1.272
 Canada 6 1.327 6 1.338 6 1.332 6 1.337 6 1.337 5 1.325 6 1.342 11= 1.438 12 1.460 17 1.500 11 1.418 9 1.374
 Singapore 7 1.347 9 1.382 12 1.400 11 1.393 10 1.387 11 1.416 14 1.455 13 1.441 13 1.461 16 1.486 18 1.518 20 1.580
 Slovenia 8 1.355 10 1.390 9 1.373 10 1.390 13 1.421 14 1.430 11 1.434 11= 1.438 6 1.388 6 1.387 7= 1.388 12 1.390
 Japan 9 1.369 8 1.381 10 1.377 9 1.374 5 1.315 6 1.330 4= 1.309 4 1.346 4 1.333 3 1.328 4 1.330 4 1.325
  Switzerland 10 1.375 7 1.379 7 1.368 8 1.369 16 1.443 13 1.424 10 1.421 10 1.435 5 1.383 13 1.464 16 1.496 17 1.495
 Czechia 11 1.383 13 1.403 8 1.369 7 1.367 8 1.372 8 1.382 7 1.383 6 1.400 10 1.426 12 1.452 14 1.464 15 1.432
 Ireland 12 1.390 11 1.394 13 1.417 14 1.423 14 1.422 12 1.419 12 1.435 9 1.430 14 1.481 11 1.439 15 1.468 7= 1.367
 Australia 13 1.419 12 1.398 11 1.387 12 1.400 7 1.367 10 1.387 13 1.451 15 1.497 11 1.447 8 1.393 9 1.391 7= 1.367
 Finland 14 1.488 14 1.505 18 1.527 15 1.447 11 1.399 9 1.383 8 1.385 5 1.385 8 1.414 10 1.410 10 1.416 13 1.409
 Bhutan 15 1.506 17 1.521 25 1.604 23 1.572 27= 1.638 35 1.660 33 1.679 38 1.750 60 1.932 66 1.950 59 1.902 58= 1.881
 Malaysia 16 1.529 25 1.616 30 1.650 29 1.635 25 1.585 25 1.579 23 1.585 24 1.611 19 1.540 23 1.618 26 1.657 26 1.635
 Netherlands 17 1.530 19 1.528 21 1.540 20 1.526 22 1.527 21 1.538 20 1.549 21 1.577 23 1.611 25 1.635 21 1.599 19 1.578
 Belgium 18= 1.533 21 1.538 20 1.536 16 1.470 15 1.437 15 1.442 15 1.473 14 1.493 18 1.500 18 1.517 17 1.504 16 1.494
 Sweden 18= 1.533 15 1.507 14 1.489 13 1.420 9 1.383 7 1.375 9 1.399 8 1.409 7 1.409 7 1.390 6 1.382 11 1.389
 Norway 20 1.536 16 1.515 16 1.504 18 1.488 18 1.483 24 1.556 18 1.530 19 1.563 15 1.482 9 1.407 7= 1.388 6 1.365
 Hungary 21 1.540 22 1.542 15 1.503 19 1.502 20 1.519 18 1.510 19 1.542 18 1.557 21 1.590 19 1.544 20 1.558 14 1.427
 Germany 22 1.547 18 1.527 17 1.515 17 1.487 17 1.482 17 1.475 21 1.555 25 1.620 25 1.621 24 1.633 22 1.613 21 1.592
 Slovakia 23 1.550 23 1.564 27 1.627 25 1.594 23 1.539 22 1.543 25 1.591 20 1.573 22 1.592 20 1.548 19 1.529 18 1.542
 Romania 24 1.562 20 1.530 19 1.528 22 1.557 21 1.526 19 1.511 16 1.516 22 1.595 24 1.613 21= 1.608 23 1.614 22 1.599
 Mauritius 25 1.606 24 1.592 26 1.616 31 1.648 27= 1.638 30 1.648 30= 1.669 28 1.686 30 1.690 30 1.701 25 1.637 23 1.610
 Bulgaria 26 1.607 26 1.632 28 1.631 30 1.641 32 1.684 26 1.619 37 1.712 31 1.693 29 1.651 32 1.709 35 1.733 35 1.708
 Chile 27 1.634 28 1.646 24 1.603 27 1.623 26 1.633 31 1.649 30= 1.669 29 1.687 41 1.783 37 1.755 34 1.718 32 1.695
 Croatia 28 1.645 27 1.639 32 1.674 32 1.665 30 1.662 32= 1.656 34 1.688 34 1.723 39 1.761 39 1.773 48= 1.840 49 1.814
 Poland 29 1.654 32 1.728 33 1.688 21 1.549 19 1.503 20 1.524 22 1.568 23 1.603 26 1.628 34 1.714 28 1.663 29 1.655
 Botswana 30 1.676 31 1.682 29 1.641 28 1.633 31 1.663 40 1.766 32 1.676 33 1.702 32 1.709 29 1.691 32 1.712 41 1.757
 Qatar 31 1.696 41 1.785 23 1.562 26 1.603 29 1.640 23 1.549 24 1.588 17 1.535 17 1.487 15 1.483 12 1.429 24 1.618
 Spain 32 1.699 29 1.676 22 1.552 24 1.582 24 1.556 27 1.630 29 1.667 27 1.668 36 1.739 44 1.807 41 1.782 37 1.721
 Costa Rica 33 1.706 38 1.766 34 1.700 34 1.705 34 1.706 44 1.781 45 1.801 36 1.740 43 1.793 27 1.654 24 1.631 25 1.619
 Uruguay 34 1.711 37 1.754 35 1.703 35 1.715 41 1.759 36 1.698 35 1.689 35 1.728 27 1.647 31 1.703 33 1.714 33= 1.700
 Latvia 35 1.718 30 1.679 31 1.671 33 1.666 35 1.707 34 1.657 36 1.694 37 1.744 37 1.746 36 1.742 36 1.746 27 1.643
 Taiwan 36 1.725 34= 1.737 37 1.725 39 1.751 38 1.721 28= 1.643 26 1.639 26 1.638 31 1.707 35 1.731 56 1.873 48 1.813
 Estonia 37 1.727 33 1.732 36 1.716 36 1.720 39 1.727 32= 1.656 39 1.753 39 1.771 42 1.792 42 1.798 40 1.773 36 1.718
 Malawi 38 1.728 36 1.749 38 1.734 37 1.726 36 1.715 38 1.719 40 1.769 46 1.814 45 1.819 33 1.710 30 1.686 33= 1.700
 Italy 39 1.754 39= 1.772 39 1.744 40 1.761 42 1.761 39 1.753 46 1.806 47 1.819 44 1.814 56 1.882 37 1.765 31 1.676
 Lithuania 40 1.779 44 1.814 50 1.824 48 1.813 37 1.719 43 1.778 49 1.834 48 1.825 34 1.733 51 1.858 50= 1.857 55 1.862
 Indonesia 41 1.785 55= 1.854 52 1.840 45 1.798 48 1.812 54 1.860 48 1.828 49 1.836 54 1.859 50 1.852 50= 1.857 52= 1.859
 Mongolia 42 1.792 42= 1.807 44 1.802 49 1.830 40 1.750 41 1.771 59= 1.910 55 1.890 50 1.844 82 2.048 88 2.050 88 2.043
 Kuwait 43 1.794 50= 1.831 49 1.823 38 1.749 33 1.696 28= 1.643 27 1.651 30 1.691 20 1.581 21= 1.608 27 1.659 28 1.652
 Ghana 44 1.796 39= 1.772 45 1.808 44 1.796 46 1.800 47 1.805 43 1.795 43 1.804 40 1.780 43 1.803 43 1.799 40 1.753
 United Kingdom 45 1.801 50= 1.831 42 1.789 47 1.806 51 1.844 56 1.868 52 1.876 52 1.859 55 1.876 53= 1.871 48= 1.840 46= 1.812
 Laos 46 1.801 47 1.818 46 1.813 52= 1.857 47 1.810 48 1.809 50 1.849 53 1.871 51 1.847 47 1.825 60 1.912 63= 1.913
 Panama 47 1.804 49 1.824 47= 1.822 50 1.831 64= 1.948 60 1.907 54 1.879 54 1.885 52 1.849 61 1.919 44= 1.807 51 1.858
 Cyprus 48= 1.805 60 1.898 54 1.870 56 1.876 59 1.903 57 1.875 42 1.794 42 1.792 46 1.827 58 1.909 65 1.929 77 2.005
 Zambia 49 1.805 48 1.821 41 1.780 42 1.774 50 1.817 45 1.793 38 1.724 44= 1.810 33 1.721 48 1.839 54 1.864 57 1.879
 Serbia 50 1.812 55= 1.854 55 1.880 58 1.888 60 1.914 74 1.999 86 2.089 93 2.114 83 2.079 90 2.110 93 2.075 86 2.039
 Albania 51 1.821 53 1.843 60 1.920 61 1.900 64= 1.948 67 1.960 71 1.995 63 1.976 62 1.938 59 1.912 62 1.916 69 1.943
 Sierra Leone 52 1.822 34= 1.737 40 1.751 41 1.772 45 1.792 42 1.777 47 1.821 60 1.917 56 1.895 49 1.847 52 1.862 56 1.867
 United Arab Emirates 53 1.847 45 1.816 56 1.883 43 1.783 44 1.767 37 1.708 28 1.665 32 1.700 28 1.649 28 1.669 29 1.685 39 1.738
 Tanzania 54 1.860 52 1.840 51 1.825 51 1.847 52 1.857 51 1.833 44 1.799 40= 1.772 35 1.735 38 1.761 39 1.772 44 1.783
 South Korea 55= 1.867 46 1.817 43 1.793 46 1.800 43 1.762 46 1.797 41 1.787 44= 1.810 58 1.902 45 1.822 42 1.796 43 1.782
 Madagascar 55= 1.867 57 1.860 59 1.914 54 1.866 57= 1.902 68 1.966 98 2.142 107 2.223 108 2.211 77= 2.016 75 1.994 38 1.730
 Vietnam 57 1.877 62 1.911 58 1.910 59 1.894 55 1.888 50 1.830 51 1.868 51 1.850 49 1.843 57 1.905 57 1.883 54 1.860
 Senegal 58 1.883 54 1.850 63 1.941 70 1.972 57= 1.902 72 1.987 75 2.034 76 2.050 89= 2.128 99= 2.162 90 2.054 89 2.051
 Liberia 59 1.889 63= 1.933 90 2.059 71 1.988 67 1.951 59 1.906 66 1.946 70 1.994 77 2.035 86 2.077 87 2.043 91 2.054
 France 60= 1.892 58 1.887 53 1.869 55 1.873 49 1.816 52 1.842 56= 1.901 57 1.896 48 1.840 52 1.866 53 1.863 50 1.853
 Namibia 60= 1.892 42= 1.807 47= 1.822 52= 1.857 53 1.863 53 1.848 53 1.878 59 1.916 68 1.965 79 2.019 83 2.019 82= 2.028
 The Gambia 62 1.908 74 1.987 112 2.221 94 2.099 101 2.151 98 2.123 88 2.096 80= 2.078 69= 2.000 69 1.974 69 1.951 70 1.952
 East Timor 63 1.914 61 1.907 62 1.940 68= 1.959 73 1.962 73 1.988 61 1.926 62 1.974 64 1.946 68 1.958 38 1.771 42 1.769
 Kazakhstan 64 1.932 69 1.963 69 1.958 76 2.010 78 2.021 92 2.097 72 1.999 88 2.100 84 2.089 95= 2.123 100 2.110 98 2.090
 Greece 65= 1.933 79 2.028 80= 2.020 80 2.038 70= 1.958 95 2.108 82 2.071 77 2.063 75 2.012 70 1.985 61 1.915 63= 1.913
 North Macedonia 65= 1.933 88= 2.060 103 2.129 98 2.118 83 2.041 83 2.066 83 2.081 71 1.997 67 1.962 76 2.014 89 2.052 78 2.006
 Montenegro 67 1.939 59 1.892 65 1.949 57 1.878 66 1.949 64 1.941 58 1.908 82 2.082 95= 2.143 94 2.122 103 2.150 112 2.200
 Moldova 68 1.951 63= 1.933 64 1.944 63= 1.949 62 1.923 63 1.939 68 1.959 69 1.990 71 2.004 73 2.001 73 1.978 82= 2.028
 Oman 69 1.953 71 1.974 61 1.922 72 1.995 81 2.038 69 1.970 62 1.930 58 1.901 47 1.828 26 1.650 31 1.701 30 1.672
 Equatorial Guinea 70 1.957 65 1.934 57 1.888 60 1.895 63 1.929 66 1.953 64= 1.941 66= 1.982 74 2.008 62 1.933 58 1.887 71 1.963
 Ecuador 71 1.980 68 1.962 66 1.952 77 2.015 82 2.040 88 2.089 94 2.119 96 2.138 99 2.156 112 2.216 118= 2.280 115 2.244
 Benin 72= 1.986 72 1.975 83 2.028 73 1.997 74 1.975 93 2.101 95 2.126 105= 2.212 113 2.261 111 2.213 112 2.214 113 2.218
 Sri Lanka 72= 1.986 70 1.964 72 1.980 95= 2.101 108 2.225 104 2.176 111 2.221 117 2.303 144 2.640 149 2.793 141 2.515 140 2.467
 Eswatini 72= 1.986 82 2.040 82 2.026 91 2.091 97 2.126 99 2.134 96 2.129 87 2.095 80 2.049 77= 2.016 76= 1.998 79 2.009
 Argentina 75 1.989 67 1.955 76= 2.012 93 2.096 90 2.082 77 2.019 93 2.117 68 1.984 73 2.007 72 2.000 71 1.962 52= 1.859
   Nepal 76 2.003 88= 2.060 88 2.048 74 2.003 54 1.885 70 1.981 80 2.057 92 2.110 107 2.207 97 2.138 81 2.009 81 2.024
 Angola 77= 2.012 80 2.031 74 2.007 88= 2.073 77 2.008 96 2.115 87 2.094 90= 2.105 82 2.074 80 2.020 84 2.021 93 2.069
 Jordan 77= 2.012 97= 2.101 102 2.120 83 2.049 80 2.028 65 1.946 70 1.981 66= 1.982 59 1.930 65 1.948 67 1.935 68 1.927
 Rwanda 79 2.014 103 2.139 104 2.132 111 2.215 110= 2.228 125 2.336 124 2.326 104 2.199 101 2.164 93 2.120 96 2.090 65 1.918
 Peru 80 2.016 73 1.982 73 1.985 84 2.062 92 2.093 102 2.158 104= 2.193 101 2.169 97 2.148 99= 2.162 82 2.010 97 2.088
 Bosnia and Herzegovina 81 2.019 90 2.063 87 2.042 62 1.942 68 1.955 58 1.895 63 1.940 64= 1.980 66 1.953 64 1.943 63= 1.922 62 1.912
 Tunisia 82 2.035 75 2.000 70 1.976 63= 1.949 75 1.997 84 2.077 90 2.106 85 2.092 53 1.851 40 1.789 44= 1.807 46= 1.812
 Jamaica 83 2.038 93 2.079 94 2.072 92 2.094 96 2.115 101 2.156 104= 2.193 108 2.229 103 2.174 83 2.059 86 2.039 87 2.041
 Dominican Republic 84 2.041 91 2.073 100 2.110 100= 2.129 98 2.134 97 2.121 91 2.110 90= 2.105 93 2.136 95= 2.123 76= 1.998 74 1.992
 Bolivia 85 2.044 81 2.033 76= 2.012 78 2.017 87 2.071 91 2.096 101 2.165 97 2.146 79 2.046 91= 2.115 95 2.084 80 2.011
 Kosovo 86 2.049 94 2.080 80= 2.020 86 2.070 86 2.058 80 2.038 92 2.111 83 2.083 88 2.116 91= 2.115 101 2.133 103 2.126
 Haiti 87 2.052 87 2.054 89 2.050 85 2.065 91 2.088 105= 2.178 74 2.016 79 2.070 98 2.150 107= 2.204 117 2.250 121 2.300
 Paraguay 88 2.055 76 2.001 68 1.956 79 2.027 88 2.077 79 2.029 84 2.084 61 1.972 63 1.942 75 2.005 68 1.939 58= 1.881
 Cambodia 89 2.066 97= 2.101 75 2.010 95= 2.101 94 2.105 103 2.175 108 2.217 111 2.251 106 2.204 109 2.206 114 2.233 102 2.124
 Morocco 90 2.070 77 2.017 78 2.018 90 2.082 85 2.051 82 2.063 79 2.048 84 2.084 76 2.027 71 1.996 72 1.977 72 1.980
 Cuba 91 2.073 84 2.046 91 2.063 87 2.072 89 2.079 86 2.084 81 2.064 80= 2.078 78 2.037 85 2.062 91 2.063 94 2.070
 Guyana 92 2.075 83 2.041 84 2.029 99 2.122 93 2.095 81 2.050 76 2.038 74 2.033 94 2.137 102 2.169 108 2.177 105 2.141
 Trinidad and Tobago 93 2.094 86 2.053 96 2.089 88= 2.073 95 2.111 94 2.103 89 2.097 95 2.128 81 2.055 88 2.085 85 2.034 101 2.121
 Mozambique 94 2.099 85 2.051 79 2.019 65= 1.951 69 1.957 76 2.012 56= 1.901 50 1.841 57 1.897 46 1.823 46 1.814 45 1.788
 Kyrgyz Republic 95 2.105 108 2.178 111 2.219 120 2.274 126 2.303 131 2.396 131 2.417 135 2.454 124 2.332 123= 2.331 123 2.336 132 2.362
 Gabon 96 2.112 95 2.096 85 2.032 75 2.007 72 1.959 62 1.936 73 2.006 78 2.064 86 2.105 87 2.079 74 1.990 73 1.986
 Belarus 97 2.115 101 2.112 99 2.106 105 2.180 118 2.244 108 2.207 113 2.234 113= 2.280 110 2.236 107= 2.204 110 2.202 110 2.187
 Papua New Guinea 98 2.118 96 2.100 92= 2.065 97 2.114 84 2.048 78 2.025 85 2.087 86 2.094 92 2.133 89 2.089 98= 2.108 100 2.120
 Georgia 99 2.122 102 2.118 97 2.096 100= 2.129 102 2.159 121 2.311 144 2.600 146 2.671 145 2.667 155 3.107 153 2.950 148 2.870
 Guinea 100 2.125 100 2.106 98 2.100 103 2.159 106 2.207 109 2.211 106 2.194 105= 2.212 121 2.320 120 2.296 120 2.296 120 2.296
 Bangladesh 101 2.128 92 2.078 86 2.036 81 2.046 79 2.027 87 2.086 100 2.154 102 2.188 100 2.157 98 2.156 94 2.076 99 2.101
 Uzbekistan 102 2.166 104= 2.144 101 2.117 107 2.198 120 2.258 117 2.271 123 2.321 124 2.334 118 2.297 119 2.267 113 2.226 118= 2.267
 Lesotho 103 2.167 104= 2.144 92= 2.065 67 1.955 61 1.915 55 1.865 55 1.884 56 1.894 65 1.949 60 1.918 63= 1.922 66 1.922
 Burkina Faso 104 2.176 78 2.023 95 2.074 82 2.047 56 1.896 49 1.824 59= 1.910 40= 1.772 38 1.750 41 1.791 47 1.826 61 1.893
 Tajikistan 105= 2.196 117 2.279 118 2.264 128= 2.304 114 2.237 126 2.355 116 2.265 103 2.189 109 2.212 113 2.226 116 2.248 116 2.250
 Uganda 105= 2.196 107 2.176 105 2.179 102 2.138 115 2.239 118 2.281 103 2.192 118 2.308 125 2.340 128 2.361 132 2.414 145 2.530
 Cote d'Ivoire 107 2.203 111 2.213 119 2.265 112 2.218 100 2.145 123 2.315 145 2.627 134 2.452 139 2.500 121 2.299 130 2.387 144 2.481
 Togo 108 2.205 99 2.103 67 1.954 65= 1.951 70= 1.958 71 1.985 67 1.951 64= 1.980 69= 2.000 74 2.004 78 2.000 76 2.002
 Djibouti 109 2.207 113 2.265 110 2.209 125 2.282 104 2.185 75 2.007 69 1.965 73 2.009 85 2.099 84 2.061 92 2.070 95 2.082
 China 110 2.217 112 2.247 115 2.254 122= 2.276 124 2.284 110 2.235 112 2.224 109 2.238 112 2.255 117 2.247 109 2.185 109 2.175
 Algeria 111 2.219 109 2.188 107 2.188 106 2.197 121 2.261 119 2.283 122 2.314 125 2.355 140 2.512 130 2.370 126 2.347 127= 2.347
 Guinea-Bissau 112 2.237 118 2.280 121 2.286 113 2.224 107 2.219 139 2.469 130 2.376 132 2.422 130 2.410 136 2.453 137 2.464 142 2.476
 El Salvador 113 2.262 115 2.272 114 2.252 116 2.237 122 2.281 105= 2.178 102 2.178 110 2.250 105 2.203 104 2.173 98= 2.108 92 2.059
 Guatemala 114 2.264 110 2.210 113 2.243 122= 2.276 112 2.229 112 2.249 114 2.261 122 2.326 119 2.311 105 2.181 104= 2.158 111 2.190
 Turkmenistan 115 2.265 119 2.283 116 2.256 108 2.200 105 2.198 107 2.189 109 2.218 112 2.261 104 2.196 116 2.241 104= 2.158 118= 2.267
 Brazil 116 2.271 106 2.159 109 2.195 104 2.169 103 2.163 85 2.078 77= 2.047 75 2.043 72 2.005 81 2.022 79 2.002 75 1.993
 Thailand 117 2.278 114 2.266 120 2.285 128= 2.304 135 2.430 135 2.444 137 2.482 139 2.507 135 2.450 138 2.482 139 2.490 137 2.423
 Armenia 118 2.294 121 2.302 117 2.258 114 2.225 116= 2.243 114 2.253 126= 2.332 123 2.329 123 2.331 129 2.368 127 2.356 125= 2.344
 Kenya 119 2.300 120 2.300 124 2.330 131 2.339 129 2.332 128 2.378 132 2.431 130 2.395 138 2.487 141 2.545 144 2.558 124 2.337
 Nicaragua 120 2.312 66 1.935 71 1.978 68= 1.959 76 2.003 61 1.934 64= 1.941 72 2.003 61 1.935 55 1.880 55 1.869 60 1.883
 Republic of the Congo 121 2.323 122 2.326 129= 2.361 126 2.299 116= 2.243 111 2.236 99 2.147 98 2.147 95= 2.143 103 2.170 102 2.147 114 2.226
 Mauritania 122 2.333 127 2.353 129= 2.361 124 2.279 131 2.385 124 2.322 117 2.273 129 2.392 132 2.421 126 2.348 140 2.510 133 2.378
 Honduras 123 2.341 116 2.276 108 2.193 115 2.232 109 2.226 113 2.251 115 2.263 121 2.320 122 2.327 134 2.421 122 2.323 122 2.304
 Bahrain 124 2.357 129 2.404 132 2.410 132 2.347 110= 2.228 120 2.287 107 2.200 100 2.168 117 2.287 53= 1.871 66 1.932 67 1.924
 Myanmar 125 2.393 123 2.328 106 2.187 117= 2.250 130 2.337 115 2.266 120 2.300 126 2.357 126 2.341 133 2.413 133 2.417 134 2.393
 Niger 126 2.394 132 2.444 133 2.415 119 2.268 128 2.329 89= 2.094 97 2.132 99 2.156 91 2.130 99= 2.162 106 2.164 107 2.168
 South Africa 127 2.399 125 2.335 125 2.336 130 2.309 134 2.428 127 2.372 126= 2.332 116 2.299 120 2.312 123= 2.331 128 2.364 108 2.173
 United States 128 2.401 124 2.332 123 2.311 109 2.203 119 2.256 116 2.269 118 2.283 115 2.290 116 2.284 122 2.320 124 2.337 117 2.257
 Saudi Arabia 129 2.409 128 2.382 128 2.346 110 2.212 99 2.139 100 2.148 110 2.220 119 2.315 114 2.263 125 2.347 121 2.309 131 2.360
 Azerbaijan 130 2.425 133 2.447 134 2.457 134 2.441 133 2.425 133 2.412 134 2.459 131 2.404 127 2.387 131 2.382 131 2.394 123 2.336
 Ethiopia 131 2.434 131 2.426 127 2.345 121 2.275 123 2.283 129 2.381 140 2.542 145 2.652 141 2.568 142 2.581 148 2.813 146 2.588
 Zimbabwe 132 2.463 126 2.340 122 2.297 117= 2.250 113 2.235 130 2.387 138 2.501 140 2.528 146 2.695 146 2.752 149 2.831 141 2.472
 Eritrea 133 2.504 139 2.529 135 2.494 135 2.474 132 2.422 136 2.445 121 2.306 127 2.364 128 2.400 132 2.409 135 2.424 136 2.419
 Philippines 134 2.516 138 2.523 136 2.518 137 2.501 140 2.514 140 2.505 135 2.464 138 2.500 136 2.453 137 2.465 134 2.423 130 2.355
 Burundi 135 2.520 136 2.502 140 2.605 138 2.507 127 2.327 122 2.312 133 2.440 137 2.480 131 2.413 140 2.502 136 2.440 139 2.442
 Egypt 136 2.521 143 2.657 139 2.602 140 2.562 136 2.438 146 2.639 128 2.353 120 2.317 89= 2.128 63 1.939 70 1.960 90 2.052
 Chad 137 2.522 135 2.496 138 2.560 136 2.476 141 2.540 143 2.559 136 2.477 147 2.684 150 2.758 154 3.028 154= 2.980 154= 2.912
 Cameroon 138 2.538 134 2.473 131 2.373 127 2.300 125 2.296 89= 2.094 77= 2.047 89 2.104 87 2.111 106 2.183 97 2.091 85 2.037
 Iran 139 2.542 130 2.419 126 2.344 133 2.370 137 2.453 138 2.460 139 2.503 136 2.468 137 2.477 127 2.360 118= 2.280 135 2.412
 Mexico 140 2.600 141 2.640 142 2.631 139 2.548 142 2.544 145 2.573 142 2.563 142 2.581 129 2.405 110 2.212 115 2.238 106 2.153
 India 141 2.605 137 2.517 137 2.545 141= 2.565 144 2.557 142 2.540 141 2.546 144 2.627 147 2.714 144 2.683 143 2.543 143 2.477
 Palestine 142 2.608 140 2.619 143 2.690 147 2.746 163 163 163 163 163 162 162 162
 Colombia 143 2.661 145 2.729 146 2.754 145 2.740 147 2.774 150 2.738 148= 2.669 148= 2.712 152 2.800 150 2.908 150 2.841 152 2.891
 Venezuela 144 2.671 142 2.643 141 2.608 143 2.601 139 2.510 132 2.401 129 2.365 128 2.379 133 2.426 135 2.435 129 2.377 125= 2.344
 Mali 145 2.710 144 2.685 144 2.696 141= 2.565 143 2.546 134 2.418 125 2.329 113= 2.280 111 2.251 118 2.266 125 2.346 127= 2.347
 Israel 146 2.735 146 2.756 145 2.745 146 2.741 145 2.721 147 2.681 150 2.743 151 2.805 154 2.866 151 2.922 151 2.884 150 2.884
 Lebanon 147 2.800 147 2.790 148 2.804 148 2.755 146 2.730 148= 2.735 148= 2.669 143 2.606 151 2.774 147 2.760 146 2.796 151 2.888
 Nigeria 148 2.898 148 2.883 149 2.871 149 2.871 149 2.936 151 2.864 151 2.744 148= 2.712 142 2.580 143 2.610 145 2.582 147 2.593
 Sudan 149 2.921 150 2.950 150 2.968 150 2.945 150 2.976 152 2.968 154 2.958 155 2.944 157 3.061 152 2.996 152 2.947 156 2.947
 Ukraine 150 2.950 152 3.147 155 3.213 156 3.280 152 3.059 144 2.562 119 2.298 94 2.125 102 2.171 114 2.228 111 2.203 104 2.127
 North Korea 151 2.995 154 3.171 154 3.200 154 3.218 156 3.284 157 3.242 157 3.172 161 3.292 160 3.285 159 3.202 157 3.121 158 3.121
 Turkey 152 3.015 149 2.909 147 2.802 144 2.714 138 2.496 141 2.518 143 2.578 133 2.446 134 2.441 139 2.486 142 2.541 138 2.440
 Pakistan 153 3.072 151 3.094 152 3.080 153 3.132 154= 3.138 154 3.105 158 3.174 158 3.098 158 3.110 158 3.188 158 3.247 157 3.018
 Russia 154 3.093 153 3.163 153 3.117 152 3.118 154= 3.138 155 3.125 156 3.008 157 3.005 156 2.992 156 3.125 154= 2.980 149 2.876
 Democratic Republic of the Congo 155 3.218 155 3.249 151 3.059 151 3.064 153 3.076 153 3.071 153 2.929 156 2.958 155 2.925 153 3.023 156 2.998 154= 2.912
 Libya 156 3.285 157 3.283 158 3.340 155 3.219 151 3.048 137 2.455 147 2.655 152 2.839 149 2.755 67 1.953 80 2.003 84 2.033
 Central African Republic 157 3.296 156 3.276 156 3.242 158 3.313 158 3.410 158 3.255 155 2.981 153 2.861 153 2.805 148 2.765 147 2.810 153 2.899
 Afghanistan 158 3.300 159 3.350 159 3.347 159 3.391 157 3.293 161 3.321 162 3.353 162 3.442 161 3.392 160 3.485 160 3.426 160 3.350
 Iraq 159 3.369 160 3.436 161 3.516 162 3.530 160 3.481 159 3.266 159 3.196 159 3.234 162 3.411 161 3.600 161 3.616 161 3.681
 Yemen 160 3.412 158 3.308 157 3.316 157 3.287 148 2.840 148= 2.735 152 2.755 150 2.790 148 2.735 145 2.686 138 2.484 129 2.350
 Syria 161 3.526 161 3.525 160 3.462 161 3.524 161 3.491 156 3.230 146 2.650 141 2.561 143 2.591 163 163 163
 South Sudan 162 3.566 163 3.599 163 3.660 163 3.653 162 3.628 162 3.542 160 3.251 154 2.935 115 2.276 115 2.232 107 2.170 96 2.083
 Somalia 163 3.574 162 3.576 162 3.519 160 3.465 159 3.425 160 3.288 161 3.316 160 3.279 159 3.167 157 3.163 159 3.312 159 3.204

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.

International response to the GPI[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[22] Steve Killelea A.M., the Australian philanthropist who conceived the idea of the Index, argues that the Index "is a wake-up call for leaders around the globe.[23]

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.”[24]

Marla Mossman of the Peace Alliance Leadership Council said she believes that the measurements of the Global Peace Index can be useful for crafting government policy, helping governments to identify problems and develop practical and relevant policies. Furthermore, she said that she saw the Index indicators as, “the measurements of the health of the nation. So we really can take the temperature of the world: are we healthy? Do we have a fever?”[25]

Following the release of the 2015 GPI, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman of King's College in London called the Index, “an extraordinarily useful body of information,” and its analysis “the best indicator of future conflict is past conflict. The challenge is how we break that cycle.”[26]

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.[27]

In 2012, the Economist suggested that “quantifying peace is a bit like trying to describe how happiness smells.” The publication admitted that the GPI has produced some “surprising results” and argued that “part of the appeal of the index is that readers can examine each of the variables in turn and think about how much weight to add to each.”[28]

The Australian National University says 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.”[29]

The GPI has been criticised for not including indicators specifically relating to violence against women and children. Back in 2007, Riane Eisler, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, argued that, "to put it mildly, this blind spot makes the index very inaccurate. 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.[30]

Senior Analyst at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, Sabhat Khan, argued that the Index should “involve more context on security environments.” Referring to the UAE's GPI ranking in particular, Khan argued that “the measurement usually used by such rankings is crude data without contextualising them;”[31] for example, the UAE must bolster its security apparatus to respond to turbulence in neighbouring countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, which all rank at the very bottom of the GPI.

World leaders talking about the GPI[edit]

During a Peace Forum in August 2017, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez said that “receiving such high praise from an institute that once named this country the most violent in the world is extremely significant…My administration will keep fighting to protect all Honduran citizens.” The President has recently launched an initiative to build a series of safe parks across Honduras and hopes to see further improvement reflected in future GPI rankings.[32]

Malaysia ranked 29th in the 2017 GPI. The country's Communications and Multimedia Minister, Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak said that this ranking along with Malaysia's high place in the 2017 World Happiness Report was proof that the “government’s efforts have made Malaysia a safe and prosperous country.” He also admitted, “there’s still much room for improvement to make Malaysia the best among the better countries and that’s what we’re doing now.”[33]

After the release of the 2016 GPI, the Botswanan Office of the President released a proud statement, “in this year’s Index, Botswana was ranked as 28 out of 163 countries, up 3 places from last year. This continues to place Botswana above over half of the European region countries surveyed as well as all five of the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council…in addition Botswana was one of only five countries, to achieve a perfect score in the domestic and international conflict domain.”[34]

Navid Hanif, Director of the United Nations Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination said, “it’s intuitive that peace is useful and peacefulness is a reward in itself, but the IEP is trying to make the conclusion more evidence-based. Now that the index covers 99% of the population, it has come a long way. The report systemically measures peacefulness and identifies the determinants of peace.”[35]

Reacting to the 2017 results of the GPI, which ranked the Philippines 138 out of 163 countries, mainly because of poor scores in societal safety and security due to President Duterte's war on drugs, Philippine Presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella countered, “We’re not entirely sure where the GPI, Global Peace Index analyst… who apparently is supposed to be a local, is really coming from. Maybe there’s a political slant somewhere…based on survey results, the net satisfaction of Filipino people is quite high.”[36]

Sierra Leone ranked 39th in the 2017 Global Peace Index. Former Chief of Staff and Office of National Security (ONS) advisor, Dr. Jonathan PJ Sandy, “Welcomed the 2017 Global Peace Index report released recently which ranked Sierra Leone in first position, as the most peaceful country in West Africa and third in the African continent…He observed that going by the report itself, [future] elections might be successfully held.” Presidential Spokesman, Abdulai Bayraytay “said the favourable Global Peace rating of Sierra Leone would serve as an impetus for the country to do more.”[37]

Media coverage[edit]

The Independent: Global Peace Index: US Facing New Era of Instability as Middle East Sinks Further into Turmoil: “An annual global peace index has concluded that US political turmoil had pushed North America into deep instability in 2016 while the Middle East sank deeper into turmoil. Despite depicting tumult across continents, the 2017 Global Peace Index said the world had overall become more peaceful in the past year when measured against a range of indicators.”[38]

BBC: Global Peace Index 2017: World 0.28% more peaceful than last year: “Levels of peace around the world have improved slightly for the first time since the Syrian war began, but harmony has decreased in the US and terrorism records have increased, a Sydney-based think-tank has found.”[39]

Forbes: “The Global Peace Index, which the Institute compiles annually, paints a sombre picture: The world has become even less peaceful in 2016, continuing a decade-long trend of increased violence and strife. Published every year since 2008, the Index ranks 163 independent states and territories by their level of peacefulness.”[3]

Forbes: The World's Most and Least Peaceful Countries [Infographic]: “The 2017 Global Peace Index has found that the world has become a slightly safer place over the past year. However, the political fallout and deep rooted division brought on by the US presidential election campaign has led to a deterioration of peace levels in North America.”[40]

The Guardian: Fraught White House Campaign Blamed as US Bucks Global Trend Towards Peace: “The divisive nature of Donald Trump’s rise to the White House has increased mistrust of the US government and means social problems are likely to become more entrenched, said the authors of the annual Global Peace Index, in which 163 countries and territories are analysed.”[41]

HuffingtonPost: Global Peace Index 2017: Donald Trump Fallout Causes North America To Plummet Down Ranking: “While the world became a safer place to live overall, the 2017 Global Peace Index found disruption caused by the perception of corruption and attacks on media in the US led to its deterioration.”[42]

The Washington Times: U.S. Ranked the 114th Most Peaceful Nation on Earth says Annual Global Ranking: “The index is produced by the Australia-based Institute for Economics and Peace, which figures that the impact of strife worldwide is $14.3 trillion. News is not all bad, though. In a nutshell, the index found that 93 nations became ‘more peaceful’ in the last year, 68 were ‘less peaceful.’”[43]

Business Insider: The 12 Safest Countries in the World: “The think tank Institute for Economics and Peace recently published the Global Peace Index 2017, which reveals the safest — as well as the most dangerous — countries in the world. The report ranked 163 countries based on how peaceful they are. The rankings were determined by 23 factors, which included homicide rate, political terror, and deaths from internal conflict.”[44]

Sputnik International: Terrorism, Conflicts Cost Over $14 Trillion to Global Economy: “According to the latest estimation by the Global Peace Index that annually analyses the costs of security of living in countries and regions, worldwide terrorism is at an all-time high.”[25]

Indian news websites, ZeeNews, HindustanTimes, and Jagran Josh: The three Indian news agencies described the GPI’s ranking system, global peace trends, highlights from that year’s GPI and India’s own placement in the GPI. The Hindustan Times quoted the GPI and emphasized that “violence impacted India’s economy by USD 679.80 billion in 2016, 9 % of India’s GDP, or USD 525 per person”.,,[45][46][47]

Philstar, Filipino newspaper: “Among all the 163 countries, the Philippines is ranked 138. For perspective, India is ranked just one notch above, at 137. Despite this low ranking, however, it has remained relatively stable in this low rank over time a long time. Though the raw score has worsened over the previous year, the country’s rank has not been far off from this rank in previous years…Though the point of view of the report deserves respect concerning societal safety, another side of the story needs more hearing internationally.”[48]

World Economic Forum: These are the Most Peaceful Countries in the World: “The Global Peace Index ranks 163 countries according to their domestic and international conflicts, safety and security and degree of militarization. It found 93 had improved, while 68 had deteriorated, and overall peace levels had inched up 0.28%.”[49]

Academic references[edit]

The International Journal of Press/Politics: "Social Media and the Arab Spring: Politics comes first": This article utilized the findings of the 2010 GPI to construct a human rights index, which was used in their overall study on the use of social media in political uprisings, and in the Arab Spring context in particular.[50]

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development: "Security Challenges in Nigeria and the Implications for Business Activities and Sustainable Development": The study utilizes GPI scores from 2009-2012 to examine implications for Nigeria's business environment and overall progress in national security.[51]

Contemporary Security Policy: "Failed states and international order: constructing a post-Westphalian world": The Global Peace Index, along with four other global indices, is used in this study's ranking of 'state failure'. "Although this index focuses primarily on trends of armed conflict and violence it is relevant to state weakness and failure as the indicators measured for the assessment of 'peace' in this context are also indicative of state capacity."[52]

Biological Reviews: "Does Infectious Disease cause Global Variation in the Frequency of Intrastate Armed Conflict and Civil War?": This study used the 2008 Global Peace Index to build what they call a 'path analysis,' in which they sought to uncover "whether infectious disease causes the emergence of a collectivist culture."[53]

Political Research Quarterly: "Measuring the Rule of Law": This article attempts to measure the rule of law, and in doing so "correlated the rule of law indices with a measure of violent crime (for 2007) included in the Global Peace Index."[54]

Applied Energy: "The Analysis of Security Cost for Different Energy Sources": This study utilized the Global Peace Index in calculating a disruption probability from geopolitical instability, with the overall aim of analysing security costs for different sources of energy.[55]

International Political Science Review: "Measuring Effective Democracy: A Defence": In the construction of an effective democracy index (EDI), the authors built a table that includes 2008 GPI scores as a dependent variable in a regression analysis of economic development and various indices of democracy.[56]

Institute for Security Studies: "African Futures 2050- The Next Forty Years": The African human security research institution utilized the findings of the Global Peace Index of 2010 to emphasize trends in drug crime and violence on the African continent.[57][58]

Nature Communications: "Global Priorities for an Effective Information Basis of Biodiversity Distributions": In their article about insufficient digital accessible information about ecosystems and biodiversity, the authors utilized the GPI to model the "effects of secure conditions" based on the index as a measure of political stability, armed conflict, and public safety levels.[59]

Nordic Journal of Religion and Society: "Why are Danes and Swedes so Irreligious": This article uses the Global Peace Index, and its very high rankings of Denmark (3rd in 2008) and Sweden (13th in 2008) to support claims that the countries' lack of religiosity can be linked to prosperous societal structures.[60]

Food Security: "Tracking phosphorus security: indicators of phosphorus vulnerability in the global food system": Along with eleven other indicators, the GPI was used as a measure of political instability for the development of a utilized in the development of a phosphorus vulnerability analysis, aimed at formulating food production methods and government policy.[61]

World Politics: "The System Worked: Global Economic Governance During the Great Recession": Drezner uses GPI measurements, particularly the fact that interstate violence and military expenditures have decreased in the years studied, to bolster an argument suggesting that the Great Recession has not led to an increase in global violence and conflict.[62]

Journal of Sustainable Development Studies: "Insecurity and Socio-economic Development in Nigeria": This sustainable development study utilized the GPI, in conjunction with the Human Development Index and the Corruption Perception Index to track fluctuations in Nigeria's socio-economic climate and insecurity issues over the past decade.[63]

Harvard Educational Review: "Peace Education in a Violent Culture": In criticizing the United States' culture of violence, the author refers to the developed country's remarkably low ranking on the Global Peace Index as evidence of violence's impact on societal peacefulness.[64]

International Security: "The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States": In this piece, the authors use the Global Peace Index as one of three measures of state security; the GPI is specifically used as a "general measure of state peacefulness." The report concludes that higher levels of women's physical security correlates positively with the GPI.[65]

The Equal Rights Review: "The Mental Health Gap in South Africa: A Human Rights Issue": South Africa's poor GPI ranking, among other measures is cited by the authors as part of their overall argument that the national government is not implementing promises made towards the achievement of equality, as signatories of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).[66]

Environment, Development and Sustainability: "Creating a 'Values' Chain for Sustainable Development in Developing Nations: Where Maslow meets Porter": This study uses the 'safety and security' measures of the GPI, including political instability, level of violent crime, and likelihood of violent demonstrations, for supporting an argument that renders societal safety and security necessary for sustainable development.[67]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Institute for Economics & Peace. Global Peace Index 2018: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, Sydney, June 2018. Global Peace Index 2018. Retrieved: February 6, 2019.
  2. ^ a b c d e Institute for Economics and Peace. "Global Peace Index 2017" (PDF). visionofhumanity.org.
  3. ^ a b Wang, Monica. "The World's Most And Least Peaceful Countries In 2016". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-11-26.
  4. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace. "Global Peace Index Map". Vision of Humanity. Retrieved 2019-06-12.
  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. ^ 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."
  7. ^ Excludes militia and national guard forces.
  8. ^ 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."
  9. ^ This includes transfers, purchases, or gifts of aircraft, armoured vehicles, artillery, radar systems, missiles, ships, engines
  10. ^ Rates the destructive capability of a country's stock of heavy weapons via a categorised system. As of 2013, countries with nuclear capabilities receive a score of five, the highest possible score.
  11. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace. "Global Peace Index Report, Methodology, pg. 113–136" (PDF). Visionofhumanity.org.
  12. ^ "Global Peace Index 2019" (PDF). visionofhumanity.org. Institute for Economics and Peace.
  13. ^ "Global Peace Index 2018" (PDF). visionofhumanity.org. Institute for Economics and Peace.
  14. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace (2016). "Global Peace Index 2016" (PDF). Visionofhumanity.org.
  15. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace (2015). "Global Peace Index 2015" (PDF). Visionofhumanity.org.
  16. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace (2014). "Global Peace Index 2014" (PDF). Visionofhumanity.org.
  17. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace (2013). "Global Peace Index 2013" (PDF). Visionofhumanity.org.
  18. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace (2012). "Global Peace Index 2012" (PDF). Visionofhumanity.org.
  19. ^ "Global peace index 2012: the full list". the Guardian. 2012-06-12. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  20. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace (2011). "Global Peace Index 2011" (PDF). visionofhumanity.org.
  21. ^ Institute for Economics and Peace (2010). "Global Peace Index 2010" (PDF). visionofhumanity.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-03-26.
  22. ^ "Endorsers for GPI" (PDF). Vision of Humanity. Retrieved 2013-08-16.
  23. ^ "Norway rated most peaceful nation". 2007-05-30. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  24. ^ "Global Peace Index: World Less Peaceful in 2010 Report, Violence Impacting Global Economy $7 Trillion Annually". Phil's Stock World. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  25. ^ a b Sputnik. "Terrorism, Conflicts Cost Over $14 Trillion to Global Economy". sputniknews.com. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  26. ^ "King's College London – 2015 Global Peace Index: an increasingly divided world". www.kcl.ac.uk. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  27. ^ "Give peace a rating". The Economist. 2007-05-31. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  28. ^ "Give peace a score". The Economist. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  29. ^ "Giving peace a chance? 2017 Global Peace Index". ANU. 2017-06-09. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  30. ^ "Dark underbelly of the world's most 'peaceful' countries". Christian Science Monitor. 2007-07-26. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  31. ^ "UAE drops in rank in annual peace index amid increasing regional violence". The National. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  32. ^ Honduras, Republic of. "Honduras Peace Forum Marks National Progress in Crime Prevention". www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  33. ^ "2017 Global Peace Index and World Happiness Report shows Opposition leaders were wrong". NST Online. 2017-07-05. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  34. ^ "2016 Global Peace Index released-Botswana moves up 3 places; still ranked among the world's most peaceful nations – Embassy of the Republic of Botswana". botswana-brussels.com. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  35. ^ "Global Peace Index: Nine trillion reasons to pursue peace | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs". www.un.org. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  36. ^ Romero, A. "Palace Disputes Peace Index Report". www.pressreader.com. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  37. ^ "JPJ Sandy Praises Global Peace Index Report". Sierra Leone Concord Times. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  38. ^ "Last year there were 10 countries in the world entirely free from war. This year it's just four. This is the troubling reason why". The Independent. 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  39. ^ "World now 0.28% more peaceful – research". BBC News. 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  40. ^ McCarthy, Niall. "The World's Most and Least Peaceful Countries [Infographic]". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  41. ^ McVeigh, Karen (2017-06-01). "Fraught White House campaign blamed as US bucks global trend towards peace". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  42. ^ "US Became Less Peaceful After Donald Trump's Election, Influential Study Finds". HuffPost UK. 2017-06-01. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  43. ^ "U.S. ranked the 114th most peaceful nation on earth says annual global ranking". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  44. ^ "The 12 safest countries in the world". Business Insider. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  45. ^ "India ranks 137th in Global Peace Index 2017, Bhutan most peaceful in South Asia". Zee News. 2017-06-17. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  46. ^ "India ranked 141 in global peace index, Syria least peaceful". hindustantimes.com. 2016-06-08. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  47. ^ Rapaka, K. "IEP released the 2016 Global Peace Index, India ranks 141". Jagranjosh.com. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  48. ^ Sicat, Gerardo P. "The Global Peace Index". philstar.com. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  49. ^ Edmond, C. "These are the most peaceful countries in the world". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  50. ^ Wolfsfeld, Gadi; Segev, Elad; Sheafer, Tamir (2013-01-16). "Social Media and the Arab Spring". The International Journal of Press/Politics. 18 (2): 115–137. doi:10.1177/1940161212471716.
  51. ^ Achumba, I.; Ighomereho, O.S.; Akpor-Robaro, M.O. "Security Challenges in Nigeria and the Implications for Business Activities and Sustainable Development". Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development. 4.
  52. ^ Newman, E. (2009). "Failed States and International Order: Constructing a Post-Westphalian World". Contemporary Security Policy. 30 (3): 421–443. doi:10.1080/13523260903326479.
  53. ^ Letendre, Kenneth; Fincher, Corey L.; Thornhill, Randy (2010-08-01). "Does infectious disease cause global variation in the frequency of intrastate armed conflict and civil war?". Biological Reviews. 85 (3): 669–683. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00133.x. ISSN 1469-185X. PMID 20377573.
  54. ^ Skaaning, Svend-Erik (2009-09-22). "Measuring the Rule of Law". Political Research Quarterly. 63 (2): 449–460. doi:10.1177/1065912909346745.
  55. ^ Jun, Eunju; Kim, Wonjoon; Chang, Soon Heung (2009). "The analysis of security cost for different energy sources". Applied Energy. 86 (10): 1894–1901. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.11.028.
  56. ^ Alexander, Amy C.; Inglehart, Ronald; Welzel, Christian (2011-11-30). "Measuring effective democracy: A defense". International Political Science Review. 33 (1): 41–62. doi:10.1177/0192512111414682.
  57. ^ Cilliers, J.; Hughes, B.; Moyer, J. (2011). "African Futures 2050– The Next Forty Years" (PDF). Institute for Security Studies.
  58. ^ UNFPA – United Nations Population Fund (2016). ""Best friends" save women's lives in war-weary Central African Republic". www.unfpa.org. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  59. ^ Meyer, Carsten; Kreft, Holger; Guralnick, Robert; Jetz, Walter (2015-09-08). "Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions". Nature Communications. 6: 8221. doi:10.1038/ncomms9221. PMC 4569846. PMID 26348291.
  60. ^ Zuckerman, P. (2009). "Why Are Danes and Swedes So Irreligious?" (PDF). Nordic Journal of Religion and Society. 22: 55–69. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-12-15. Retrieved 2017-11-27.
  61. ^ Cordell, Dana; White, Stuart (2015-04-01). "Tracking phosphorus security: indicators of phosphorus vulnerability in the global food system". Food Security. 7 (2): 337–350. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0442-0. ISSN 1876-4517.
  62. ^ Drezner, Daniel W. (January 2014). "The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession". World Politics. 66 (1): 123–164. doi:10.1017/S0043887113000348. ISSN 0043-8871.
  63. ^ Olukayide Ewetan, O.; Urhie, E. (2014). "Insecurity and Socio-Economic Development in Nigeria" (PDF). Journal of Sustainable Development in Nigeria. 5: 40–63.
  64. ^ Harris, Ian M. (2007). "Peace Education in a Violent Culture". Harvard Educational Review. 77 (3): 1–5. doi:10.17763/haer.77.3.d47x861h55705715.
  65. ^ Hudson, V.M.; et al. (2009). "The Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States". International Security. 33 (3): 7–45. doi:10.1162/isec.2009.33.3.7.
  66. ^ Burns, J.K. (2011). "The Mental Health Gap in South Africa- A Human Rights Issue" (PDF). The Equal Rights Review. 6: 99–113.
  67. ^ Walsh, Philip R. (2011-08-01). "Creating a "values" chain for sustainable development in developing nations: where Maslow meets Porter". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 13 (4): 789–805. doi:10.1007/s10668-011-9291-y. ISSN 1387-585X.

External links[edit]