A philanthropist using systems thinking to build peace

Steve Killelea is an intriguing man, an Aussie software millionaire who, in the words of his bio ‘decided to dedicate steve killileamost of his time and fortune to sustainable development and peace’.  Think a more weather-beaten Bill Gates. He also (full disclosure) bought me a very nice lunch last week.

In pursuit of this aim he set up the Institute for Economics and Peace in 2007. The institute dedicates itself to measuring the hard stuff – ‘developing metrics to analyse peace and to quantify its economic value.’ It puts these measurements into the public domain through four flagship annual reports:

The Economic Value of Peace: e.g. ‘The total economic impact of violence to the world economy in 2015 was estimated to be $13.6 trillion and is expressed in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. This is equivalent to 13.3 per cent of world GDP or $1,876 PPP per annum, per person.’

The Global Terrorism Index: e.g. ‘There was a ten per cent decline from 2014 in the number of terrorism deaths in 2015 resulting in 3,389 fewer people being killed. Iraq and Nigeria together recorded 5,556 fewer deaths and 1,030 fewer attacks than in 2014. However, with a global total of 29,376 deaths, 2015 was still the second deadliest year on record.’

Killelea 1The Global Peace Index: The 10th edition found that ‘The historic ten-year deterioration in peace has largely been driven by the intensifying conflicts in the MENA region. Terrorism is also at an all-time high, battle deaths from conflict are at a 25 year high, and the number of refugees and displaced people are at a level not seen in sixty years. Notably, the sources for these three dynamics are intertwined and driven by a small number of countries, demonstrating the global repercussions of breakdowns in peacefulness. Many countries are at record high levels of peacefulness, while the bottom 20 countries have progressively become much less peaceful, creating increased levels of inequality in global peace.’

But the most innovative of the four is the Positive Peace report, which compares itself to the shift in health from focussing on sickness to focussing on health, broadly defined (including wellbeing). It uses a systems approach, seeking to quantify the ‘attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies.’ To do this it identifies 8 interlocking elements:

  • Well-functioning government
  • Sound business environment
  • Equitable distribution of resources
  • Acceptance of the rights of others
  • Good relations with neighbours
  • Free flow of information
  • High levels of human capital
  • Low levels of corruption

It then assesses each of these against a series of proxy indicators from public sources. For example Human Capital is measured by a combination of Secondary School enrolment (World Bank stats), Scientific Publications (World Bank again) and the Youth Development Index of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

I’m sure you could quibble with the gaps (environment/sustainability?) and the assumptions and value judgements global peace index coverbehind what constitutes ‘sound economics’ or ‘corruption’, but the IEP has an advisory council with some of the smartest people on measurement issues, so I assume they get thrashed out. Steve’s business background also comes out in a very World Bank-y emphasis on the instrumental (business) case for a lot of things which are really just good in themselves.

But what interests me is the niche the IEP is filling here. As the time series of its reports builds, so will their usefulness. Because they are backed by a philanthropist with a long term vision, they don’t have to follow fashion (eg to chase funding, or media profile). Feels like this is an excellent use of philanthropic funding. He could have gone for something more directly feelgood and tangible, but instead has chosen to engage at a more systemic/policy level. According to Steve the Terrorism Index ‘sadly has the most impact’, but the Positive Peace report is gaining momentum – he sees it as at least a five year project. Coincidentally, I’ve just come back from a seminar hosted by the Rockefeller Foundation on how to introduce systems thinking in support for market development – blog to follow.

I’d be interested in hearing from others who are more familiar with the work, or who have used the IEP reports – what are their strengths and weaknesses?



Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our .

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.


8 Responses to “A philanthropist using systems thinking to build peace”
  1. Pete

    Hi Duncan,

    I love the occasional idiosyncratic introductions to your posts that get created on your blog front page. Today’s says:

    “He also (full disclosure) bought me a very nice lunch last week. In pursuit of this aim he set up the Institute for Economics and Peace in 2007. …”

    A 10 year plan comes good – you should be flattered (or scared).


  2. Steven Rood

    Irene Santiago, chair of the Philippine government panel negotiating with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, uses the #positivepeace framework in her conceptualization.

    Thus she got (the often controversial) President Duterte to declare in his State of the Nation Address:
    “We will vigorously address the grievances that have been time and again expressed, not only by the Bangsamoro, indigenous peoples and other groups for security, development, fair access to decision-making and acceptance of identities.
    “Enduring peace can only be attained only if we meet these fundamental needs of every man, woman and child.”

  3. Megan Kennedy-Chouane

    I was particularly struck by your comment about this being a good use of philanthropic dollars. I agree, especially on the value of a longer term mandate outside of the ebb and flow of current fads and political priorities. The flip-side (and possible downside?) would be that the work is not integrated automatically with policy and practice (in the way that say a DFID measurement project might be?) to ensure the work is ‘usable’. How do they view the use of their findings?