Views
1 year ago

PEACE

axuM308ZbrP

AVERAGE INTERNAL

AVERAGE INTERNAL SECURITY SPENDING AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP FIGURE 31 INTERNAL SECURITY SPENDING AS PERCENTAGE OF GDP FOR FRAGILE AND NON-FRAGILE COUNTRIES Non-fragile countries spend nearly twice as much as fragile states on internal security. 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.89% 1.69% “ Fragile countries spend less on internal security, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, compared to non-fragile countries. As a percentage of GDP, fragile countries on average spend approximately half as much as non-fragile countries. Likewise, average per capita spending in fragile states is only 18 per cent of nonfragile countries. 0.0% Fragile Non-fragile Source: IEP FIGURE 32 AVERAGE PER CAPITA SPENDING ON INTERNAL SECURITY IN PURCHASING POWER PARITY TERMS BY NATIONAL INCOME Low income countries spend less than five per cent of what OECD countries spend on internal security on a per capita basis. High income: non-OECD High income: OECD Upper middle income Lower middle income Low income 0 500 1000 1500 2000 PER CAPITA INTERNAL SECURITY SPENDINGS ($PPP) Source: IEP THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PEACE 2016 | Comparisons 38

PEACEKEEPING & PEACEBUILDING Peacekeeping operations and peacebuilding are extremely important in preventing and dealing with violent conflict. Peacekeeping operations are measures aimed at responding to a conflict, whereas peacebuilding expenditures are aimed at developing and maintaining the capacities for resilience to conflict. Thus peacebuilding seeks to enable a country to sustain and develop peace over the long term. This is done through building the core functions of government, ensuring basic levels of safety and security and increasing the internal capacity for dispute resolution by supporting inclusive political processes, among other measures. These measures can be seen as a core subset of IEP’s Positive Peace framework. Peacebuilding is more targeted than peacekeeping in creating the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peace in a conflict-affected country. Peacebuilding expenditure aims to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing into violent conflict by strengthening national capacities and institutions for conflict management and laying the foundations of sustainable peace and development. These activities are distinct from peacekeeping activities, which are broadly aimed at responding to a conflict and establishing security. Peacebuilding and peacekeeping related activities in conflict-affected countries are a small proportion of ODA. Fragile and conflict-affected countries are in greater need of investment in peacebuilding to ensure they do not fall back into conflict. Spending on peacebuilding and peacekeeping is small compared to total economic losses from conflict. $8.27 billion was spent on peacekeeping in 2013, only 1.1 per cent of the estimated losses from conflict in 2015 which were estimated at $739 billion. Figure 33 highlights that the spending on peacebuilding and peacekeeping is small compared to the economic losses caused by conflict, representing 0.9 per cent 1.1 per cent respectively in 2015. FIGURE 33 COST OF CONFLICT COMPARED TO OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE, UN PEACEKEEPING AND PEACEBUILDING SPENDING, 2015 Peacebuilding expenditure is proportionally small compared to the economic losses from conflict. GLOBAL VALUE IN 2015 (2013 $US BILLION) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 739 Economic losses from conflict, 2005 (22% of the cost of conflict) 167 Total ODA, gross disbursement, 2015 (1.1% of the cost of conflict) 8.27 6.8 Total UN peacekeeping, 2015 (0.9% of the cost of conflict) Peacebuilding to 31 conflict affected countries, 2015 Source: IEP calculations, OECD THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PEACE 2016 | Comparisons 39

PEACE
PEACE
PEACE