I N S T I T U T E F O R E C O N O M I C S & P EAC E

2 011 M E T H ODOL OG Y, R E SU LTS & F I N DI N GS

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

The results of the Global Peace Index (GPI) for 2011 suggest that the world
has become slightly less peaceful in the past year. The deterioration is smaller
than that which occurred between the 2009 and 2010 editions of the GPI, whensome nations experienced an intensification of conflicts and growing instability
linked to rapid rises in food, fuel and commodity prices and the global economic
downturn. The 2011 GPI, which gauges ongoing domestic and international
conflict, safety and security in society and militarisation in 153 countries, registeredoverall score increases for several indicators, the largest of which were in thepotential for terrorist acts and the likelihood of violent demonstrations.
The indicator showing the most substantial year-on-year score decline (improvement)
was military expenditure as a percentage of GDP, reflecting the impact of the
global financial and economic crisis on defence budgets. While several countries
experienced improved levels of peacefulness that appear to be linked with theireconomic recoveries, others, notably those in North Africa and the Middle East
that have been swept up in the political turmoil of the “Arab Spring”, haveexperienced sharp falls in their peacefulness.
This is the fifth edition of the Global Peace Index (GPI). It has been expanded
to rank 153 independent states and updated with the latest-available figures andinformation. The index is composed of 23 qualitative and quantitative indicatorsfrom respected sources, which combine internal and external factors ranging froma nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries
and the level of respect for human rights. These indicators were selected by aninternational panel of academics, business people, philanthropists and membersof peace institutions.
As before, we have explored the possibility of correlations between the GPI andother economic and societal indicators - including measures of democracy andtransparency, education and material wellbeing. The GPI brings a snapshotof relative peacefulness among nations while continuing to contribute to anunderstanding of what factors help create or sustain more peaceful societies.
The GPI was founded by Steve Killelea, an Australian international technology
entrepreneur and philanthropist. It forms part of the Institute for Economics
and Peace, a global think tank dedicated to the research and education of therelationship between economic development, business and peace. The GPI iscollated and calculated by the Economist Intelligence Unit, with whom this report
is written in co-operation.

Page 3

HIGHLIGHTS

In the Global Peace Index 2011 Iceland is ranked as
the country most at peace, replacing New Zealand.
Iceland topped the GPI in 2008, but dropped to fourth
place in 2009 amid the country’s unprecedented
economic collapse and political crisis. Small, stable anddemocratic countries are consistently ranked highest; 14of the top 20 countries are western or central European
nations. This is, however, a reduction from 15 last year,
and reflects both an improvement in Malaysia’s scoreand a deterioration in Slovakia’s, which lifts the SouthEast Asian nation into the top 20 for the first time.
Qatar rises two places to 12th position and remains thehighest-ranked Middle-eastern country by some margin(Kuwait is the next highest in 29th place). The recent
waves of uprisings and revolutions in the Middle East
have been reflected in sharply deteriorating GPI scores
across the region, notably in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya andTunisia, which were previously ranked in the top halfof the GPI. Island nations generally fare well – mostare in the top half of the GPI, with Sri Lanka a notable
exception, although its score has improved since thedefeat of the Tamil Tigers in May 2009 and it rose by
11 places in the 2011 index. Madagascar and Jamaica
are accorded relatively low ranks (105th and 106th
respectively), with the former experiencing a sharp
deterioration in its score for the second successive year
amid an ongoing political and economic crisis.

Changes to the methodology for 2011
The international panel of experts that oversees thecompilation of the Global Peace Index chose to include
five additional countries in the 2011 edition: Eritrea,
Guinea, Kyrgyz Republic, Niger and Tajikistan.
Subsequent editions of the GPI will include othernations, but not micro-states: the panel decided thatcountries in the GPI must either have a population of
more than 1 million or a land area greater than 20,000
sq km, which means that Luxembourg is no longer
ranked. This brings the total number of countries
covered in the 2011 GPI to 153, encompassing around
99% of the world’s population and over 87% of theplanet’s land mass.
The dramatic events unfolding in the Middle East in
2010-11 prompted discussion about whether the eight
qualitative indicators scored by Economist Intelligence
Unit analysts could be undertaken at a slightly laterstage – in previous editions the scoring had been carriedout in January, referring to the previous calendar year.
The panel decided it was both beneficial and practicable
to update the period of analysis, and it will henceforth
start and end on March 15th. Thus the eight qualitative
indicators for the 2011 GPI relate to the period of 15th
March 2010 to 15th March 2011.

War-torn Somalia drops one place to replace Iraq as
the country ranked least at peace, although its score
improved slightly. This is chiefly because of a more
substantial improvement in Iraq’s GPI score comparedwith last year, lifting the country from the foot of
the index for the first time since 2007. Sudan and
Afghanistan follow. The average score for the 153 statessurveyed in the 2011 GPI is 2.05 (based on a 1-5 scale),a slight rise (reduction in peacefulness) compared withlast year, when the average reached 2.02, up from 1.96
in 2009. The more substantial deterioration between
2009 and 2010 appears to have reflected rising conflictin several countries, triggered by rapidly increasing foodand fuel prices in 2008 and the subsequent dramatic
global economic downturn.
There is little variance (0.347) between the overall
scores of the top 20 countries (from 1.148 for Iceland
to 1.495 for Hungary), although slightly more thanlast year. The 20 lowest-ranked countries exhibit a far
greater spread of 0.821 (from 2.558 for Georgia to
3.379 for Somalia), a drop from 0.832 last year.

Page 4BACKGROUND

Defining peace
The concept of peace is notoriously difficult to define.
The simplest way of approaching it is in terms of
harmony achieved by the absence of war or conflict.
Applied to nations, this would suggest that those not
involved in violent conflicts with neighbouring statesor suffering internal wars would have achieved astate of peace. This is what Johan Galtung1 defined
as a “negative peace”- an absence of violence. The
concept of negative peace is immediately intuitive andempirically measurable, and can be used as a starting
point to elaborate its counterpart concept, “positive
peace”. Having established what constitutes an absenceof violence, is it possible to identify which structuresand institutions create and maintain peace? The Global
Peace Index (GPI) is a first step in this direction; ameasurement of peace as the “absence of violence”
that seeks to determine what cultural attributes andinstitutions are associated with states of peace.
In 1999 the UN General Assembly launched a
programme of action to build a “culture of peace” forthe world’s children, which envisaged working towards
a positive peace of justice, tolerance and plenty.
The UN defined a culture of peace as involving values,
attitudes and behaviours that:• Reject violence• Endeavour to prevent conflicts by addressing
root causes• Aim at solving problems through dialogue andnegotiation

1 Galtung, Johan.
Peace by PeacefulMeans: peace andconflict, development
and civilization.
Oslo: International
Peace ResearchInstitute, 1996
2 Doyle, Michael.
Kant, Liberal
Legacies, andForeign Affairs.
Philosophy andPublic Affairs (1983)
205, 207-208

It proposed that such a culture of peace would befurthered by actions promoting education for peaceand sustainable development, which it suggested wasbased on human rights, gender equality, democratic
participation, tolerant solidarity, open communicationand international security. However, these links
between the concept of peace and the causes of themwere presumed rather than systematically measured.
For example, while Doyle2 and advocates of his liberalpeace theory have held that democratic states rarely
attack each other, the ongoing war in Iraq demonstrates
how some democratic countries can be militant or
belligerent—the justification for war often being thatpeace is ultimately secured through violence or the
threat of violence.

Measuring states of peace
The difficulties in defining the concept of peace may
partly explain why there have been so few attempts tomeasure states of peace across nations. This project has
approached the task on two fronts—the first aim is to
produce a scoring model and Global Peace Index thatranks 153 nations by their relative states of peace using

23 indicators. The indicators have been selected as being
the best available datasets that reflect the incidence
or absence of peace, and contain both quantitative
data and qualitative scores from a range of trusted
sources. The second aim is to use the underlying data
and results from the Global Peace Index to undertake
investigations into the relative importance of a range ofpotential determinants or “drivers” that may influence
the creation and nurturance of peaceful societies, bothinternally and externally.

The research teamAs with all composite indexes of this type, there areissues of bias and arbitrariness in the factors that arechosen to assess peace and, as seriously, in assigningweights to the different indicators (measured on acomparable and meaningful scale) to produce a single
synthetic measure. In order to minimise these slants, thechoices of indicators and the weights assigned to themwere agreed following close and extensive consultation
with the following international advisory panel ofexperts in 2010-11:
Professor Kevin P. Clements, Chairperson
Foundation Chair of Peace and Conflict Studies andDirector, National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Dr Ian Anthony
Research Coordinator and Leader of the Arms Control
and Non-proliferation Programme, StockholmInternational Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Sweden
Professor Sultan Barakat
Director, Post-war Reconstruction and Development
Unit (PRDU), Department of Politics, University ofYork, United Kingdom
Mr Nick Grono
Deputy PresidentInternational Crisis Group (ICG), Brussels, Belgium
Dr Toshiya Hoshino
Professor, Osaka School of International Public Policy
Osaka University, JapanDr Ronald J. Horvath
Honorary Associate Professor,
School of Geosciences, University of Sydney, Australia
Dr Manuela Mesa
Director, Centre for Education and Peace Research(CEIPAZ) and President, Spanish
Association for Peace Research (AIPAZ), Madrid, Spain
Dr Ekaterina Stepanova
Head, Unit on Peace and Conflict Studies,
Institute of the World Economy and International
Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences,
Moscow, Russia
Page 5

M E T H O D O L O G Y A N D D ATA S O U R C E S

The indicators

Measures of societal safety and security

Twenty-three indicators of the existence or absence ofpeace were chosen by the panel, which are divided into
three broad categories:

Ten of the indicators assess the levels of safety andsecurity in a society (country), ranging from theperception of criminality in society, to the level ofrespect for human rights and the rate of homicides
and violent crimes. Crime data is from the UN Officeof Drugs and Crime. The difficulties of comparing
international crime statistics are discussed in detail in
Annex A. Five of these indicators have been scoredby the Economist Intelligence Unit’s team of country
analysts:• Ongoing domestic and international conflict;• Safety and security in society;• Militarisation
All scores for each indicator are “banded”, either ona scale of 1-5 (for qualitative indicators) or 1-10 (forquantitative data, such as military expenditure or thejailed population, which have then been converted toa 1-5 scale for comparability when compiling the finalindex). Qualitative indicators in the index have beenscored by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s extensive
team of country analysts, and gaps in the quantitative
data have been filled by estimates by the same team.

• Perceptions of criminality in society• Number of refugees and displaced people asa percentage of the population• Political instability• Political Terror Scale

Indicators consisting of quantitative data such as
military expenditure or jailed population have beenmeasured on the basis of the distribution of values
across all countries between the maximum andminimum values (we assume that the 153 countries
measured for the Global Peace Index (GPI) are a
representative sample of all countries). Since the 2008
GPI the data for each indicator has been divided into
ten bands based on the full range of the data set anda country’s corresponding score results in its ranking
position.

• Potential for terrorist acts
• Number of homicides per 100,000 people• Level of violent crime• Likelihood of violent demonstrations• Number of jailed population per 100,000 people• Number of internal security officers and police
per 100,000 people

Measures of militarisation

A detailed explanation of the scoring criteria used foreach indicator is supplied in the Annex A to this report.

Measures of ongoing domestic andinternational conflict
The Global Peace Index is intended as a review of thestate of peace in nations over the previous calendar year,
although several indicators are based on data covering
the previous two years (2009-10 in the case of the 2011
GPI). The advisory panel decided against including data
reflecting a country’s longer-term historical experienceof domestic and international conflict on the grounds
that the GPI uses authoritative statistics on ongoing civil
and trans-national wars collated by the Uppsala Conflict
Data Program and the International Peace ResearchInstitute, Oslo. These, combined with two indicators
scored by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s analysts,
comprise five of the 23 indicators:

Eight of the indicators are related to a country’s
military build-up—reflecting the assertion that thelevel of militarisation and access to weapons is directly
linked to how at peace a country feels internationally.
Comparable data are readily available from sources
such as the International Institute of Strategic Studies(IISS):• Number of external and internal conflicts fought:
2004-09• Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP• Number of armed services personnel per
100,000 people• Volume of transfers (imports) of major conventional
weapons per 100,000 people• Volume of transfers (exports) of major conventional
weapons per 100,000 people• Budgetary support for UN peacekeeping missions:percentage of outstanding payments versus annual
assessment to the budget of the current peacekeeping
missions• Aggregate number of heavy weapons per
100,000 people• Estimated number of deaths from organised conflict(external)• Ease of access to small arms and light weapons• Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)• Military capability/sophistication• Level of organised conflict (internal)• Relations with neighbouring countries
Page 6

The overall composite score and index was thenformulated by applying a weight of 60% to the measureof internal peace and 40% for external peace. The
heavier weight applied to internal peace was agreed
within the advisory panel, following robust debate.
The decision was based on the innovative notion that agreater level of internal peace is likely to lead to, or atleast correlate with, lower external conflict.

Weighting the index
The advisory panel apportioned scores based on therelative importance of each of the indicators on a 1-5
scale. The consensus scores for each indicator are given
in Table 1.
Two sub-component weighted indices were thencalculated from the GPI group of indicators:
1) a measure of how at peace internally a country is;2) a measure of how at peace externally a country is(its state of peace beyond its borders).

Weight(1 to 5)

Indicator
Internal Peace

60%

External Peace

40%

Perceptions of criminality in society

4

Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people

3

Number of homicides per 100,000 people

4

Number of jailed population per 100,000 people

3

Ease of access to weapons of minor destruction

3

Level of organised conflict (internal)

5

Likelihood of violent demonstrations

3

Level of violent crime

4

Political instability

4

Level of disrespect for human rights (Political Terror Scale)4

Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons, as recipient (Imports) per 100,000 people

2

Potential for terrorist acts

1

Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)

5

Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP

2

Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people

2

Funding for UN peacekeeping missions

2

Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people

3

Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people

3

Military capability/sophistication

2

Number of displaced people as a percentage of the population

4

Relations with neighbouring countries

5

Number of external and internal conflicts fought: 2003-08

5

Estimated number of deaths from organised conflict (external)

5

Table 1Page 7

A N A LY S I S O F T H E R E S U LT S

Global Peace Index rankings
Table 2 contains the GPI rankings for 153 countries in 2011. Those countries shaded green are in the top 20%; thoseshaded in red are in the bottom 20%. All comparisons in country ranks with the 2010 GPI have been made on thebasis of the 149 countries that were included last year, thus excluding the five countries added in 2011.
Rank

Country

Score

Rank

Country

Score

1

Iceland

1.148

41

Oman

1.743

2

New Zealand

1.279

42

Ghana

1.752

3

Japan

1.287

43

Lithuania

1.760

4

Denmark

1.289

44

Tunisia

1.765

5Czech Republic

1.320

45

Italy

1.775

6

Austria

1.337

46

Latvia1.793

7

Finland1.352

47

Estonia

1.798

8Canada1.355

48

Mozambique

1.809

9

Norway1.356

49Panama1.812

10

Slovenia

1.358

50

South Korea

1.829

11

Ireland

1.370

51

Burkina Faso

1.832

12

Qatar

1.398

52

Zambia1.833

13

Sweden1.401

53Bulgaria

1.845

14

Belgium

1.413

54

Namibia

1.850

15Germany

1.416

55

Argentina

1.852

16

Switzerland

1.421

56

Tanzania

1.858

17

Portugal

1.453

57

Mongolia

1.880

18

Australia

1.455

58

Morocco

1.887

19

Malaysia

1.467

59

Moldova

1.892

20

Hungary

1.495

60

Bosnia and Hercegovina

1.893

21

Uruguay

1.521

61

Sierra Leone

1.904

22

Poland

1.545

62

The Gambia

1.910

23

Slovakia

1.576

63

Albania

1.912

24

Singapore

1.585

64

Jordan1.918

25

Netherlands

1.628

65

Greece1.947

26

United Kingdom

1.631

66

Paraguay

1.954

27

Taiwan

1.638

67

Cuba

1.964

28

Spain

1.641

68

Indonesia

1.979

29

Kuwait1.667

69

Ukraine1.995

30

Vietnam

1.670

69

Swaziland

1.995

31

Costa Rica

1.681

71

Cyprus

2.013

32

Laos

1.687

72

Nicaragua

2.021

33

United Arab Emirates

1.690

73

Egypt

2.023

34

Bhutan1.693

74

Brazil2.040

35

Botswana

1.695

75

Equatorial Guinea

2.041

36

France1.697

76

Bolivia

2.045

37

Croatia

1.699

77

Senegal

2.047

38

Chile

1.710

78

Macedonia

2.048

39

Malawi

1.740

79

Trinidad and Tobago

2.051

40

Romania

1.742

80

China

2.054

Table 2 (continued over page)

Page 8

Rank

Country

Score

Rank

Country

Score

81

Gabon

2.059

123

Bahrain

2.398

82

United States of America

2.063

124

Venezuela

2.403

83

Bangladesh

2.070

125

Guatemala

2.405

84

Serbia2.071

126

Sri Lanka

2.407

85

Peru

2.077

127

Turkey2.411

86

Cameroon

2.104

128

Cote d’ Ivoire

2.417

87

Angola2.109

129

Algeria

2.423

88

Guyana2.112

130

Mauritania

2.425

89

Montenegro

2.113

131

Ethiopia

2.468

90

Ecuador

2.116

132

Burundi2.532

91

Dominican Republic

2.125

133

Myanmar2.538

92

Guinea2.126

134

Georgia

2.558

93

Kazakhstan

2.137

135

India

2.570

94

Papua New Guinea

2.139

136

Philippines

2.574

95

Nepal

2.152

137

Lebanon

2.597

96

Liberia

2.159

138

Yemen

2.670

96

Uganda2.159

139

Colombia

2.700

98

Congo (Brazzaville)

2.165

140

Zimbabwe

2.722

99

Rwanda

2.185

141

Chad

2.740

100

Mali

2.188

142

Nigeria

2.743

101

Saudi Arabia

2.192

143

Libya

2.816

102

El Salvador

2.215

144

Central African Republic

2.869

103

Tajikistan

2.225

145

Israel2.901

104

Eritrea

2.227

146

Pakistan

2.905

105

Madagascar

2.239

147

Russia2.966

106

Jamaica

2.244

148

Democratic Republic of Congo

3.016

107

Thailand

2.247

149

North Korea

3.092

108

Turkmenistan

2.248

150

Afghanistan

3.212

109

Armenia

2.260

151

Sudan

3.223

109

Uzbekistan

2.260

152

Iraq

3.296

111

Kenya

2.276

153

Somalia

3.379

112

Belarus

2.283

113

Haiti

2.288

114

Kyrgyz Republic

2.296

115

Cambodia

2.301

116

Syria

2.322

117

Honduras

2.327

119

Iran

2.356

119

Niger

2.356

121

Mexico2.362

122

Azerbaijan

2.379

Page 9

A N A LY S I S O F T H E R E S U LT S

A regional overview

Western Europe

Western Europe remains markedly the most peacefulregion, with the majority of the countries in this groupranking in the top 20 overall. The average GPI scorein 2011 for the region deteriorated for the second
successive year, but by a slightly smaller margin thanbetween 2009 and 2010. Taking average GPI scores
since the first edition of the index in 2007 and adjustingfor the inclusion of additional countries, the region
became more peaceful up to 2009, since when it has
become less so. Four Nordic nations are ranked in the
GPI’s top ten, with high levels of safety and security
indicating broadly harmonious societies, free from civil
conflict. Sweden ranks lower than its Nordic neighbours
on account of its thriving arms-manufacturing industry
and the volume of exports of conventional weapons.
Its score deteriorated owing to a rise in the numberof internal security officers and police and a rise in
the perception of terrorist acts (from a low base) andit dropped out of the top ten to 13th position. As inprevious editions of the GPI, the majority of the Western
European nations recorded only small year-on yearchanges to their scores. Iceland experienced the largest
improvement, as its political scene returned to stability
after the turmoil of 2008 and 2009 but also owing to adrop in its level of military capability and sophistication
as austerity measures took their toll on an already small
military budget. Denmark’s score improved by thesecond-largest margin in the region.
Greece’s score deteriorated for the third successive
year, and by the largest margin in the region with anincreasing risk of demonstrations and rises in the levelof violent crime linked to the ongoing financial crisisand high unemployment. Very large numbers of heavy
weapons per head in both Greece and Cyprus contributeto their relatively high overall scores and low ranks. The
United Kingdom and France have been accorded low
positions compared with their neighbouring countries inprevious editions of the GPI owing to their sophisticatedmilitary spheres, substantial arms exports, involvement
in external conflicts and relatively high homicide rates.
This year the UK’s score was unchanged, but it rose to
26th place as a result of deteriorations in the scores offour countries ranked above it in 2010: Oman, Chile,
Costa Rica and Spain.

IcelandDenmark
Austria
Finland
NorwayIrelandSwedenBelgium
Germany
Switzerland
Portugal
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Spain
France
Italy
GreeceCyprusAverage

Overall
Rank

Overall
Score

Regional
Rank

1
4
6
7
9
11
13
14
15
16
17
25
26
28
36
45
65
71
23

1.15
1.29
1.34
1.35
1.36
1.37
1.40
1.41
1.42
1.42
1.45
1.63
1.63
1.64
1.70
1.77
1.95
2.01
1.52

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The second most peaceful region, North America,
experienced a slight improvement since last year,
continuing a trend since 2007. This year it reflects
an upturn in Canada’s score and ranking (to eighth
position). Canada’s relations with neighbouring
countries improved, having worsened during theprevious year as the government sought to defend its
sovereign claims in the Arctic. Canada’s measure ofrespect for human rights (the Political Terror Scale)also advanced slightly, to the highest possible level. The
US’s overall score remained unchanged (a fall in thelevel of violent crime was offset by a rise in the numberof deaths from external conflict) although it rose threeplaces to 82nd position as a result of deteriorations inother countries previously ranked above it. The US’srank reflects much higher levels of militarisation andinvolvement in external conflicts than its northernneighbour. Several measures of societal safety andsecurity also receive higher scores, including access tolight weapons and the proportion of the population in
jail (the largest of the 153 countries surveyed).

Page 10

North America

Overall
Rank

Overall
Score

Regional
Rank

CanadaUnited States of America
Average

8
82
45

1.35
2.06
1.71

1
2

Central and Eastern Europe remains, on average, thethird most peaceful region, after North America. Taking
average GPI scores since the first edition of the index
in 2007 and adjusting for the inclusion of additionalcountries, the region became more peaceful to 2009.
The level of peace dropped in 2010, in part a reflectionof the fallout from the global financial crisis, while there
was a very slight year-on-year improvement in 2011.
The newest members of the EU are ranked highest, with
the Czech Republic moving into the top ten for the firsttime (5th place) and Slovenia rising to 10th position.
Violent demonstrations are considered to have becomeless likely in the year to March 15th 2011 in the Czech
Republic, against a backdrop of political stability forthe first time since 1996 the country has a government
with both an ideologically clear programme and acomfortable parliamentary majority.
Non-EU countries in the Balkans are ranked between
59th and 89th in the 2011 GPI and nations in the
Caucasus and Central Asia occupy the lower reachesof the index, as before. Georgia’s score improved
most markedly in the region, with upturns in most ofits measures of societal safety and security and someindicators of domestic and international conflict in
response to the ending of violent conflict with Russia
in 2008 and easing relations with neighbouring
countries. Ukraine’s overall score underwent thesecond-largest improvement in the region, reflecting theincreased political stability that accompanied Viktor
Yanukovych’s victory in the presidential election in early
2010, and his success in creating a majority coalition inparliament and installing a loyal government. Relations
with Russia also thawed in 2010.
Romania’s score experienced little change in 2010 and
it rose to 40th in the overall ranking following a sharp
deterioration the previous year amid considerable
political instability and economic uncertainty.
Kazakhstan again heads the Caucasian and Central
Asian nations, in 93rd position. The country’s score
deteriorated slightly, continuing the trend since 2007
(when it was ranked 60th). In the 2010 GPI all thesecountries experienced deteriorations in their scoresand ranking positions, with rising political instability
frequently a contributing factor.
This year, the picture on overall score changes is mixed,
but tallies for the measure of political instability were
either unchanged or improved, with only deteriorationin Uzbekistan.

Central andEastern Europe

Overall
Rank

Overall
Score

Regional
Rank

Czech Republic
Slovenia
Hungary
PolandSlovakia
Croatia
Romania
Lithuania
LatviaEstonia
Bulgaria
Moldova
Bosnia and Hercegovina
Albania
UkraineMacedonia
SerbiaMontenegro
Kazakhstan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Armenia
Belarus
Kyrgyz Republic
Azerbaijan
TurkeyGeorgia
RussiaAverage

5
10
20
22
23
37
40
43
46
47
53
59
60
63
69
78
84
89
93
103
108
109
109
112
114
122
127
134
147
73

1.32
1.36
1.50
1.54
1.58
1.70
1.74
1.76
1.79
1.80
1.85
1.89
1.89
1.91
1.99
2.05
2.07
2.11
2.14
2.22
2.25
2.26
2.26
2.28
2.30
2.38
2.41
2.56
2.97
2.00

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
25
26
27
28
29

The Asia Pacific region is on average the fourth mostpeaceful region. The overall average score deteriorated
between the 2009 GPI and the 2010 index, in common
with the other regions, but there was a slight recovery
this year. Asia-Pacific countries exhibit wide variationin the GPI; the OECD nations rank highly, with New
Zealand coming second overall and Japan third, a
two-pronged impact of very strong scores for overall
domestic peace and low levels of militarisation.
Malaysia experienced an improvement in its GPIscore for the fifth successive year and it rose by threeplaces to 19th – it supplanted Singapore as the highest
ranked South-East Asian nation in the 2010 GPI. This
year, Malaysia’s growing peacefulness reflected a risein political stability, and improving relations withneighbouring countries (notably Singapore and China).
The divide in south-east Asia has become more marked
this year, with Taiwan and Vietnam both rising into the
top 30 and Indonesia remaining in the top 70 (68th).
Cambodia, Thailand and the Philippines are ranked
over 100th. Thailand’s score improved solidly from a
sharp deterioration the previous year amid a politicalcrisis which erupted into violence. The Philippines’

Page 11

A N A LY S I S O F T H E R E S U LT S

tally was unchanged, with most measures of safety
and security in society registering high scores toreflect a tense security situation in several parts of thearchipelago, notably the southern islands of Mindanao,
Basilan and Jolo where several separatist movements
remain active. In April 2010 militants from an Islamic
terrorist group, Abu Sayyaf, carried out a series ofbombings and shootings in Mindanao, killing 14 people.
South Asian nations occupy the lower half of theregional table, headed by Bangladesh, in 83rd place.
Nepal has ranked above Bangladesh since it was firstincluded in the 2009 GPI, but rising political instability
caused by several failed attempts to elect a new prime
minister and a lengthy power vacuum combined withan increased likelihood of violent demonstrations anda higher Political Terror Scale score contributed to
the Himalayan republic dropping to 95th position.
Ongoing internal conflicts and related security concerns
in Afghanistan and Pakistan contribute to their low
rankings, although both countries’ scores improved in
the 2011 GPI, Pakistan experiencing a rise in politicalstability from a highly volatile situation and a perceived
reduction in the level of violent crime and the likelihoodof violent demonstrations. The lowly positions of North
Korea and Myanmar reflect high scores in the broad
categories of conflict and security and very high levels of
militarisation.
Asia-Pacific
New ZealandJapan
Australia
Malaysia
Singapore
TaiwanVietnam
Laos
BhutanSouth Korea
Mongolia
Indonesia
China
Bangladesh
Papua New Guinea
Nepal
ThailandCambodia
Sri Lanka
Myanmar
India
Philippines
Pakistan
North Korea
Afghanistan
Average

Overall
Rank

Overall
Score

Regional
Rank

2
3
18
19
24
27
30
32
34
50
57
68
80
83
94
95
107
115
126
133
135
136
146
149
150
77

1.28
1.29
1.46
1.47
1.59
1.64
1.67
1.69
1.69
1.83
1.88
1.98
2.05
2.07
2.14
2.15
2.25
2.30
2.41
2.54
2.57
2.57
2.91
3.09
3.21
2.07

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Latin America’s average GPI score is slightly higher thanthat of the Asia-Pacific, suggesting it is a marginallyless peaceful region. The average score for the region
deteriorated slightly compared with the 2010 GPI,by a considerably smaller margin than the decline
between 2009 and 2010. Uruguay is ranked highest
for the second successive year (21st place) and its score
improved amid growing political stability following
the election of José Mujica as president to a five-year
term starting in March 2010 and better relations withneighbouring countries (notably Argentina). Costa
Rica and Chile remain in second and third places
respectively in the regional context, although bothcountries experienced deteriorating scores last year
(Chile’s in response to a rise in the homicide rate and anincrease in the number of internal security officers andpolice, which contributed to the country’s slide to 38th
position). Chile ranked first in Latin America in the first
three editions of the GPI. Costa Rica’s high ranking in
the GPI partly reflects very low scores for almost all its
measures of militarisation, in step with the abolition of
the country’s army at the end of the civil war in 1948.
The worsening of Costa Rica’s score last year was partly
the result of deteriorating relations with neighbouring
Nicaragua over a territorial dispute along the San Juanriver. Perceptions of criminality are considered to haveincreased from a low level.
Colombia’s score improved by the largest margin in
the region, amid a rise in political stability following
the election of Juan Manuel Santos as president in June2010 and subsequent warming relations and improving
economic links with neighbouring Venezuela, Ecuador
and Brazil. Colombia nevertheless remains the lowestranked country in the region, with very high scoresin the majority of its measures of safety and security
and fairly high levels of militarisation. Mexico andGuatemala both experienced the largest deteriorationin scores in the 2011 GPI, with Mexico’s tally for thenumber of deaths in internal conflict rising by thelargest degree (2 points) of the 153 countries surveyed
in response to an escalation in drug-related violence
that killed more than 12,000 people in 2010 and an
estimated 30,196 since the president, Felipe Calderón,
began a crackdown on cartels in December 2006.
Guatemala’s sharply increased GPI score also reflects aworsening security situation linked to organised crime
and the illegal drugs trade in Mexico and compoundedby the limitations of a relatively weak government.

Page 12

Latin America
Uruguay
Costa Rica
Chile
PanamaArgentina
Paraguay
Cuba
NicaraguaBrazilBolivia
Trinidad and Tobago
Peru
GuyanaEcuador
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Jamaica
Haiti
Honduras
MexicoVenezuela
GuatemalaColombia
Average

Overall
Rank

Overall
Score

Regional
Rank

21
31
38
49
55
66
67
72
74
76
79
85
88
90
91
102
106
113
117
121
124
125
139
84

1.52
1.68
1.71
1.81
1.85
1.95
1.96
2.02
2.04
2.04
2.05
2.08
2.11
2.12
2.12
2.22
2.24
2.29
2.33
2.36
2.40
2.40
2.70
2.09

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

tally worsened for the third successive year amid aheightened perception of criminality in society, an
increased number of external and internal conflicts
fought and rising political instability - the position of
the president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, looks less secure thanat any time since the 1994 civil war.
Qatar is again the nation ranked most at peace in theregion; most indicators of safety and security in society
are accorded very low scores and measures of ongoing
conflict and militarisation are scored considerably
lower than the majority of countries in the region,
although the Emirates’ military expenditure as apercentage of GDP (2%) is the highest of the top 20
nations in the GPI. Iraq experienced the largest yearon-year improvement to its overall GPI score and thecountry rose from the lowest position for the first timeamid a broadly improving security situation, althoughdemonstrations against corruption inspired by thosein Tunisia and Egypt spread throughout the country,
including the relatively peaceful Kurdistan Regional
Government-administered north of the country, inearly 2011. Warming relations with Kuwait and Syria
prompted an improvement in the measure of relations
with neighbouring countries.

The Middle East and North Africa experienced by
far the largest deterioration in its average score of theseven regions for the 2011 GPI, which largely reflects
the uprising that began in Tunisia in December 2010
and led to the ousting of the long-time president, Zine
el-Abidine Ben Ali, a month later and spread acrossthe region; the “Arab Spring”. The outbreak of civil
war in Libya has caused the largest deterioration in a
GPI score, both regionally and across the 153 countries
surveyed. The country was previously ranked relatively
high in the GPI, peaking at 46th in 2009, with lowscores for most measures of societal safety and security
apart from respect for human rights (the Political Terror
Scale) and the ease of access to light weapons. Most of
Libya’s measures of militarisation receive low scores,
with the notable exception of the aggregate number ofheavy weapons per head.
The uprising in Bahrain and the dramatic escalationof violence by the army against protesters in midFebruary is reflected in sharp deteriorations in most of
the country’s measures of societal safety and security.
Egypt’s GPI score deteriorated by the third-largest
margin in the region, followed by those of Oman andTunisia. Large-scale and ongoing protests in Syria
contributed to a sharp deterioration in its GPI score,
while recent unrest in Yemen added to the host of
disparate and deepening security and socioeconomic
challenges for the government. The country’s GPIPage 13

Middle Eastand North Africa

Overall
Rank

Overall
Score

Regional
Rank

Qatar
KuwaitUnited Arab Emirates
Oman
Tunisia
MoroccoJordanEgypt
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Iran
Bahrain
Algeria
Lebanon
Yemen
Libya
IsraelIraq
Average

12
29
33
41
44
58
64
73
101
116
119
123
129
137
138
143
145
152
92

1.40
1.67
1.69
1.74
1.77
1.89
1.92
2.02
2.19
2.32
2.36
2.40
2.42
2.60
2.67
2.82
2.90
3.30
2.23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

A N A LY S I S O F T H E R E S U LT S

Sub-Saharan Africa remains the region least at peace,with an average GPI score of 2.25, although the gap tothe average score for the Middle East and North Africa
region narrowed appreciably. The score deteriorated
slightly compared with the 2010 GPI, continuing a
trend from 2009. Botswana fares best for the third
successive year, although the gap between it and thenext highest placed nation narrowed in response to aslight deterioration in its score and a substantial rise in
Malawi’s tally (increased political stability, a reductionin the likelihood of violent demonstrations and an
improvement in the human rights situation (Political
Terror Scale). Chad’s GPI score improved to the largest
extent, which, in large part, reflected the rapprochementwith Sudan after several years of violent conflict thatwere linked to the genocide and humanitarian crisis in
Darfur. Diplomatic relations with Sudan were restored
in late 2008 and the Doha Peace Agreement, signed in
May 2009, held throughout 2010.

Sub-SaharanAfricaSomalia remained the lowest-ranked country in
the region although its score improved following a
reduction in military expenditure and a slightly morestable political scene. It remained volatile, however,under the new prime minister of the transitional federal
government (TFG), Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed
Farmajo. The more substantial improvement in Iraq’s
score in 2010 caused Somalia to slip to the lowest
position in the 2011 GPI. Sudan and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC) continue to occupy
the lowest ten positions and each experienced adeterioration in their score.
Madagascar’s score deteriorated by the largest extent.
The island’s relatively peaceful state (it was ranked 40th
in the 2007 GPI) came to an abrupt end in early 2009,
when political tensions erupted into violence. Since
the overthrow of the president, Marc Ravalomanana
in March 2009 the country has been in deep politicalcrisis, which intensified at times in 2010 and wasaccompanied by an increasingly acute economic crisis,
reflected in declines in several of the measures of safety
and security in society.

Overall
Rank

Overall
Score

Regional
Rank

Botswana
Malawi
Ghana
Mozambique
Burkina Faso
ZambiaNamibia
Tanzania
Sierra Leone
The Gambia
Swaziland
Equatorial Guinea
Senegal
Gabon
CameroonAngolaGuineaUgandaLiberia
Congo (Brazzaville)
RwandaMali
Eritrea
Madagascar
Kenya
South Africa
Niger
Cote d’ Ivoire
Mauritania
Ethiopia
BurundiZimbabwe
Chad
Nigeria

35
39
42
48
51
52
54
56
61
62
69
75
77
81
86
87
92
96
96
98
99
100
104
105
111
118
119
128
130
131
132
140
141
142

1.69
1.74
1.75
1.81
1.83
1.83
1.85
1.86
1.90
1.91
2.00
2.04
2.05
2.06
2.10
2.11
2.13
2.16
2.16
2.16
2.19
2.19
2.23
2.24
2.28
2.35
2.36
2.42
2.43
2.47
2.53
2.72
2.74
2.74

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

Central African
Republic

144

2.87

35

Democratic Republic of
the Congo

148

3.02

36

Sudan
Somalia
Average

151
153
96

3.22
3.38
2.25

37
38

Three of the world’s major military-diplomatic powers(the European Union could be considered the 4th)
continue to register relatively low ranks, with China at
80th, the US at 82nd and Russia at 147th. The scoresfor the US and China were little changed, while Russia’s
overall score improved slightly.

Page 14

T H E T E N C O U N T R I E S M O S T AT P E A C E

Iceland: 1st place
Score: 1.148
Iceland rises from 2nd position in the 2010 GPI to 1stplace, returning to the position it held in the 2008 GPIprior to the unprecedented collapse of the country’s
financial system and currency that was triggered by
the international financial turmoil in September andOctober 2008. The improvement in Iceland’s score
this year reflects a drop in the likelihood of violent
demonstrations, returning to the lowest possiblelevel under the stable centre-left coalition of theSocial Democratic Alliance (SDA) and the Left-GreenMovement (LGM), led since April 2009 by the reformist
prime minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir. The upturn inthis qualitative indicator is also linked to a tentative
economic recovery during 2010 and an improvementin the unemployment situation compared with thedire circumstances in 2009. Icelandic society remains
essentially harmonious, with measures of safety andsecurity including violent crime, internal conflict andthe number of homicides all accorded very low scores.
The proportion of citizens who are in jail remains oneof the lowest in the world at 55 per 100,000 and it was
unchanged in 2010.
A member of NATO since its inception in 1949, Iceland
has no standing army and military expenditure asa proportion of GDP is the lowest of any European
nation. The GPI score for military capability andsophistication was reduced this year to account forswingeing budget cuts made by the government. The
Icelandic Defence Agency (IDA), which was launchedin 2008 with a budget of US$20m, was disbanded in
January 2011 and its responsibilities transferred to thesmall Icelandic Coastguard. The Iceland Crisis Response
Unit (ICRU) has participated in peacekeeping missions
in co-operation with the United Nations, NATO, OSCEand the EU, as well as projects in partnership withother Nordic countries. As at November 2010, ICRU
personnel were serving with NATO’s International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

New Zealand: 2nd place
Score: 1.279
New Zealand slips to second place in the 2011 GPI,
having been ranked the nation most at peace in theprevious two editions. Its overall score deteriorated asa result of changes to three of the 23 indicators. There
was a rise in the number of internal security officers,which reflects the Labour-led government’s plan in 2006
to increase police resources, committing to recruiting
and training 1,000 additional police officers over thefollowing three years. New Zealand’s jailed populationrose to 203 per 100,000 in 2010, a level notably higher
than most other OECD countries (71 per 100,000 in

Norway, 96 in France and 133 in Australia according
to the International Centre for Prison Studies). There
was also an upturn in the number of external conflicts
fought according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program,which records conflicts that started in 2004 and wereextant in the 2004-09 period.
Most aspects of safety and security in New Zealand’ssociety receive the lowest possible scores in the 2011
GPI, including the likelihood of violent demonstrations,the homicide rate and the level of respect for humanrights (Political Terror Scale). The political scene
remained stable in 2010 and the low tally for thisindicator is owing to the strong popular mandate for thecentre-right National Party and its robust parliamentary
majority. The personal approval rating of the prime
minister, John Key, remained strong, and confidence inthe government and its handling of the economy rose
during the year; New Zealand emerged from recession
in the second quarter of 2009. New Zealand maintains
harmonious relations with most neighbouring countries,
notably Australia, links with which are underpinned by
the 1983 Closer Economic Relations (CER) agreement.
Relations with Fiji have, however, been strained since
the military coup there in 2006. The majority of
New Zealand’s measures of militarisation continue
to be scored very low, including military expenditure
as a percentage of GDP and the number of armed
services personnel per head. The qualitative score forthe country’s military capability/sophistication is 3
(moderate) on a par with most OECD countries althoughhigher than that accorded to neutral Ireland (1).

Japan: 3rd place
Score: 1.287
Japan remained in 3rd position in the 2011 GPI
although its score deteriorated slightly as a result ofa rise in the number of the country’s internal security
officers and police, according to the UNODC’s mostrecent survey, leading to a rise in its score from 1 to 2.
Japan’s score for political stability was unchanged at
the lowest possible level, a decision that was linked tothe effect of the devastating earthquake and tsunami
and the ensuing nuclear crisis that struck the country on
March 11th. Prior to the disaster, the political future of
the prime minister, Naoto Kan of the ruling Democratic
Party of Japan (DPJ), looked bleak - his popularity had
crashed, his party was feuding and the government had
failed to secure the passage of legislation to implement
the budget for 2011/12 - but the authorities’ initial
reaction to the catastrophe was rapid and competent. In
contrast with the lethargic response with the 1995 Kobe
earthquake, large-scale relief operations were launched
immediately and foreign assistance welcomed and Mr
Kan has been given a second chance.

Page 15

T H E T E N C O U N T R I E S M O S T AT P E A C E

While Japan’s Self-Defence Forces (SDF) remain
sophisticated and capable (with a tally of 4), themajority of the country’s indicators of militarisation
are accorded very low scores; military expenditure
remains below 1% of GDP as a result of the ban
on maintaining war potential that was enshrined in
the 1946 constitution. The SDF have increasingly
been deployed on international humanitarian andpeacekeeping missions, including, controversially within
Japan, to Iraq in December 2003. They were withdrawn
from Iraq in July 2006 and in January 2010 Japan’s
defence minister ordered the end of a naval refuelling
mission in the Indian Ocean that had supported the
US-led war in Afghanistan since 2001. Japan’s relations
with neighbouring countries remain relatively poor on
account of ongoing tensions with North Korea andChina, highlighted when Japan arrested a Chinese
captain whose fishing boat had rammed a Japanese
coastguard vessel (he was later released under pressure
from China) in September 2010, giving Japan a higherscore for this indicator (3) than the other nations in the
top ten. Japan remained free from civil unrest in 2010,
while violent crime and homicides are rare and terrorist
acts highly unlikely. Respect for human rights is highand stringent laws prohibit the possession of firearms,
all of which feed into a high overall position in the GPI.

Denmark: 4th place
Score: 1.289
Denmark’s GPI score improved from last year,
contributing to a rise to fourth place. This partly reflects
the Danish government’s raising the penalty for illegal
gun possession and a consequent shift in the qualitative
assessment of the accessibility of small arms andlight weapons. Danish exports of major conventional
weapons per head declined to the lowest possible score,
alongside Iceland and Norway, below Canada and wellbeneath Sweden. Improvements in these two indicators
were offset by deterioration in the gauge of the potential
for terrorist acts, in line with the announcement by
the Danish Intelligence Service in December 2010 thatit had arrested five men suspected of an “imminent”
terror plot against the Danish newspaper that ran
controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad
in 2005.
Although Denmark abandoned its policy of neutrality
in 1949 to become a member of NATO, it has
maintained a relatively modest level of defence
expenditure and refuses to allow nuclear weapons on
its soil in peacetime.
Most GPI indicators relating to safety and security insociety are accorded very low scores. Denmark is freefrom internal conflict, politically stable and it enjoys
good relations with neighbouring countries. Ratesof violent crime and homicide are very low, violent
demonstrations are highly unlikely and the proportionof the population in jail is among the lowest in Europe.

Czech Republic: 5th place
Score: 1.320
The Czech Republic’s GPI score improved lastyear owing to a fall in the likelihood of violent
demonstrations amid a steadily recovering economy– GDP grew by 2.3% in 2010. The political scene isstable; since legislative elections in May 2010 a threeparty, centre-right coalition government has held acomfortable majority in the lower house of parliament,
giving it a strong mandate to reform the public finances.
Tensions within the coalition have eased and areunlikely to threaten the government in the short term,
given the enormous incentives for coalition members
to keep their parliamentary seats and show results onreform. Relations with neighbouring countries arewarm and the Czech Republic’s strongly Europhileforeign minister, Karel Schwarzenberg, has pursued an
active but pragmatic foreign policy, combining liberal
economic positions in international and EU affairs witha careful eye to the Czech Republic’s national interest.
The government’s foreign policy priorities are energy
security, further EU enlargement - with a focus on
south-eastern Europe—and closer regional co-operation.
The level of violent crime is accorded a score of 2(low), while perceptions of criminality in society, thelevel of internal conflict and the potential for terrorist
acts are “very low”. The homicide rate is one of thelowest in the OECD, according to the 11th UNODC
survey, unchanged from the previous year. The Czech
Republic joined NATO in 1999 and the nation’s army
has contributed to ISAF in Afghanistan (458 troops
were stationed there in 2010) and the US-led Multinational Force in Iraq between 2003 and December
2008, which is reflected in a relatively high score (2.5)
for the measure of internal and external conflicts fought.
The indicator of police and internal security officers perhead of population is also accorded a relatively highscore (3), notably higher than the other countries in the
top ten but comparable with other central and eastern
European nations.

Austria: 6th place
Score: 1.337
Neutral since the end of Soviet occupation of partof the country in 1955, Austria remains free of civil
unrest and it continues to enjoy excellent relations
with neighbouring states. Most measures of safety andsecurity in society are accorded low scores in the GPI,
notably the level of violent crime and the homicide rate,
which remain among the lowest of the 153 nations

Page 16

surveyed. Austria’s overall score in the 2011 GPIdeteriorated slightly from last year and it dropped by
two places to 6th. There was a rise in the number ofinternal security officers and police in Austria, according
the most recent UNODC survey, although the numberof police officers per head remains one of the lowest in
the OECD – only Canada, Denmark and Finland receivea lower score.
Austria’s score for the Political Terror Scale, whichmeasures physical integrity rights violations, worsened
slightly from 1.5 to 2 in 2009 (the most recent available
year) as a result of a year-on-year deterioration in
the human rights situation as reported by Amnesty
International. A score of 2 refers to “a limited amountof imprisonment for non-violent political activity.
However, few persons are affected, torture andbeatings are exceptional. Political murder is rare”.
Austria’s score for this indicator is the lowest of the
top ten countries. Austria’s military is moderately
sophisticated and capable; since September 2009 theAustrian Joint Command–Air Force has included 15
Typhoon interceptor aircraft. Controversy surrounded
the procurement since it was initiated by a centre-rightgovernment in 2003 amid strong opposition fromthe Social Democrats (SPÖ) and the Greens. Military
expenditure remained well below 1% of GDP in 2009,
one of the lowest levels of the 153 countries surveyed
and most other measures of militarisation receive lowscores.

Finland: 7th place
Score: 1.352
Finland’s overall score was unchanged last year, but it
moved up two places to 7th in the 2011 GPI becauseof deteriorations in Norway’s and Ireland’s scores.
Finland’s political scene is stable and the country
remains free of civil unrest. Relations with neighbouring
countries are harmonious and violent crime is very
rare–the score unchanged from last year–although thehomicide rate remains higher than in the other Nordic
countries. Most measures of safety and security insociety receive very low scores – only 60 per 100,000
of Finland’s population was in jail in 2010, the secondlowest proportion of the top-ten nations in the GPI,
after Iceland. Terrorist acts are considered to be highly
unlikely, a situation comparable to Estonia, Latvia and
Norway.
The majority of Finland’s measures of militarisation
are accorded low scores in a broad international
comparison, with military spending at 1.3% of GDP in2009 (latest available figure), a low proportion of the
population that are soldiers, and fairly low volumes ofimports and exports of conventional weapons. Since

the end of the cold war, Finland has professed a policyof strategic non-alignment and chosen not to apply
for NATO membership, despite the fact that the three
Baltic states joined in 2004. The government adopted
an essentially neutral approach to the conflict in Iraq.
Finland is involved in the NATO Partnership for Peace(PfP) programme and it has supplied 95 troops to the
NATO-led force in Afghanistan. The number of heavy
weapons per head of population is relatively high in
Finland – on a par with Sweden but notably higher than
New Zealand, Japan and Ireland.

Canada: 8th place
Score: 1.355
Canada’s GPI score improved as a result of gains in
two indicators and it rose by six places to 8th position.
Relations with neighbouring countries warmed slightly,
following a temporary trade agreement with the US,
signed in February 2010, on mutual access to local andstate/provincial government procurement contracts,
which opens the possibility of a more substantial
and long-term agreement on the issue. Additionally,
2010 was a quieter year than the previous one on the
Canada’s arctic front – in 2009 the Harper government
had put a greater emphasis on defending its sovereign
claims in the region, straining relations with Denmark(Greenland), Norway, Russia and the US. Canada’sscore for the Political Terror Scale, which measuresphysical integrity rights violations, returned to thelowest possible level. Offsetting these gains was aslight rise in the likelihood of violent demonstrations,reflecting protests at the G20 economic summit inToronto in June 2010 and growing discontent in late2010 and early 2011 with the minority Conservative
administration.
Canada’s other measures of societal safety and security
are accorded very low scores. The proportion of the
population in jail is higher than the Scandinavian
nations, at 117 per 100,000 people in 2010, but lower
than in New Zealand and much lower then the US.
Access to small arms and light weapons has been
restricted since the 1995 Firearms Act and they are farless readily available than in the US, but more so than inJapan and several Western European countries. Canada
has a moderately sophisticated and capable militarysphere but the majority of its measures of militarisation
receive very low scores. Since Canada’s three separate
armed forces were reorganised into the CanadianArmed Forces (CAF) in 1964 the defence budget has
broadly declined as a proportion of overall government
spending, in line with a diminishing perceived threat
from the Warsaw Pact countries.

Page 17

T H E T E N C O U N T R I E S M O S T AT P E A C E

close co-operation remaining a cornerstone of Norway’s
foreign policy. The majority of GPI indicators relating
to safety and security point to a harmonious society:violent crime is rare, the political scene is stable andviolent demonstrations and terrorist attacks are highly
unlikely. Norway’s Political Terror Scale score is thelowest possible, and has been every year since theanalysis began in 1976.

The CAF was increasingly associated with international
peacekeeping missions. Canada has had a major role inNATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
in Afghanistan. Since 2006 more than 2,500 troops
have been stationed near Kandahar, which accounts forhigher scores for the number of internal and external
conflicts fought and the estimated number of deaths
from external conflict (155 members of the Canadian
Forces since 2002) than the other countries in the top
ten of the GPI. The deployment has been domesticallycontroversial but the Conservative-led administration
won parliamentary approval in 2008 to extend themission in Afghanistan until 2011. In November
2010 the government extended Canada’s mission in
Afghanistan for at least another three years, although
the mission will apparently be smaller and geared
towards a training role.

Slovenia: 10th place
Score: 1.358

Norway: 9th place
Score: 1.356
Norway’s score deteriorated slightly from last year,
which contributed to a slide of four places to 9th
position, along with improvements in the scores of theCanada and the Czech Republic. Norway’s volume oftransfers of major conventional weapons (as a recipient)increased substantially for the second successive year,
according to SIPRI, which analysed the 2005-09 period.
The level is among the highest of the 153 countries
surveyed and is linked to the ongoing modernisation of
the country’s naval and air forces and its coast guard,
including the delivery of five new Spanish-built frigates.
Norway is investing heavily in building its militarycapability in its far north to protect its arctic territory,
its fisheries and oil and gas installations, which partly
accounts for the country’s relatively high score for theaggregate number of heavy weapons per head. Norway
has reportedly spent around US$6bn to reinforce its far
north defences since 2006 and in 2009 the armed forces
moved their operational headquarters from Oslo toBodo, inside the Arctic Circle.
A founding member of NATO, Norway has beenan active participant in the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan since 2003, witharound 500 troops remaining there in 2011, which
contributes to the country’s relatively high score (2.5)
for the measure of internal and external conflicts fought.
Norway also deployed 150 troops to Iraq in 2003 aspart of the US-led Multi-National Force. They werewithdrawn in August 2006.
Relations between Norway and its neighbouring
Scandinavian countries, with which it shares a strong
cultural and linguistic heritage, are very good, withSlovenia’s GPI score was unchanged last year but itrose one place to 10th as a result of the deterioration in
Ireland’s tally amid that country’s severe economic andpolitical crises. Slovenia’s political scene remained stablein 2010, with the Social Democrat-led coalition gaining
credibility in June 2010 when a referendum narrowly
approved the border arbitration agreement signed with
Croatia at the end of 2009. Slovenia’s GPI score forpolitical instability (1) remains the lowest of the Balkancountries by some margin and it is matched only by
Slovakia in the Central and Eastern Europe region.
Having declared its independence in July 1991, Slovenia
avoided most of the turmoil that engulfed the former
Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and experienced relative
political stability under a 12-year spell of centre-leftcoalition government led by the Liberal Democracy of
Slovenia. Despite the agreement to settle their longrunning border dispute, relations with Croatia remained
difficult in 2010 and the Slovenian opposition, which
was against the agreement, may try to hinder Croatia’saccession to the EU. Slovenia’s score for relations withneighbouring countries thus remains at 2, higher thanmost countries in the top ten of the GPI.
Several measures of safety and security in Sloveniansociety receive the lowest possible scores: namely thelevel of violent crime, the proportion of the populationin jail and the rate of homicides, although violent
demonstrations are considered to be more likely thanin neighbouring Austria. Low scores characterise
most aspects of Slovenia’s measures of militarisation –spending on the 7,200-strong army accounts for only
1.6% of GDP. A small contingent of 70 soldiers joined
NATO’s ISAF operation in Afghanistan in 2004 and79 remain in Herat in 2011, contributing to a (stilllow) score of 1.5 for Slovenia’s measure of internal andexternal conflicts fought. Other international military
deployments are restricted to various NATO and UN
peacekeeping missions, most notably in Kosovo, where
323 troops are stationed. The present government is
considering decreasing the Slovenian presence in otherinternational peacekeeping missions.

Page 18

T H E T E N C O U N T R I E S L E A S T AT P E A C E

Figures from the UNHCR and the Internal
Displacement Monitoring Centre suggest that around
1.9m Somalis have been displaced by the ongoing
conflicts. This amounts to more than 20% of the
population, giving Somalia the highest possible score(5) for this indicator, along with Bhutan, Cyprus, Iraq
and Sudan. Almost all of Somalia’s measures of societal
safety and security are accorded very high scores.
The exceptions are police numbers per head and the
proportion of the population in jail, on account of thecountry’s lack of civil institutions.

War-torn Somalia is classified the least at peace out of
153 countries, followed by Iraq.

Somalia: 153rd place
Score: 3.379
Somalia’s GPI score improved last year, reflecting aslight rise in political stability and in an upturn in the
Political Terror Scale, albeit from a very low level.
There was also a drop in the country’s military
expenditure as a proportion of GDP. Despite this,Somalia dropped one place to the lowest position in
the 2011 GPI because there was a more substantial
improvement in Iraq’s score, which lifted that country
from the foot of the index for the first time. The upturnin political stability reflects mainly the continued
existence of the UN-backed transitional federal
government (TFG) in 2010 and early 2011, led by the
reputedly moderate Islamist interim president, Sheikh
Sharif Sheikh Ahmed.

Iraq: 152nd place
Score: 3.296

At an international conference in Istanbul in May 2010
on stabilising Somalia, UN Secretary General Ban Kimoon called on the international community to support
the TFG, although its authority only extends over asmall part of the capital, Mogadishu, with the backingof African Union troops. In Somaliland, a much-delayedpresidential election was won by Ahmed Mohamed
Mohamoud Silanyo in June 2010. The poll took place
without major incident and was deemed free and fair byinternational observers.
Much of Somalia remained mired in conflict in 2010
and early 2011 – the country has not had a nationallyfunctioning state government since its descent into civil
war in 1991. The GPI indicator of internal conflictagain registered the highest possible score, as the violent
confrontation between the TFG and Islamist rebel
groups, Hizbul Islam and al-Shabaab continued for thefifth successive year. Outbreaks of fierce fighting
frequently engulfed parts of the capital, Mogadishu, andtowns across southern Somalia, resulting in the deathsof hundreds of civilians and the displacementof thousands more. Some of the most intense fighting inrecent years took place between August and November
2010, including an attack on a hotel by al-Shabab thatkilled dozens of people including four members ofparliament, and the capture by government troops of
Bulo Hawo, a strategically important town, from theinsurgents. The International Maritime Bureau reported
a growing number of violent pirate attacks off the coastof Somalia in 2010, with Somali pirates reportedly
active further into the Indian Ocean – the region
accounted for 92% of all ship seizures, with 49 vessels
hijacked and 1,016 crew members taken hostage.

Iraq’s score improved substantially in 2011, with gains
in several measures of both ongoing conflict and safety
and security in society and for the first time the country
is not ranked lowest in the GPI. The indicator for thelevel of organised conflict within the country drops
to 4.5; 4,038 civilians were killed in 2010, according
to Iraq Body Count (IBC), down from 4,686 in 2009
and 9,217 in 2008. This is the lowest civilian death
toll since 2003, but the year-on- year improvement isalso the lowest (15%) since violence levels began toreduce from late 2007. Iraq’s score for political stability
improved slightly for the third year running, this year
reflecting the fact that in early November 2010 Iraq’s
bickering political factions reached an agreement toform a national unity government, helping to end
an eight-month political impasse. Nouri al Maliki
retained his position as prime minister in the new
government, which includes his State of Law (SoL)
coalition, the largely Shia Iraqi National Alliance(INA), the Kurdistan Alliance and the Iraqi National
Movement (INM), led by a former prime minister, Ayad
Allawi. Despite representing Iraq’s main communities,
the early signs are that the administration will be aweak and divided one and the political scene remains
broadly unstable. The indicator of relations withneighbouring countries also underwent an improvement
in response to a rapprochement with Syria (Mr Maliki
sent a delegation to Damascus in September) andstrengthening economic ties with Turkey. Relations with
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran remain tense, however.
Although Iraq’s overall security situation can be said
to have eased in 2010 and early 2011 and the measureof internal conflict is downgraded, it remains at a very
high level (4.5); tension and violence remain widespreadwith the exception of the relatively peaceful Kurdishinhabited northern part of the country. The level of trustin other citizens, the homicide rate, the level of violent
crime, the perceptions of criminality, the likelihood ofviolent demonstrations and the potential for terrorist

Page 19

T H E T E N C O U N T R I E S L E A S T AT P E A C E

acts all receive the highest possible scores (unchanged
from last year). A very high proportion of population
is displaced (15.4%, the third-highest in the world,
according to data from the UNHCR and the Internal
Displacement Monitoring Centre). Some 1m Iraqis
are thought to live in Syria, with another 475,000 in
Jordan. “Sectarian cleansing” - most notably in thecapital, Baghdad, but also elsewhere - by insurgent
and militia groups has led to an estimated 2.8m
internally displaced persons (IDPs). Fearful of reprisals,
or in the face of explicit threats, most IDPs havewithdrawn from mixed areas to those that are morereligiously homogenous.
Iraq is a highly militarised country, the legacy of
Saddam Hussein’s steady build-up of forces from histime as head of security in the ruling Ba’ath Party in the
1970s. Small arms and light weapons remain very easily
accessed. Military expenditure rose sharply to 4.5% of
GDP in 2009-10, in line with the Iraqi army’s purchaseof sophisticated US weaponry, including General
Dynamics Abrams tanks, Stryker armoured vehicles andBell armed transport helicopters. In February 2011 Iraq
announced it had delayed the purchase of Lockheed
Martin F-16 fighter jets and diverted US$900m
of allocated funds into the country’s food ration
programme.

Sudan: 151st place
Score: 3.223
An escalation of the conflict over secession andresources in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, as well asheightened tensions in the south ahead of a referendumin January 2011 concerning the possible independenceof South Sudan and the future affiliation of the oilrich Abyei province contributed to a deteriorationof the country’s already high score. Two of the five
GPI indicators of ongoing domestic and international
conflict deteriorated: the number of conflicts fought(as measured by UCDP) and the number of deaths
from internal conflict. The latter reflects violent clashes
between Abdel-Wahid al-Nur’s Sudan Liberation
Movement and government forces in Jebel Marra,
North Darfur, reportedly killing 440 people in May
alone and displacing thousands. Fighting erupted again
in the region in early 2011.
Clashes also broke out between the Justice and Equality
Movement (JEM), the most powerful rebel group, andgovernment forces in western Darfur in May, shortly
after JEM had suspended peace negotiations. In July
the UN extended the mandate of the UN-African Union
Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) for another year andincreased the number of peacekeepers to 17,200.

Sudan’s GPI scores for the Political Terror Scale remain
at the highest possible level, unchanged since 2002,
and the homicide rate is also accorded a score of 5.
Perceptions of criminality and the level of violent crime
are considered to be lower in Sudan than most countries
in the lowest positions in the GPI, notably Somalia,
Iraq and Afghanistan, which reflects Sudan’s size andthe fact that while parts of the country are in turmoil,
other areas, including the capital, Khartoum, are stable.
The UN estimates that up to 300,000 people have diedfrom the combined effects of war, famine and disease
since the conflict in Darfur began in 2003. Sudan’s
government put the death toll at 10,000. Almost
2.7m people are estimated to have fled their homes in
Darfur alone, while refugees and internally displaced
people across the country as a whole are estimated tonumber almost 5.3m, 12.8% of the population – thefourth highest proportion in the 2011 GPI. Small arms
and light weapons remain highly accessible, whilemost other measures of militarisation receive lowscores – military expenditure dropped to just 1.1%
of GDP in 2009, very low compared with elsewherein the Middle East and North Africa. The indicatorof political stability improved slightly in 2010, whichreflects the first comprehensive and (partly) contested
elections in a quarter of a century, held in April, which
consolidated the status quo, and the successful stagingof the referendum, which 98.8% of southerners voted
for “separation”.

Afghanistan: 150th place
Score: 3.212
Embroiled in conflict and instability for much of thepast two decades, Afghanistan remained far frompeaceful during 2010. It was a year of intensified armed
conflict, with a surge of activity by pro-government
forces and increased use of improvised explosive devices
and assassinations by anti-government elements. The
UN estimates that 2,777 civilians were killed during
the year (up from 2,400 in 2009) amid continued
confrontation between the NATO-supported Afghan
National Army (ANA) and a Taliban-backed insurgency
that has spread well beyond its stronghold in the southand east of the country. Casualties among the NATOled International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) rose
to 711 in 2010, up from 520 the previous year and 295
in 2008 – the measure of deaths in organised conflict
had already risen to the highest level (5) in the 2010
GPI. The winter of 2010-11 was particularly violent,with 785 insurgent attacks in December. An attack on
government employees in Jalalabad in February by
the Haqqani network killed at least 38 people. Mostof Afghanistan’s measures of safety and security are,Page 20

not surprisingly, scored “very high” and the likelihoodof violent demonstrations increased to 4.5 to reflect
incidents such as a 1,000-strong rally in Mazar-i-Sharif
in July that was sparked by a NATO raid on a market
in which two local security guards were killed. The GPI
measure of the number of displaced people (including
refugees) increased to 2.2m in 2009, a rise of 3.5% year
on year, which amounts to 7.8% of the population, oneof the highest proportions of the 153 countries surveyed.
Afghanistan’s political scene remained unstable in 2010
(the GPI score for this indicator unchanged) in spiteof numerous moves by the president, Hamid Karzai,
to strengthen his political authority as the controversy
surrounding the 2009 presidential election lingered andcombined with allegations of electoral frauds in the
September 2010 parliamentary election. The indicatorof Afghanistan’s relations with neighbouring countries
retained a moderate score (3), having improved slightly
in the 2010 GPI amid strengthening economic ties with
India and Iran.

annual military expenditure was estimated in 2002 toamount to around US$5bn and it is thought to haveincreased to around 20% of GDP in 2009, by far thelargest proportion of the 153 countries surveyed andmore than twice the level of Saudi Arabia, the next
largest at 9.4%. North Korea’s scores for its militarycapability and sophistication and stock of heavy
weapons both increased - a South Korean defence
review reported that the country had increased its
investment in tanks and special forces, which now
number 200,000.

Democratic Republic of the Congo:
148th place
Score: 3.016

North Korea: 149th place
Score: 3.092
North Korea’s score deteriorated sharply last year,with declines in eight indicators spanning security insociety and the military sphere. The sharp increases in
the number of homicides and rises in violent crime andthe likelihood of violent demonstrations from relatively
low levels reflect unconfirmed reports of a dramatic
escalation in violence and brutality at the hands ofthe regime, with public executions tripling last year,
to at least 60. Capital offences were said to include
robbery, people-trafficking, the illicit use of Chinese
mobile phones and unauthorised possession of US
dollars. Whereas in the past many North Koreans haveslipped into China, to find work or escape the Northern
regime, there is now by some accounts a new shootto-kill policy on illegal border crossings. The reports
of a defector source were published in a conservative
South Korean daily newspaper in January 2011,
which accused the North of instituting a new reign ofterror to enforce the succession of Kim Jong-eun, Kim
Jong-il’s third son who was officially presented as hisfather’s heir-apparent in September. North Korea’s tense
relations with its neighbours became even more strainedin 2010 (prompting a rise to 5 for the GPI indicator)
following the administration’s decision in March 2010
to sink a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan,
and to fire missiles at Yeonpyeong in November oneof five South Korean islands in the West (Yellow) Sea,
close to North Korea. Two marines and two civilians
were killed, 18 people were injured, and fire damage
to property and land was substantial. North Korea’s

The Democratic Republic of Congo’s score deteriorated
in 2010 and the country remains among the tenlowest-ranked nations in the 2011 GPI (148th of 153
countries, compared with 140th of 149 nations in the2010 GPI). The decline is primarily the result of a risein the number of external and internal conflicts fought,as measured by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program(UCDP), to 4. There was also a rise in the GPI gauge ofthe potential for terrorist attacks to a “high likelihood”
amid growing evidence of a new partnership between
the ADF-NALU (Allied Democratic Forces-National
Army for the Liberation of Uganda) - a Ugandan rebel
group based in the Ruwenzori mountains in Eastern
Congo - and al-Shabaab, the Somali fundamentalist
group connected to al-Qaeda. The allegations are basedon material found by the Congolese army in ADFNALU bases after bombings in the Ugandan capital,
Kampala in July 2010, which killed 70 people as they
watched the World Cup final. Fighting continued inseveral regions during 2010, although the conflict overregional predominance and resources between the rebelsof the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda(FDLR) and the government in the east of the countryde-escalated and there were slight improvements to thegauges of the levels of violent crime and the likelihoodof violent demonstrations. However, armed clashes
between the Congrès national pour la défense dupeuple (CNDP) led by Laurent Nkunda, a renegade
Tutsi general, and the national army, Forces arméesde la République démocratique du Congo (FARDC),
continued in North and South Kivu during 2010
with an appalling humanitarian impact and most GPI
indicators of safety and security in society remained atvery high levels.
In 2010 there were reports of the increasing
involvement of “criminal networks” within the FARDC
in economic activities, notably mining, contributing
significantly to insecurity and conflict. In September the

Page 21

T H E T E N C O U N T R I E S L E A S T AT P E A C E

President, Laurent Kabila announced a ban on mining
activity in North Kivu, South Kivu and Maniema, tofacilitate the removal of illegal armed groups frommines by the Congolese army; end the involvementin mining of criminal networks within its ranks; andenable the registration of all those participating in the
sector. DRC’s score for the number of displaced people
as a proportion of the population is relatively low (2)although the UNHCR estimates that in 2010 the totalof refugees and internally displaced people amounted to
2.1m, the disastrous consequence of decades of misruleand violent conflict, including a civil war between
1998 and 2003 that caused as many as 3m deaths.
DRC’s relations with neighbouring countries are again
accorded a moderate score (3), which reflects warm
relations with Rwanda, cemented by a bilateral summit
in Goma in August 2010, and Zambia. Relations with
Angola remained tense, however, with an ongoing
dispute over the two countries’ maritime border andoffshore oil. In terms of the military sphere, small arms
and light weapons are very readily accessible, but other
GPI measures are accorded low scores, unchanged fromlast year.

Russia: 147th place
Score: 2.966
Russia’s score improved in the 2011 GPI. The country
is ranked 147th of 153 nations (only six other countries
are less peaceful), which was also the case in the2010 GPI. The improved score reflects changes in two
indicators: a drop in the estimated number of deaths
from external conflict and a rise in political stability.
The former refers to the ending of the conflict between
Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia (specifically norecorded conflict-related deaths in 2009-10; in 2008-09
there were 67). The latter reflects Dmitry Medvedev’s
increasingly strong position as president, illustrated by
the dismissal in September 2010 of the powerful mayorof Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov. One of Russia’s indicators
deteriorated in the 2011 GPI: the measure of thepotential for terrorist acts – the score for this indicatorrose to 4 (a “high likelihood”) following a year when
the country was hit by several deadly attacks. Two
suicide bombings on the Moscow metro in March 2010
killed 40 people and injured over 100 and a suicidebombing at Domodedovo, Moscow’s busiest airport,
in January 2011, killed 36 people and injured 180. The
airport attack targeted foreigners as well as Russians,
presumably to increase pressure on the Russian
government in the run-up to the parliamentary andpresidential elections in late 2011 and early 2012, as
well as the 2014 Winter Olympics and the 2018 football
World Cup. Other fatal terrorist attacks occurred in
Kizlyar, Dagestan, Stavropol, Vladikavkaz, Grozny and
Makhachkala.

The secession conflict between Islamic militants andRussia’s central and regional government in Dagestan
escalated in 2010, while conflict in Ingushetia continued
at a highly violent level. Chechnya, which has been
relatively peaceful by the standards of the North
Caucasus, experienced rising violence; its parliamentbuilding in Grozny was stormed in an audacious attackby militant gunmen in October, less than 18 months
after Russia formally ended its ten year “counterterrorism” operation there. Russia’s score for the GPI
indicator of internal conflict remained “moderate”
in 2010-11, in spite of events in the North Caucasus,
reflecting the fact that large areas of the country are freeof conflict.
The homicide rate, number of internal security officers,
and the perception of criminality are all accorded
scores of 4 “high”, unchanged from last year. The
International Centre for Prison Studies records thatthe proportion of the Russian population in jail fell
for the third successive year in 2010, but it is still thesecond-highest of the 153 countries surveyed, behind
the US. While Russia’s military capability has shrunk
greatly since the Soviet era, it remains powerful andsophisticated, with more heavy weapons per head of
population than most other nations. Russia is a leading
manufacturer of arms and the indicator for the country’s
exports of major conventional weapons per headreceives a high score (4).

Pakistan: 146th place
Score: 2.905
Pakistan’s overall GPI score improved markedly in2010, causing a modest rise in the rankings to 146thplace (out of 152 countries, compared with 145thof 149 nations last year). There was a reduction in
the likelihood of violent demonstrations from a very
high level and a drop in the level of violent crime to“moderate”, in line with an easing of the widespread
violence verging on civil war that embroiled much of thecountry in 2009. According to the India-based Institutefor Conflict Management, terrorism-related violencecaused 7,435 deaths in Pakistan in 2010 (1,796 whichwere civilians), compared with 11,585 in 2009 and
6,715 a year earlier).
In early 2010 the president, Asif Ali Zardari, claimed
that the army had achieved considerable success in its
offensive against Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP, analliance of around a dozen militant Islamist groups
based in the country) in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas (FATA). However, the medium-term
success of the offensive remains far from assured andheavy clashes between the army and Taliban continued
throughout 2010, particularly in the Kurram andOrakzai districts – according to UN reports more

Page 22than 200,000 people fled the combat zone in June.
Conflict between various Baloch insurgent groups andthe government over the status of Balochistan also
continued in 2010. Sindh province was also afflicted byviolent clashes during the year - around 50 people were
killed in targeted attacks in Karachi during a two-weekperiod in March 2011. Large parts of the city were shut
down because of the violence.
Pakistan’s score for political stability also improved
slightly as tensions among the two main political parties- the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan
Muslim League (Nawaz) eased and the ruling coalition
led by Mr Zardari survived the year. Nevertheless, thepolitical scene remained highly unstable in 2010 amid
the severe domestic security problems, the floods thatdevastated large swathes of the country in AugustSeptember and fraught foreign relations. Small arms
and light weapons are readily available, although mostof Pakistan’s GPI measures of militarisation receive
relatively low scores (military expenditure dropped
to 2.2% of GDP in 2009-10), with the exception of
military capability and sophistication, which remained
at level 4, in line with Pakistan’s status as a nucleararmed state.

Israel: 145th place
Score: 2.901
Israel’s score improved for the second successive
year, taking it to 145th place in the 2011 GPI. The
upturn reflects a drop in the level of internal conflictto “moderate”, with a tense truce holding between theIslamist group, Hamas, (which has controlled Gaza
since June 2007) and Israeli forces. For this reason
there was also a fall in the GPI score for perceptionsof criminality in society to 3. Nevertheless, Palestinianrocket attacks from Gaza continued in 2010 - theIsraeli military claim that 165 rockets and mortar
bombs were fired on Israeli towns and villages during
the year. In June Israel’s cabinet voted to considerablyease its blockade of Gaza. The move came in the wakeof international condemnation of Israel’s forcibleinterception of an aid convoy bound for Gaza. Nine
activists aboard one of the Turkish-owned vessels were
killed in a confrontation with Israeli troops, whichcaused a further deterioration in what were previously
warm relations with Turkey. For this reason and the factthat Israel remains in a formal “state of war” with its
northern neighbours, Syria and Lebanon, and relations
remain tense with much of the Arab world and Iran, theGPI measure of relations with neighbouring countries
remained at 4 (“aggressive: open conflicts with violenceand protests”).

Israel’s indicators of societal safety and security present
a mixed picture, as before. The level of violent crimeand homicide rate are low, violent demonstrations areunlikely to occur and the political scene is relatively
stable. However, the risk of terrorist attacks is high.
Military expenditure in Israel as a percentage of GDP
fell considerably in 2009-10, but at 6.2% it remains
among the highest in the world. Imports of major
conventional weapons also dropped, but they remain
at the third-highest level of the 153 countries surveyed,behind the UAE and Singapore.

Central African Republic: 144th place
Score: 2.869
The Central African Republic’s score deteriorated
sharply last year and it dropped to 144th place, having
been ranked above the bottom-ten nations for the past
two years. The risk of terrorist attacks and violent
demonstrations increased ahead of the presidential
election in January 2011, with fresh violence flaring in
the country’s remote north-east. In late November, lessthan ten days after the withdrawal of the UN mission
in the CAR (MINURCAT), a rebel group that has
not signed up to the peace process - Convention despatriotes pour la justice et la paix (CPJP) -attacked
and occupied Birao. After two days of clashes that
resulted in a reported 71 deaths, comprising 65
rebels and six soldiers, the national army, the Forces
armées centrafricaines (FACA), regained control of thetown. During these clashes the FACA was assisted by
Chadian troops that had crossed the border in pursuitof Chadian rebel forces, which have been accused ofproviding support to the CPJP.
Further fighting between the FACA and the CPJP thattook place in early February around the eastern townof Bria and attacks by the Lord’s Resistance Army in
the far south underline the violence and instability
that continues to permeate several parts of the country
and explain the high scores that are accorded to mostof the CAR’s measures of societal safety and security.
The CAR’s indicator of the number of internal andexternal conflicts fought also increased. Small arms
and light weapons are easy to access in the CAR, butother measures of militarisation, such as the number ofarmed services personnel per 100,000 people, military
expenditure as a percentage of GDP and militarycapability and sophistication receive low scores.

Page 23

R I S E R S A N D FA L L E R S

In order to ensure that the Global Peace Index is as
accurate a measure as possible, the team compilingit are open to periodic refinements, subject to theagreement of the international panel of experts. For the2008 GPI, for example, it was decided to place all thescores across the 23 indicators in bands, using either ascale of 1-5 or 1-10, to counter the volatility observed in
the “raw” quantitative scores that had previously been
“normalized”. In the same spirit, the team has decided
to focus its analysis of variations in the index on yearon-year changes in countries’ scores, rather than theirrankings, initially for the 2010 GPI and this year for the2011 GPI. We feel that this provides a more accurate,
and more easily justifiable, reflection of changes inpeacefulness “on the ground”.
Georgia’s GPI score experienced the largest year-on-year
improvement (rise in peacefulness) of the 153 nations
surveyed and it climbed 12 places to a still- low 134th
position. Chad’s score improved by the second-largest
margin and Mongolia’s the third-largest.
Libya’s score deteriorated to the largest extent from the2010 GPI, amid its rapid and unprecedented descentinto civil war in February and March 2011. Bahrain’sscore deteriorated by the second-largest margin andEgypt’s by the third-greatest extent.
Changes in rank are based on a comparison with the 149
countries in the 2010 GPI; they compare countries ona like-for like basis and exclude the ranking changes
caused by the inclusion of new countries to the GPI.
Countries with the greatest change in Global Peace
Index scores, 2010 -11
Country

Score
2011

Changein score2010 –11

Rank
2011

Changein rank
2010 –11

2.558-0.412

134+12

Top 5 risers
Georgia
Chad

2.740

-0.224141+4Mongolia

1.880-0.221

57+36

Sri Lanka

2.407-0.215126+11

Thailand

2.247-0.147

107

+19

Libya

2.816

0.977

143

-83

Bahrain

2.398

0.429

123

-47

Egypt

2.023

0.239

73

-25

North Korea

3.092

0.236

149

-6

Madagascar

2.239

0.220

105

-26

Top 5 fallers

Page 24

THE TOP FIVE RISERS IN THE 2011 GPIGeorgia Rank: 134
Change in score 2010-2011: -0.412
Change in rank 2010-2011: +12
The surge in Georgia’s score in the 2011 GPI reflects thecountry’s return to stability following the brief but intense
war with Russia that erupted in August 2008, killingsome 450 people and displacing tens of thousands. Ten of
the 23 indicators registered improvements, two of whichreferred directly to the easing of the conflict with Georgia’s
northern neighbour. The majority (6) of the improving
indicators were those gauging safety and security insociety, including the homicide rate and perceptionsof criminality. Political stability improved amid thewaning threat to the leadership of the president, Mikheil
Saakashvili, who survived strident calls for his dismissal
in 2009. Despite the breadth of the gains, many ofGeorgia’s GPI tallies for societal safety and militarisation
remain elevated, in many cases higher than neighbouring
Azerbaijan and Armenia, and Georgia remained in the tenlowest-ranked nations.

Chad Rank: 141
Change in score 2010-2011: -0.224
Change in rank 2010-2011: +4
Chad’s score climbed strongly as a result of
improvements to four of its GPI indicators. The largest
advance was in relations with neighbouring countries:
a two-point gain from a war footing to “moderate”,
following the rapprochement with Sudan after thesigning of the Doha Agreement in May 2009. Sudan’s
withdrawal of support for rebel groups operating in
Chad played a significant role in preventing further
conflict in 2010 – an improvement that led to a drop in
the GPI measure of internal conflict to a still-high scoreof 4. Political stability improved ahead of legislative andpresidential elections in early 2011, mainly because theopposition is weak and divided, and no clear rival to Idris
Déby has emerged. There was also a year-on-year drop in
Chad’s tally for the Political Terror Scale.

Mongolia Rank: 57
Change in score 2010-11: -0.221
Change in rank 2010-11: +36
Mongolia’s score improved robustly in 2010 and it
leapt 36 places to 57th. The large rise in ranking placescompared with Georgia and Chad is owing to a muchnarrower spread of scores among mid-ranking nations(such as Mongolia) than the lowest-ranked ones. Most ofMongolia’s scores that advanced relate to societal safety
and security during 2010, including the homicide rate, thepotential for terrorist acts and the Political Terror Scale.
It was a year of relative calm after a politically turbulent
2008/09, which was accompanied by an economic crisis.
The political instability dates back to the June 2008
parliamentary elections, which yielded no clear winnerand allegations of electoral fraud sparked heavy riotingthat killed five and injured 300. The capital, Ulaanbaatar,
was hit by further street protests in March and April 2010
although they were largely peaceful compared with theprevious year and the GPI measure of the risk of violent
demonstrations dropped accordingly.

Sri Lanka Rank: 126
Change in score 2010-11: -0.215
Change in rank 2010-11: +11
A strong improvement in Sri Lanka’s GPI score comesamid gains in the internal conflict indicator and two of
the island’s measures of societal safety and security in theaftermath of the defeat of the Tamil Tigers and the endingof hostilities in May 2009. The risk of terrorist attacks fell
furthest, followed by levels of internal conflict. Military
expenditure also dropped to 3.1% of GDP in 2009-10– still higher than India (2.4%) and Bangladesh (1%).
Many of Sri Lanka’s GPI scores remained high almost
two years on from the end of hostilities and although thecountry rises six places (eleven places without the fivenew countries in the GPI), it remains in the lower reachesof the index. The level of internal conflict remains at 3 toreflect the continuing state of emergency, the impositionof a “high security” zone in the north and signs ofintermittent violence, including an assassination attempt
on a Tamil Member of Parliament in the north in March
2011.

Thailand Rank: 107
Change in score 2010-11: -0.147
Change in rank 2010-11: +19
The robust rise in Thailand’s score and ranking (from alowly position) in the 2011 GPI stem from improvements
to three indicators: the homicide rate, the number ofdeaths from internal conflict and the Political Terror
Scale. All were previously at high levels, reflecting thewave of anti-government protests, violence and unrest
that ignited in Bangkok in September 2008 and escalated
in April 2009, leading the prime minister, Abhisit
Vejjajiva, to declare a state of emergency in the capital,
Bangkok. At least two people were killed and more than
100 others were injured as soldiers dispersed protestors.
Thailand’s GPI scores for three measures of societal safety
and security – the likelihood of violent demonstrations thepotential for terrorist acts and the level of violent crime
remain high (at 4) in the 2011 GPI, reflecting the factthat instability and widespread unrest continued during
2010. Between March and May tens of thousands of proThaksin opposition protesters - in trademark red shirts- paralysed parts of central Bangkok for two months todemand Mr Abhisit’s resignation and early elections.
However, the protests and their dispersal by the army
were not considered to have been more violent than thosein 2009 and the GPI scores did not deteriorate.

Page 25

T H E T O P F I V E FA L L E R S I N T H E 2 0 1 1 G P I

Libya Rank: 143
Change in score 2010-11: 0.977
Change in rank 2010-11: -83

Egypt Rank: 73

The dramatic rise in Libya’s score and the country’splunge in the GPI rankings mirror the nation’s
extraordinarily rapid descent into civil war in early
2011. The first signs of a popular uprising emerged in
mid-February when a small group of demonstrators
marched through Benghazi, inspired by the revolutions
in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt. As the unrest spread
rapidly across the country, the Libyan leader, Colonel
Muammar Qadhafi, responded with extreme force. Bylate February, much of the east of Libya had fallen to
the opposition forces. Several senior members of the
Qadhafi regime defected and some army units havejoined the ranks of the opposition. However, Colonel
Qadhafi clearly remains determined to hold on to power
at any cost and in early March forces loyal to him had
attacked opposition positions in the east of the country
and begun to reclaim lost territory. Not surprisingly,
all the qualitative indicators of conflict and societal
safety and security deteriorated sharply from generally
low scores – violent demonstrations were, for example,
considered highly unlikely to occur under Colonel
Qadhafi’s repressive regime as recently as January 2011.
The majority of Libya’s measures of militarisation areaccorded low tallies by the standards of the region, with
the notable exception of the aggregate number of heavy
weapons per head, a figure that in 2009 was far higher
than any other country surveyed, including North Korea
and Russia according to SIPRI.

The dramatic resignation of the long-serving president,
Hosni Mubarak, on February 11th after 18 daysof popular protests calling for an end to his regime
was an event unparalleled in the modern history of
Egypt. Mr Mubarak remained defiant until the very
end and was finally forced to resign by the military,which had maintained its neutrality throughout
the demonstrations. The Supreme Council of theArmed Forces, which has assumed the president’s
responsibilities, vowed to oversee a transition process
leading to new elections and the installation of a civilian
administration. The extraordinary events in Cairo’s
Tahrir Square have been reflected in upward shifts inthree qualitative GPI measures of internal conflict,violent crime and political instability, all from low
levels. A slight rise in the measure of military capability
and sophistication also contributed to the Egypt’s
overall score rise and slide to 73rd position.

Bahrain Rank: 123
Change in score 2010-11: 0.429
Change in rank 2010-11: -47
Protests in Bahrain calling for economic and political
reform began on February 14th 2011 and gathered
momentum after two protesters were shot in the firsttwo days. In an extraordinary escalation, on February
18th, the army was deployed on the streets of central
Manama, the capital. Troops fired live ammunition at
protesters who gathered there - a sudden escalation ofviolence in a small, peaceful country with a low crime
rate that was reflected in its position around the midpoint of the GPI in previous years. The dramatic eventsof February and March, inspired by the unprecedented“Arab Spring”, led to sharp increases to most of thequalitative indicators of conflict and safety and security
in society, precipitating a slide in the rankings to123rd position. The drop would have been even more
pronounced but for improvements to three of Bahrain’s
GPI indicators from last year: a reduction in militarycapability and sophistication, a fall number of armed
service personnel and a slight improvement in the
Political Terror Scale tally (to 1.5).

Change in score 2010-11: 0.239
Change in rank 2010-11: -25

North Korea Rank: 149
Change in score 2010-11: 0.236
Change in rank 2010-11: -6
Unconfirmed reports of dramatic escalation in violenceand brutality at the hands of the North Korea’s
autocratic regime may be linked to Kim Jong-il’s failing
health and a desire to enforce the succession of histhird son, Kim Jong-un, who was officially presented
as his father’s heir-apparent in September. The reports
prompted sharp increases to most of North Korea’s
GPI indicators of safety and security in society, many ofwhich were already at high levels. Pyonygang’s relations
with neighbouring countries became even more strainedin 2010 (prompting a rise to 5 for the GPI indicator)
following the administration’s decision in March 2010
to sink a South Korean naval vessel, the Cheonan,
and to fire missiles at Yeonpyeong in November, oneof five South Korean islands in the West (Yellow) Sea,
close to North Korea. North Korea’s annual military
expenditure was estimated in 2002 to amount to around
US$5bn and it is thought to have increased to around
20% of GDP in 2009, by far the largest proportion of
the 153 countries surveyed. North Korea’s score forits military capability and sophistication increased,adding to the country’s very high overall GPI score andcontributing to its drop to 149th position.

Page 26

Madagascar Rank: 105
Change in score 2010-11: 0.220
Change in rank 2010-11: -26
Madagascar’s relatively peaceful state (it was ranked
40th in the GPI in 2007) came to an abrupt end
in early 2009 when political tensions erupted into
violence. Since the overthrow of the President, Marc
Ravalomanana in March 2009 the country has been
in deep political crisis, which intensified at times in2010 and was accompanied by an increasingly acuteeconomic crisis, exacerbated by international sanctions.
The cumulative effect of the political instability ofthe past two years and growing economic difficulties
and unemployment in 2010 led to a rise in several
qualitative indicators, including perceptions ofcriminality, violent crime and the likelihood of violent
demonstrations. The political scene was highly unstablethroughout 2010, amid continued disagreement overdates for fresh presidential and parliamentary elections.
The attempted coup by rebel military personnel on 17th
November 2010, which was quelled within three days,
prompted the slight rise in the score for this indicator.
Both the Amnesty International Country Report (2009)
and the US State Department Report on Human Rights
in 2009 reported rises in human rights violations froma relatively low level that warranted a sharp increase in
the Political Terror Scale to a score of 4.

Page 27

G P I A N A LY S I S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C O R R E L AT I O N S W I T H
O T H E R E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I E TA L I N D I C AT O R S
The Global Peace Index (GPI) is a numerical measureof how at peace a country is with itself and othercountries. It provides a foundation from which one canfurther investigate the absence or incidence of peace,by, for example, examining whether other economic
or societal indicators show a statistical correlation.
In addition to the collation of data and scores for the
GPI’s 23 indicators, the Economist Intelligence Unit
has updated for the fifth year its secondary dataset of
33 indicators including those that attempt to gauge
democracy, government competence and efficacy;
the strength of institutions and the political process;international openness; demographics; regional
integration; religion and culture; education and material
well-being. Definitions of all 33 indicators are provided
in Annex B on page 45.
The 33 indicators were selected on the basis of thecredibility of their sources and the consistency andinternational breadth of their data. The table opposite
lists each of the indicators in the two groups: the
GPI and the pool of potential drivers. Correlation
coefficients of the GPI scores and ranks, as well asscores for the internal and external measures of peace
are given against each indicator. The correlation
coefficients are calculated across the entire sample(153 countries). Values shaded in green are those wherer >0.5 or r <-0.5, which we have taken to be a statisticallysignificant correlation.

Page 28

Correlation Coefficients
OVERALL SCOREOVERALL RANKInternal Peace
External Peace
Perceptions of criminality in society
Number of internal security officers and police 100,000 people
Number of homicides per 100,000 people
Number of jailed population per 100,000 people
Ease of access to weapons of minor destruction
Level of organised conflict (internal)
Likelihood of violent demonstrations
Level of violent crime
Political instability
Respect for human rights
Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons, as recipient(Imports) per 100,000 people
Potential for terrorist acts
Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)
Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP
Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people
UN funding
Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people
Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier(exports) per 100,000 people
Military capability/sophistication
Number of displaced people as a percentage of the population
Relations with neighbouring countries
Number of external and internal conflicts fought
Estimated number of deaths from organised conflict (external)
Political Democracy Index
Electoral process
Functioning of government
Political participation
Political culture
Civil liberties
Corruption perceptions
Women in parliament (as a percentage of the total number ofrepresentatives in the lower house)
Freedom of the press
Exports + imports % of GDP
Foreign Direct Investment (flow) % of GDP
Number of visitors as % of domestic population
Net migration (% of total population)
15-34 year old males as a % of adult population
Gender ratio of population: women/men
Gender inequality
The extent of regional integration
Current education spending (% of GDP)
Primary school enrolment ratio (% Net)
Secondary school enrolment ratio (% Net)
Higher education enrolment (% Gross)
Mean years of schooling
Adult literacy rate (% of pop over 15)
Hostility to foreigners/private property
Importance of religion in national life
Willingness to fightNominal GDP (US$PPP bn)
Nominal GDP (US$bn)
GDP per capita
Gini-coefficient
Unemployment %Life expectancy
Infant mortality per 1,000 live births

OVERALL SCOREOVERALL RANKInternal Peace

External Peace

1.00
0.97
0.95
0.56
0.71
0.11
0.59
0.11
0.73
0.83
0.66
0.63
0.70
0.80

0.97
1.00
0.94
0.49
0.70
0.07
0.58
0.12
0.71
0.82
0.67
0.65
0.73
0.79

0.95
0.94
1.00
0.28
0.77
0.08
0.70
0.04
0.78
0.82
0.72
0.77
0.73
0.80

0.56
0.49
0.28
1.00
0.13
0.11
-0.06
0.25
0.15
0.38
0.12
-0.11
0.23
0.34

-0.12

-0.15

-0.19

0.16

0.64
0.64
0.32
0.26
0.29
0.03

0.63
0.56
0.30
0.23
0.30
0.00

0.59
0.60
0.19
0.11
0.28
-0.14

0.41
0.38
0.51
0.54
0.13
0.50

-0.08

-0.11

-0.20

0.29

-0.02
0.44
0.64
0.24
0.00
-0.62
-0.47
-0.63
-0.50
-0.66
-0.56
-0.71

-0.02
0.33
0.63
0.22
-0.01
-0.61
-0.47
-0.63
-0.50
-0.64
-0.55
-0.74

-0.20
0.35
0.49
0.08
-0.10
-0.62
-0.47
-0.65
-0.52
-0.68
-0.55
-0.79

0.49
0.44
0.67
0.53
0.26
-0.25
-0.22
-0.24
-0.15
-0.23
-0.28
-0.09

-0.28

-0.29

-0.26

-0.17

0.56
-0.12
-0.03
-0.40
-0.28
0.48
-0.10
-0.51
0.63
-0.35
-0.44
-0.48
-0.47
-0.53
-0.43
0.64
0.50
0.41
-0.05
-0.11
-0.58
0.29
0.22
-0.51
0.51

0.56
-0.13
-0.04
-0.40
-0.32
0.50
-0.12
-0.49
0.62
-0.35
-0.38
-0.47
-0.48
-0.52
-0.41
0.62
0.50
0.42
-0.05
-0.11
-0.61
0.30
0.19
-0.50
0.49

0.53
-0.10
-0.02
-0.44
-0.33
0.59
-0.11
-0.49
0.62
-0.33
-0.47
-0.59
-0.56
-0.59
-0.49
0.66
0.53
0.30
-0.13
-0.19
-0.67
0.42
0.22
-0.60
0.59

0.32
-0.08
-0.05
-0.04
0.02
-0.09
-0.04
-0.23
0.31
-0.20
-0.11
0.11
0.07
-0.06
0.00
0.20
0.12
0.48
0.18
0.16
0.00
-0.26
0.09
0.05
-0.01

The extension of the GPI to 153 countries in 2011 has reinforced findings from previous years. All of the data series
exhibiting correlation coefficients with the GPI overall score where r >0.5 in 2010 have maintained their significancethreshold this year. In 2011 13 of the 33 economic and societal indicators show correlation coefficients with theoverall GPI score greater than r = 0.5, compared with 11 in 2010.
The GPI continues to be strongly determined by the internal measure of peace (r = 0.95); the correlation between it
and the external measure of peace is weaker (r=0.56).
Page 29

G P I A N A LY S I S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C O R R E L AT I O N S W I T H
O T H E R E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I E TA L I N D I C AT O R S
Measures of governance and democracy
The Economist Intelligence Unit has recently updated its biennial Political Democracy Index to 2010. The refreshedmeasure of political democracy has resulted in a large increase in the correlation coefficient to the GPI of r = -0.62(previously r = -0.56). A number of that index’s sub-components calculate as having a reasonable correlation with theoverall scores and rankings too.

Political Democracy Index against Overall GPI score
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

1.00
Iceland

1.50

2.00

2.50

New ZealandJapan
Denmark
Czech Republic
Austria Canada
Slovenia
IrelandFinland Norway
Qatar
SwedenBelgium
Germany Switzerland
Portugal
Australia
Malaysia
Hungary
Uruguay
PolandSlovakia
Singapore
UnitedKingdomNetherlands
TaiwanSpain
KuwaitVietnamCosta Rica
Laos Arab Emirates
UnitedBhutanBotswana
Croatia
FranceChile
Oman
Malawi
Ghana Romania Lithuania Italy
Tunisia
LatviaMozambique
Panama Estonia
Burkina Faso
South Korea
ZambiaBulgaria
Argentina
Tanzania Namibia
Mongolia
MoroccoBosnia and Hercegovina
Moldova
SierraLeone
The Gambia
Albania
JordanGreeceParaguay
Cuba
Indonesia
Swaziland
UkraineCyprusNicaragua
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Brazil United States of America
Bolivia
SenegalBangladesh
Macedonia
China
Gabon
SerbiaPeruTrinidad and Tobago
CameroonAngolaGuyanaEcuadorMontenegro
GuineaDominican
Kazakhstan
PapuaRepublic
New Guinea
Nepal
UgandaLiberia
Congo (Brazzaville)
RwandaMali
Saudi Arabia
El Salvador
EritreaTajikistan
Madagascar
Turkmenistan
Thailand Jamaica
Uzbekistan
Armenia
Kenya
Belarus
Haiti Republic
KyrgyzCambodia
Syria
Honduras
Iran
Niger
South Africa
MexicoAzerbaijan
BahrainVenezuela Turkey
GuatemalaSri Lanka
Cote d' Ivoire
Algeria
Mauritania
Ethiopia
Burundi Georgia
Myanmar
India
Philippines
Lebanon
Yemen
Colombia
Zimbabwe
Chad
Nigeria
Libya
Central African Republic
IsraelPakistan
Democratic Republic of theRussiaCongo

3.00
North Korea
Afghanistan
Sudan
Iraq
Somalia

3.50

Page 30

An index measuring the functioning of government (a qualitative assessment of whether freely elected representatives
determine government policy and whether there is an effective system of checks and balances on the exercise ofgovernment authority) exhibits a correlation coefficient with the GPI of r = -0.64, the same as last year. By contrast,
the index measuring electoral process again gives a correlation coefficient with the GPI below the threshold, at
r = -0.38. The index gauging freedom of the press, compiled by Reporters Without Borders, shows a correlation
coefficient of r = 0.56, a rise from 2010. Interestingly, the external peace measure is not significantly correlated to any
indexes relating to our measures of democracy.

Functioning of government against Overall GPI score

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

1.00
Iceland
New ZealandJapan
Denmark
Czech Republic Austria
Finland
Slovenia
CanadaNorwayIrelandSwedenGermany
Belgium
Switzerland
Portugal
Australia
Malaysia
Hungary
Uruguay
PolandSlovakia
1.50
Singapore
TaiwanUnited Kingdom
Spain Netherlands
Vietnam
KuwaitCosta Rica
UnitedLaosArab Emirates
BhutanBotswana
FranceCroatia
Chile
MalawiOman
Romania
Ghana
Lithuania
Tunisia
Italy
LatviaEstonia
Mozambique
PanamaSouth Korea
Burkina Faso Tanzania
ZambiaBulgaria
Namibia
Argentina
MoroccoAlbania Mongolia
Bosnia and Hercegovina
Moldova
Sierra Leone
The Gambia
JordanGreeceParaguay
Cuba
Indonesia
Swaziland
UkraineCyprus
Egypt
Nicaragua Bolivia
BrazilSenegalMacedonia
China
Trinidad andTobagoGabon
UnitedStates of America
Serbia Peru
Bangladesh
2.00
CameroonAngolaGuyanaEcuadorMontenegro
Dominican
Republic
Kazakhstan
Papua New Guinea
Nepal
UgandaCongo (Brazzaville)
RwandaMali
Saudi Arabia
El Salvador
Eritrea
Madagascar
Thailand Jamaica
Armenia
Kenya
Belarus
Haiti
Kyrgyz Republic
Cambodia
Syria
HondurasSouth Africa
Iran
MexicoAzerbaijan
BahrainVenezuela
Guatemala Turkey
Sri Lanka
Coted'IvoireAlgeria
Mauritania
Ethiopia
BurundiMyanmar
Georgia
India
Philippines
2.50
Lebanon
Yemen
Colombia
Zimbabwe
Nigeria
Libya
Central African Republic
IsraelPakistan
Democratic Republic of theRussia
Congo
Qatar

3.00

North Korea
Sudan

Somalia

3.50

Page 31

G P I A N A LY S I S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C O R R E L AT I O N S W I T H
O T H E R E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I E TA L I N D I C AT O R S
Corruption
An index gauging perceptions of corruption in countries, compiled by Transparency International, continues toshow the strongest correlation with the overall GPI score and the internal peace index scores (r = -0.71 and r = -0.79
respectively), as it has done for every year of the GPI’s publication.

Corruption perceptions (CPI score: 10 = highly clean, 0 = highly corrupt) against Overall GPI
score
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

1.00
IcelandCzech Republic
Malaysia
Hungary

1.50

Slovakia

2.50

3.00

Portugal
PolandBelgium

New
ZealandJapan
Denmark
Austria
Finland
CanadaIreland Norway
Qatar
SwedenGermany Switzerland
Australia

Uruguay

United Kingdom
TaiwanSpain
KuwaitCosta Rica
United Arab Emirates
BhutanBotswana
Croatia
France Chile
MalawiRomania
Oman
Ghana
Lithuania
Italy Tunisia
LatviaEstonia
Mozambique
PanamaSouth Korea
BurkinaZambiaFaso
Bulgaria
Argentina
Namibia
Tanzania
Mongolia
MoroccoMoldova
BosniaandHercegovina
Sierra Leone
The
Albania
GambiaJordanParaguay Indonesia Greece
Cuba
UkraineSwaziland
CyprusNicaragua
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
BrazilBolivia
SenegalTrinidad
China
and Macedonia
TobagoGabon
United States of America
Bangladesh
SerbiaPeru
CameroonAngolaGuyanaMontenegro
Ecuador
Dominican
Republic
GuineaKazakhstan
Papua (Brazzaville)
New
GuineaNepal
UgandaLiberia
Congo
Mali
Rwanda Saudi Arabia
El Salvador
Tajikistan
Eritrea
Madagascar
Turkmenistan
ThailandUzbekistanKenya
Armenia Jamaica
Belarus
Haiti
KyrgyzRepublic
Cambodia
Syria
HondurasSouth Africa
Iran Niger Mexico
Azerbaijan
Venezuela
Guatemala
Sri Lanka
Turkey Bahrain
Coted' Ivoire Algeria
Mauritania
Ethiopia
BurundiMyanmarIndia Georgia
Philippines
Lebanon
Yemen
Colombia
Zimbabwe
Chad
Nigeria
Libya
Central African Republic
IsraelPakistan
Democratic Russia
Republic of the
Congo
North Korea
Laos

2.00

Slovenia

VietnamSingapore
Netherlands

Afghanistan
Sudan
Iraq
Somalia

3.50

Indicators of international openness, demographics and gender
The four indicators measuring international openness: exports and imports as a percentage of GDP; foreign direct
investment as a percentage of GDP; the number of visitors; and net migration as a proportion of the population
still exhibit no significant correlation with the GPI. The same is true of the three demographic indicators: genderinequality; the gender ratio of the population; and 15-34 year-old males as a proportion of the population; However
the latter metric exhibits a correlation coefficient of r = 0.59 (r = 0.53 last year) with the measure of internal peace,
which represents a fairly significant increase from last year. Additionally, the percentage of 15-34 year-old males as aproportion of the population just breaches the r = 0.5 level for the overall GPI rank for the first time. The increase incorrelation may be attributable to the inclusion of more up-to-date data for this metric this year.
Our measure of gender equality has a correlation coefficient this year of r = -0.51 (r = -0.41), another significant
increase in comparison to previous years. Our metric for gender equality is derived from the World Economic
Forum’s Gender Gap Index which benchmarks national gender gaps based on economic, political, education andhealth based criteria.

Page 32

Regional integration
An index measuring the extent to which countries are regionally integrated calculates a correlation coefficient of
r = 0.63, up from r = 0.62 in 2010. As before, there is also a correlation (r = 0.62) with the internal measure ofpeace. This is surprising, as the regional integration score is a qualitative assessment of a country’s relations with its
neighbours, and therefore an external metric. It is perhaps explained by the high levels of regional integration among
countries in Western and Central Europe and their relatively high ranks in the GPI.

The extent of regional integration against Overall GPI score

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1.00
IcelandDenmark
Czech
Republic
Austria
Finland
Slovenia
NorwayIrelandSwedenGermany
Belgium
Portugal
Hungary
PolandSlovakia
1.50
UnitedNetherlands
Kingdom
Spain
FranceRomania
Lithuania
Italy
LatviaEstonia
Bulgaria
Greece2.00

NewJapan
Zealand
CanadaQatar
Switzerland

Costa
Rica
Botswana
Croatia
Chile
Tunisia
Namibia
Tanzania
MoroccoBosnia andHercegovina
Albania
CyprusNicaragua
Macedonia
United States
Peruof America
Montenegro
Dominican
Republic
Kazakhstan
UgandaRwandaMali
El Salvador
Honduras
MexicoGuatemalaCoted' Ivoire

2.50

BurundiAustralia
Malaysia
Uruguay
Singapore
KuwaitLaosEmirates
United Vietnam
Arab
BhutanMalawi
Oman
Ghana
Mozambique
PanamaSouth
Korea
ZambiaArgentina
Mongolia
Moldova
The
GambiaParaguay
Indonesia
Swaziland
UkraineEgypt
Equatorial
BrazilSenegalTrinidad
China
andGuinea
TobagoBangladesh
SerbiaCameroon
GuyanaEcuador
Papua Nepal
New Guinea
Congo(Brazzaville)
Saudi Arabia
ThailandJamaica
Kenya
Haiti
Cambodia
Syria
South
AfricaAzerbaijan
BahrainVenezuela
Sri
Lanka
TurkeyAlgeria

TaiwanBurkina Faso
SierraLeone
JordanCuba
Bolivia

Gabon
AngolaGuineaLiberia
Madagascar
Turkmenistan
Armenia
Belarus
Niger
Ethiopia

MyanmarPhilippines

Georgia
India
LebanonColombia
Nigeria

Zimbabwe
ChadCentral African Republic
Pakistan
Democratic Republic of theCongo

Russia3.00

Tajikistan
EritreaUzbekistan
Kyrgyz Republic
Iran
Mauritania

Yemen
Libya
IsraelNorth Korea

Afghanistan
Sudan
Iraq
Somalia

3.50

Page 33

G P I A N A LY S I S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C O R R E L AT I O N S W I T H
O T H E R E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I E TA L I N D I C AT O R S
Education
Our metrics relating to education: current educational spending; primary and secondary school enrolment ratios;
enrolment in higher education; and adult literacy generally exhibit declines in their correlation coefficients with theoverall GPI last year. The measure of mean years of schooling continued to exhibit a correlation with the overall GPI,
however, with a coefficient of r = -0.53 (r = -0.58 last year). Against the measure of internal peace, the correlation
coefficients declined less steeply and remained above r = 0.5, with the strongest correlation again shown by themeasure of mean years of schooling (r = -0.59) but a weakened correlation with secondary school enrolment.

Overall GPI score against Mean years of schooling

1.0

1.5

2.0

Niger

1.00

2.5

3.0

3.5

Haiti

Burkina Faso

5.00

Democratic Republic of
the
Sudan
Central African Republic
Congo

AngolaTanzania
The GambiaGabon

Chad

Eritrea

Zambia7.00

Somalia

Congo (Brazzaville)
Liberia

3.00

North Korea
Afghanistan

Cote d' Ivoire

Ethiopia
Mauritania
MyanmarNigeria
Bangladesh
RwandaGuineaCameroon
Burundi Yemen
Madagascar
Nepal
Laos
Zimbabwe
MoroccoMalawi
SriAfrica
Lanka
Equatorial Guinea Cambodia
Ghana
Kenya
South
Macedonia
Syria
UgandaBhutanIndia
GuatemalaVietnam Namibia Nicaragua
Singapore
China Tajikistan
Albania
Honduras
TurkeyUnited ArabOman
Emirates
Uzbekistan
Jamaica
Costa
Rica
Qatar
TunisiaandParaguay
Botswana
Armenia
BosniaHercegovina
Egypt
Montenegro
EcuadorTurkmenistan
Dominican
GuyanaRepublic
Kyrgyz Republic
KuwaitIndonesia El Salvador
Venezuela
Malaysia
Azerbaijan
Algeria
JordanSierraLeoneSerbia
Moldova
GeorgiaColombia Pakistan
PolandPanamaMexicoLebanonThailandRussiaSenegalBulgaria
Saudi
ArabiaRomania
BrazilCyprusCroatia
Iran
TaiwanBoliviaSouth
Korea
TrinidadandTobagoMali
Ukraine
Chile
Belarus
Switzerland
Austria
Kazakhstan
Japan
Mongolia
Czech
Republic
BahrainPeru
Hungary
SwedenLatviaArgentina
Philippines
SwazilandIsraelUruguay
United States of America
Estonia
Lithuania
Germany
Belgium UnitedSpain
Kingdom
FranceItaly
GreeceLibya
Slovenia
Portugal
Slovakia
NorwayDenmark
CanadaFinlandCuba
Mozambique

9.00

11.00

13.00

15.00

17.00
Iceland

19.00

Iraq

Ireland

New Zealand

Netherlands

Australia

21.00

Society
Two societal, qualitative assessments scored by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s team of analysts also appear tohave a reasonable correlation to the overall score. “Hostility to foreigners and private property” attempts to measuresocieties’ and governments’ attitude to foreigners and their investments in any given country. There is a correlation
coefficient of r = 0.64 with the GPI, up from r = 0.59 last year. The measure of the importance of religion in national
life, both for households and its influence on government policy showed a strengthening correlation with the GPI
compared with last year, and the coefficient breaches our r > 0.5 threshold this year.

Page 34

Health and wellbeing
The measure of GDP per head continued to show a correlation with the GPI (for the fifth successive year), andits correlation coefficient has increased to r = 0.58 from r = 0.57 in 2010. The relationship is more pronounced
against the measure of internal peace (r = -0.67). There continues to be no relationship, however, to the measureof external peace.

Log GDP per capita against Overall GPI score

10.0

100.0

1000.010000.0

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

100000.0
Iceland

New ZealandJapan
Denmark
Czech Republic Austria
CanadaNorwaySlovenia Finland
IrelandQatar
SwedenBelgium
Germany
Switzerland
Portugal
Australia
Malaysia
Hungary
Uruguay
PolandSlovakia
Singapore
Netherlands
Kingdom
TaiwanUnited
Spain
KuwaitVietnam
Costa
Rica
Laos Bhutan
Emirates
BotswanaChile
FranceCroatia United Arab
MalawiRomania
Oman
Ghana
Lithuania
Tunisia
Italy
LatviaEstonia
Mozambique
PanamaBurkina
Faso Zambia
Bulgaria
Namibia
Argentina South Korea
Tanzania
Mongolia
MoroccoMoldova
Bosniaand Hercegovina
Sierra Leone
The Gambia
Albania
JordanGreeceParaguay
Cuba
Indonesia
UkraineSwaziland
CyprusNicaragua
EgyptMacedonia
BrazilEquatorial
GuineaSenegal
Bolivia
TrinidadandTobagoChina
Gabon
UnitedStates of America
Bangladesh
SerbiaPeru
CameroonAngolaGuyanaMontenegro
EcuadorGuineaDominican Kazakhstan
Republic
Papua
New
GuineaNepal
Liberia
UgandaCongo (Brazzaville) Saudi Arabia
RwandaMali
El Salvador
EritreaTajikistan
Madagascar
ThailandJamaicaUzbekistan Turkmenistan
Armenia
Kenya
Belarus
Haiti
KyrgyzRepublic
Cambodia
Syria
HondurasSouth
AfricaNiger
Iran Mexico
Azerbaijan
Lanka AlgeriaVenezuela
Turkey Bahrain
Coted' Ivoire SriGuatemala
Mauritania
Ethiopia
BurundiMyanmar
Georgia
India
Philippines
Lebanon
Yemen
Colombia
Zimbabwe
Chad
Nigeria
Libya
Central African Republic
IsraelPakistan
Democratic Republic of theRussiaCongo
North Korea
Afghanistan

Sudan
Iraq

Somalia

3.50

Page 35

G P I A N A LY S I S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C O R R E L AT I O N S W I T H
O T H E R E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I E TA L I N D I C AT O R S

Life expectancy against Overall GPI score

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

80.0

90.0

Iceland
New Zealand
DenmarkJapan
Czech Republic
Austria
Finland
NorwayCanadaSlovenia
Ireland
Qatar Germany
SwedenBelgium
Switzerland
Australia
Malaysia Portugal
Hungary
Uruguay
PolandSlovakia
Singapore
UnitedNetherlands
Kingdom
TaiwanSpain
KuwaitVietnam
Costa
Rica
LaosBhutan
UnitedArab
Emirates
Botswana
FranceCroatia
Chile
Malawi Ghana
Romania
Oman
Lithuania
Tunisia
Italy
LatviaEstonia
Mozambique
PanamaSouth Korea
ZambiaBurkina Faso
Bulgaria
Namibia
Argentina
Tanzania
Mongolia
MoroccoMoldova
Bosniaand Hercegovina
Sierra Leone
The Gambia
Albania
JordanGreeceParaguay
Cuba
Indonesia
Swaziland
UkraineCyprusNicaragua
Egypt
Equatorial GuineaSenegal
BrazilBolivia
TrinidadandTobagoMacedonia
China
Gabon
United States of America
Bangladesh
SerbiaPeru
Angola Cameroon
GuyanaDominican
Montenegro
EcuadorGuineaRepublic
Papua New Guinea
Kazakhstan
Nepal
UgandaLiberia
Congo(Brazzaville)
Mali
RwandaSaudi Arabia
El
Salvador
Eritrea Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
Madagascar
ThailandJamaicaUzbekistan
Kenya
BelarusArmenia
Haiti
Kyrgyz Republic
Cambodia
Syria
HondurasSouth
AfricaNiger
Iran
MexicoAzerbaijan
Bahrain
GuatemalaVenezuela
Sri
Lanka
TurkeyCote d' Ivoire
Mauritania
Algeria
Ethiopia
BurundiMyanmar
Georgia
India
Philippines
Lebanon
Yemen
Colombia
Zimbabwe Nigeria
Chad
Libya
Central African Republic
IsraelPakistan
Democratic Republic of theRussiaCongo
North Korea
Afghanistan

Sudan
Iraq
Somalia

3.50

The correlation coefficient exhibited by the measure of life expectancy and the GPI is r = 0.51, down from r = 0.52
last year. It is much higher (r = 0.60) when calculated against the internal measure of peace.
Infant mortality (shown as a log scale) also shows a correlation with the overall GPI score (r = 0.51), which isstronger against the measure internal peace (r = 0.59), as last year. Both correlations are slightly lower than last year.

Page 36

Log (Infant mortality per 1,000 live births) against Overall GPI score

1.0
1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

10.0

100.0

Iceland
New Zealand
JapanDenmark
Czech Republic
Austria Canada
Finland
Slovenia
NorwayIrelandSweden Germany
Qatar
Belgium
Switzerland
Portugal
Australia
Malaysia
Hungary
Uruguay
PolandSlovakia
Singapore
Netherlands
United KingdomTaiwan
Spain
KuwaitVietnam
Costa
Rica
United ArabEmirates
Laos
Botswana
BhutanFranceCroatia
Chile
Oman
Romania
Ghana Malawi
Lithuania
Tunisia
ItalyEstonia
LatviaPanamaMozambique
South Korea Bulgaria Argentina
BurkinaZambiaFaso
Namibia
Tanzania
Mongolia
MoroccoMoldova
Bosnia andHercegovina
Sierra Leone
Albania
The
GambiaJordanGreece Cuba
ParaguayIndonesia
UkraineEgypt
Swaziland
CyprusNicaraguaBrazilEquatorial Guinea
Bolivia
SenegalMacedonia
Trinidad andTobagoGabon
United Serbia
States ofAmerica China
Bangladesh
Peru
CameroonAngolaMontenegro
GuyanaEcuador
Dominican
Republic
GuineaKazakhstan
Papua
GuineaNepal New
UgandaLiberia
Congo(Brazzaville)
RwandaMali
Saudi Arabia
El Salvador
EritreaTajikistan
Madagascar
JamaicaThailand Armenia
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Belarus
Haiti
Kyrgyz RepublicKenya
Cambodia
Syria
Honduras South Africa
Iran
Niger
MexicoAzerbaijan
Bahrain
GuatemalaSri Venezuela
LankaTurkey Algeria
Cote d' Ivoire
Mauritania
Ethiopia
BurundiMyanmar
Georgia
India
Philippines
LebanonYemen
ZimbabweNigeria Chad

Colombia
Libya

Central African Republic
Pakistan
Democratic Republic of the
Congo

IsraelRussia3.00

1000.0

North Korea
Sudan

Afghanistan

Iraq
Somalia

3.50

None of the other metrics on material wellbeing and health show correlation coefficients greater or less than r =+/-0.5. The Gini-coefficient, a measure of income distribution, comes close against the internal measure of peace (r= 0.42). Once again, despite the inclusion of 153 countries, it cannot be described as a significant correlation basedon our threshold. There are, nevertheless, some problems with the Gini-coefficient; there is a considerable lag in the
publication of statistics for many countries suffers, forcing the Economist Intelligence Unit to estimate the coefficient
for a sizeable proportion of the 153 countries in the GPI. These problems of measurement look likely to persist for
the foreseeable future, and the use of other measures of income inequality may be more effective.
For each of the calculations carried out there are some notable outliers, some consistent with each measure. Thesecan be seen on the scatter plots, as those countries frequently deviating from the general trend. Commonly listed
countries include on the peaceful side, Qatar and, less peacefully, Iraq, Sudan, Israel, Colombia, Lebanon, Russia,
Libya and the US. As outliers they weaken the overall results, but also appear not always to be following the generaltrends established for other countries. There are clearly other factors relating to these countries that are not being
captured by the chosen set of determinants.
It should be noted that we continue to establish little in the way of significant correlations to the measure of external
peace. This is probably attributable to the previously noted observation that there have been very few interstate
conflicts within this group of 153 countries during the period under review.
Based on these preliminary investigations, an ordering of influences and drivers would look like the following, similar
to those established in previous years.

Page 37

G P I A N A LY S I S : I N V E S T I G AT I N G C O R R E L AT I O N S W I T H
O T H E R E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I E TA L I N D I C AT O R S

Based on the last five years of research carried out on the GPI against 33 societal and economic indicators,
peaceful societies can be described as those exhibiting very low levels of internal conflict with efficient, accountable
governments, strong economies, cohesive/integrated populations and good relations within the international
community.

Page 38

ANNEX A

Where there are gaps in data, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s analysts have estimated scores.

Measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict
1

2

Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition / coding

Number of
external andinternal conflicts
foughtUppsala Conflict Data
Program (UCDP),
University of Uppsala,Sweden / International
Peace ResearchInstitute, Oslo (PRIO)
Armed Conflict Dataset

2004-09

This indicator measures conflicts, as defined by UCDP, whichbegan in 2004 and were extant in 2004-09, irrespective ofwhether or not they ended during that period.

Estimated numberof deaths fromorganised conflict(external)

Uppsala Conflict Data
Program (UCDP),
International Institutefor Strategic Studies(IISS) Armed Conflict
Database, Independent
International FactFinding Mission on
the Conflict in Georgia(IIFFMCG), South Asia
Terrorism Portal

2010

UCDP defines conflict as: “a contested incompatibility thatconcerns government and/or territory where the use ofarmed 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”
This indicator uses the UCDP’s definition of conflict (seeabove). It excludes fatalities that took place during UNmandated peacekeeping missions during 2009-10. Calculatingeach country’s external-conflict-related deaths during 2009-10
involved consulting several sources. For countries involvedin the conflict in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led
International Security Assistance Force (which UCDP describe
as “providing secondary warring support to the governmentof Afghanistan in the intra-state conflict with the Taleban thatbegan in 2003”), we referred to statistics of fatalities provided
by icasualties.org. This was also the source for the numberof fatalities recorded among US and UK troops serving in theconflict in Iraq.
For fatalities relating to the conflict between Armenia andAzerbaijan over Ngorno Karabakh we referred to the Armed
Conflict Database compiled by the International Institute ofStrategic Studies www.acd.iiss.org/.
For fatalities relating to the conflict between Russia andGeorgia over control of South Ossetia we referred to the
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the
Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG) www.ceiig.ch/pdf/IIFFMCG_
Volume_I.pdf
For fatalities relating to the conflict between India andPakistan over Kashmir we referred to statistics published by
the South Asia Terrorism Portal: www.satp.org/satporgtp/
countries/india/states/jandk/

3

Number of deaths
from organised
conflict (internal)

International Institutefor Strategic Studies,
Armed Conflict
Database (IISS, ACD)

2010

Statistics are compiled from the most recent edition of the IISS
ACD, which has the following definition of armed conflictrelated fatalities:
Fatality statistics relate to military and civilian lives lost as
a direct result of an armed conflict. The figures relate to thecountry which is the main area of conflict. For some conflicts
no reliable statistics are available. Estimates of war fatalities
vary according to source, sometimes by a wide margin. In
compiling data on fatalities, the IISS has used its best estimates
and takes full responsibility for these figures. Some overall
fatality figures have been revised in light of new information.
Changes in fatality figures may therefore occur as a result ofsuch revisions as well as because of increased fatalities. Fatality
figures for terrorism may include deaths inflicted by thegovernment forces in counter-terrorism operations.

4

Level of organised
conflict (internal)

Economist IntelligenceUnit

2010-11

Qualitative assessment of the intensity of conflicts within the
country. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

5

Relations withneighbouring
countries

Economist IntelligenceUnit

2010-11

Qualitative assessment of relations with neighbouring
countries. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts

Page 39

ANNEX A

Measures of safety and security in countries
Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition / coding

6

Level of perceived
criminality insociety

Economist IntelligenceUnit

2010-11

Qualitative assessment of perceived criminality. Ranked 1-5(very low-very high) by EIU analysts. See additional notes onscoring criteria.

7

Number of
refugees anddisplaced people
as a percentage ofthe population

UNHCR Statistical
Yearbook 2009 and theInternal Displacement
Monitoring Centre

2009-10

Refugee population by country or territory of origin, plus thenumber of a country’s internally displaced people (IDPs) as apercentage of the country’s total population.

8

Political instability

Economist IntelligenceUnit

2010-11This indicator addresses the degree to which politicalinstitutions are sufficiently stable to support the needs of its
citizens, businesses and overseas investors. It is a composite
indicator based on the scores, 1 to 5 for each of the following
issues:What is the risk of significant social unrest during the next two
years? How clear, established, and accepted are constitutional
mechanisms for the orderly transfer of power from one
government to another?
How likely is it that an opposition party or group will cometo power and cause a significant deterioration in business
operating conditions? Is excessive power concentrated or likely
to be concentrated, in the executive so that executive authority
lacks accountability and possesses excessive discretion?
Is there a risk that international disputes/tensions will
negatively affect the economy and/or polity?

9

Level of disrespectfor human rights(Political Terror
Scale)

Gibney, M., Cornett,
L., & Wood, R.,
Political Terror Scale
1976-2009. Dataretrieved, from the
Political Terror Scale
Web site: http://www.
politicalterrorscale.org

2009

Countries are coded on a scale of 1-5 according to their levelof respect for human rights the previous year, according to
the description provided in the Amnesty International and US
Department County Reports. The average of the two scores istaken for our assessment.

10

Potential for
Terrorist Acts

Economist IntelligenceUnit

2010-11

Qualitative assessment of the potential for terrorist acts.
Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts.

11

Number ofhomicides per
100,000 people

11th UNODC Survey

2004-08

Intentional homicide refers to death deliberately inflicted
on a person by another person, including infanticide

12

Level of violent
crime

Economist IntelligenceUnit

2010-11

Qualitative assessment of the level of violent crime. Ranked
1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts.

13

Likelihoodof violent
demonstrations

Economist IntelligenceUnit

2010-11

Qualitative assessment of the level of violent demonstrations.
Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts.

14

Number of jailed
population per
100,000 people

International Centre
for Prison Studies,King’s College London:
World Prison Brief2010

For additional information on this indicator see note on
page 43.

15

Number ofinternal security
officers and police
per 100,000
people11th UNODC Survey

2004-08

Refers to the civil police force as distinct from national guards
or local militia.

For additional information on this indicator see note on
page 42.

Page 40

Measures of militarisation
16

Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition / coding

Military
expenditure as apercentage of GDP

The International
Institute for Strategic
Studies, The Military
Balance 2011;2009-10(dependentonavailability)

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 asa military force. We use our own publisheddata on nominal GDP to arrive at the value of
military expenditure as a percentage of GDP.

National Public
Expenditure
Accounts; SIPRI; EIU
analysts
17

Number of armed
services personnel
per 100,000
peopleThe International
Institute for Strategic
Studies, The Military
Balance 20112009-10(dependentonavailability)

Active armed services personnel comprise allservicemen and women on full-time duty in thearmy, navy, air force and joint forces (including
conscripts and long-term assignments from theReserves).

18

Volume oftransfers of major
conventional
weapons (imports)
per 100,000
peopleSIPRI Arms
Transfers Project
database

2005-09

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database covers
all international sales and gifts of major
conventional weapons and the technology
necessary for the production of them. The
transfer equipment or technology is from one
country, rebel force or international organisation
to another country, rebel force or internationalorganisation. Major conventional weapons
include: aircraft, armoured vehicles, artillery,radar systems, missiles, ships, engines.

19

Volume oftransfers of major
conventional
weapons (exports)
per 100,000
peopleSIPRI Arms
Transfers Project
database

2005-09

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Database

20

Financial
contribution toUN peacekeeping
missions

Institute for
Economics and Peace

2008-10Calculation of percentage of countries’
outstanding contributions versus their annual
assessment to the budget of the current
peacekeeping missions over an average of three
years. This ratio is derived from the United
Nations Committee on Contributions Status
reports. For additional information on thisindicator see note on page 56.

21

Aggregate
weighted numberof heavy weapons
per 100,000
peopleInstitute for
Economics and Peace2009

The Institute for Economics and Peace, in
conjunction with SIPRI, developed a categorized
system for rating the destructive capability ofheavy weapons. The five weapons categories areweighted as follows:

As above.

each armoured vehicle and artillery piece 1 point; each tank - 5 points; each combat
aircraft and combat helicopter - 20 points; eachwarship - 100 points; and each aircraft carrier
and nuclear submarine - 1000 points. Holdings
are those of government forces and do notinclude holdings of armed opposition groups.
Heavy weapons numbers were determined using
a combination of: The International Institutefor Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2009
and the United Nations Register of ConventionalArms, 200922

Ease of access tosmall arms andlight weapons

Economist
Intelligence Unit

2010-11

Qualitative assessment of the ease of access tosmall arms and light weapons. Ranked 1-5 (verylow-very high) by EIU analysts

23

Military capability/ sophistication

Economist
Intelligence Unit

2010-11

Qualitative assessment of the grade ofsophistication and the extent of military researchand development (R&D) Ranked 1-5 (very lowvery high) by EIU analysts

Page 41

A D D I T I O N A L N O T E S O N T H E I N D I C AT O R S
USED IN THE GLOBAL PEACE INDEX
3. Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)
UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset records the number of battle deaths per conflict, defined as: “a contested
incompatibility that concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, ofwhich at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year”. EIU analysts,
then, have scored the figures available for 2008 and 2009 according to the following bands.
1

2

3

4

5

0 - 2425 - 999

1,000 - 4,999

5,000 - 9,999> 10,000

6. Level of perceived criminality in society
A qualitative assessment ranked from 1-5 (very low to very high) by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Country
Analysis team.
Very low (1): The majority of other citizens can be trusted. Very low levels of domestic security.
Low (2): an overall positive climate of trust with other citizens.
Moderate (3): reasonable degree of trust in other citizens.
High (4): High levels of distrust in other citizens. High levels of domestic security.
Very high (5): Very high levels of distrust in other citizens - people are extremely cautious in their dealings withothers. Large number of gated communities, high prevalence of security guards.

9. Level of Disrespect for Human Rights (Political Terror Scale)
A yearly report measuring physical integrity rights violations world-wide. The PTS measures levels of politicalviolence and terror that a country experiences in a particular year based on a 5-level “terror scale.” The data used incompiling this index comes from two different sources: the yearly country reports of Amnesty International and the
U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
• Level 1: Countries under a secure rule of law. People are not imprisoned for their views and torture is rare or
exceptional.
• Level 2: There is a limited amount of imprisonment for non-violent political activity. However, few persons areaffected and torture and beatings are exceptional. Politically-motivated murder is rare.
• Level 3: There is extensive political imprisonment, or a recent history of such imprisonment. Execution or otherpolitical murders and brutality may be common. Unlimited detention, with or without a trial, for political views
is accepted.
• Level 4: Civil and political rights violations have expanded to large numbers of the population. Murders,disappearances, and torture are a common part of life. In spite of its generality, on this level political terror affects
those who interest themselves in politics or ideas.
• Level 5: Terror has expanded to the whole population. The leaders of these societies place no limits on the meansor thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals.

11. Number of homicides per 100,000 people
This indicator has been compiled using the 11th United Nations Survey of Criminal Trends and Operations of
Criminal Justice Systems (UNCTS) rather than Interpol data. The figures refer to the total number of penal code
offences or their equivalent, but excluding minor road traffic and other petty offences, brought to the attention of
the police or other law enforcement agencies and recorded by one of those agencies. The original Interpol figures
reviewed for the first iteration of the Global Peace Index were for 1998/99 and the consensus among experts on
the analysis of criminal justice is that the UNODC figures are more reliable—they are compiled from a standard
questionnaire sent to national officials via the UN statistical office. However, the UN acknowledges that international
comparisons of crime statistics are beset by methodological difficulties:• Different definitions for specific crime types: The category in which any incident of victimization is recorded
relies on the legal definition of crime in any country. Should that definition be different, which is often the case,comparisons will not be made of exactly the same crime type. This is particularly the case in crimes that require
some discretion from a police officer or relevant authority when they are identified. For example, the definitional
difference between serious or common assault in different legal jurisdictions may be different, and this will bereflected in the total number of incidents recorded.
Page 42•Different levels of reporting and traditions of policing: This relates closely to levels of development in a society,most clearly reflected in accessibility to the police. Factors such as the number of police stations or telephones
impact upon reporting levels. The level of insurance coverage in a community is also a key indicator of thelikelihood of citizens approaching the police as their claim for compensation may require such notification. In
addition, in societies where the police are or have been mistrusted by the population, most specifically during
periods of authoritarian rule, reporting levels are likely to be lower than in cases where the police are regarded asimportant members of the community.

•

Different social, economic and political contexts: Comparing crime data from societies that are fundamentallydifferent may ignore key issues present in the society that impact upon levels of reporting. For example, different
social norms in some countries may make it difficult for women to report cases of rape or sexual abuse, while inothers, women are encouraged to come forward.

The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is perhaps a more sensitive and accurate measure of crime—andarguably offers a picture of how the public views the criminal justice system—but is currently limited to a few,
mainly industrialised, countries so these data are not included.
Where data are not present, The Economist Intelligence Unit’s analysts have estimated figures based on their deep
knowledge of each country. All the figures for homicides per 100,000 people have been banded as:
1

2

3

4

5

0 - 1.9

2 - 5.9

6 - 9.9

10 - 19.9> 20

14. Number of jailed population per 100,000 people
Figures are from the International Centre for Prison Studies, King’s College, University of London and are compiled
from a variety of sources. In almost all cases the original source is the national prison administration of the country
concerned, or else the Ministry responsible for the prison administration. The International Centre for Prison Studies
warns that because prison population rates (per 100,000 of the national population) are based on estimates of thenational population they should not be regarded as precise. Comparability is compromised by different practicein different countries, for example with regard to whether all pre-trial detainees and juveniles are held under theauthority of the prison administration, and also whether the prison administration is responsible for psychiatricallyill offenders and offenders being detained for treatment for alcoholism and drug addiction. People held in custody areusually omitted from national totals if they are not under the authority of the prison administration.
The data have been banded for scoring accordingly:
1

2

3

4

5

0-69

70-139140-209210-279> 280

15. Number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 people
The figures have been taken from the 11th United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal
Justice Systems (UN-CTS) and refer to the civil police force as distinct from national guards or local militia. Where
there are gaps, then, EIU analysts have filled them based on likely scores from our set bands of the actual data.
1

2

3

4

5

0-199

200-399

400-599600-799> 800

20. Financial contribution to UN peacekeeping missions
The indicator calculates the percentage of countries’ “outstanding payments versus their annual assessment to thebudget of the current peacekeeping missions”.
All United Nations Member States share the costs of United Nations peacekeeping operations. The General Assembly
apportions these expenses based on a special scale of assessments applicable to peacekeeping. This scale takes into
account the relative economic wealth of Member States, with the permanent members of the Security Council required
to pay a larger share because of their special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Page 43

A D D I T I O N A L N O T E S O N T H E I N D I C AT O R S
USED IN THE GLOBAL PEACE INDEX
22. Ease of access to small arms and light weapons
A qualitative assessment of the accessibility of small arms and light weapons (SALW), ranked 1-5 (very low–veryhigh) by EIU analysts. Very limited access is scored if the country has developed policy instruments and bestpractices, such as firearm licences, strengthening of export controls, codes of conduct, firearms or ammunition
marking. Very easy access, on the contrary, is characterized by the lack of regulation of civilian possession,
ownership, storage, carriage and use of firearms.

Scoring criteria for the Global Peace Index
The team has continued to employ a banding system for several indicators based on the range of the data sets used
for the index in 2009. The scoring criteria for each of the affected series are given below:
Number of jailed population per 100,000 people
1

2

3

4

5

0-199.5

199.6 - 379.0

379.1 - 558.5

558.6 - 738.0>738.0Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons, as recipient (Imports) per 100,000 people
1

2

3

4

5

0-15.2

15.3-30.4

30.5-38.0

38.1-60.8>60.8

Military expenditure as a percentage of GDP
1

2

3

4

5

0-3.3

3.4-6.6

6.7-9.8

9.9-13.1>13.1

Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people
1

2

3

4

5

0-1,311.9

1,312-2,613.8

2,613.9-3,915.7

3,915.8-5,217.6>5,217.6

Funding for UN Peacekeeping Missions
1

2

3

4

5

0-3.4

3.5-6.9

7.0-10.3

10.4-13.8>13.8

Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people
1

2

3

4

5

0-62.963.0-125.7

125.8-188.5

188.5-251.3>251.3

Volume of transfers of major conventional weapons as supplier (exports) per 100,000 people
1

2

3

4

5

0-5.9

5.9-11.9

12.0-17.8

17.9-23.8>23.8

Number of displaced people as a percentage of the population
1

2

3

4

5

0.0-3.0

3.1-6.1

6.2-9.1

9.2-12.2>12.2

Number of external and internal conflicts fought
1

2

3

4

5

0-1.1

1.2-2.1

2.2-3.0

3.1-4.0>4.0

Page 44

ANNEX B
O T H E R E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I E TA L I N D I C AT O R S
Democracy and transparency
Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition

Electoral process

EIU Democracy Index

2010

Qualitative assessment of whether elections arecompetitive in that electors are free to vote and areoffered a range of choices. Ranked 1- 10 (very low tovery high).

Functioning ofgovernmentEIU Democracy Index

2010

Qualitative assessment of whether freely elected
representatives determine government policy? Is there aneffective system of checks and balances on the exercise ofgovernment authority? Ranked 1- 10 (very low to veryhigh).

Political participationEIU Democracy Index

2010

Qualitative assessment of voter participation/turn-out
for national elections, citizens’ engagement with politics.
Ranked 1- 10 (very low to very high).

Political culture

EIU Democracy Index

2010

Qualitative assessment of the degree of societal
consensus and cohesion to underpin a stable, functioning
democracy; score the level of separation of church andstate. Ranked 1- 10 (very low tovery high).

Civil libertiesEIU Democracy Index

2010

Qualitative assessment of the prevalence of civil liberties.
Is there a free electronic media? Is there a free print
media? Is there freedom of expression and protest? Are
citizens free to form professional organisations and tradeunions? Ranked 1- 10 (very low to very high).

Corruption perceptions

Transparency
International,
Corruption Perception
Index

2010

The Index draws on multiple expert opinion surveys
that poll perceptions of public sector corruption scoring
countries on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating highlevels of perceived corruption and
10 indicating low levels of perceived corruption.

Women in parliament (asa percentage of the total
number of representatives
in the lower house)

Inter-parliamentary
Union

2010

Figures are based on information provided by national
parliaments by 31st December 2010.

Gender inequality

Gender Gap Index,
World Economic Forum2010

A composite index that assesses countries on how wellthey are dividing their resources and opportunities
among their male and female populations, regardless ofthe overall levels of these resources and opportunities.

Freedom of the press

Reporters Without
Borders

1/9/2009 1/9/2010

The index measures the state of press freedom in theworld, reflecting the degree of freedom journalists andnews organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts
made by the state to respect and ensure respect for thisfreedom.

International openness
Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition

Exports + Imports as a %of GDP

EIU

2010

Measure of merchandise goods exports free on board
and merchandise goods imports free on board.

Foreign Direct Investment(flow)
as a % of GDP

EIU

2010

Net flows of direct investment capital by non-residents
into the country, as a percentage of GDP.

Number of visitors as a
% of domestic population

UNWTO Compendiumof Tourism Statistics,
Data

2008, 2007
dependent on
availability

Arrivals data correspond to international visitors to
the economic territory of the country and include bothtourists and same-day non-resident visitors.

Net migration as a % of
total population

World Bank, World
Development Indicators.
Data refer to 2001-2006

2001-06

Net migration is the net average annual number of
migrants during the period 2001-06 that is the numberof immigrants less the number of emigrants, including
both citizen and non citizens.

Page 45

ANNEX B
O T H E R E C O N O M I C A N D S O C I E TA L I N D I C AT O R S
Demographics
Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition

15-34 year-old males as a
% of adult population

UN World Population
Prospects

2009

Male population 15-34 year olds as a proportion of theadult population.

Gender ratio of
population: women/men

UN World Population
Prospects

2009

Male population divided by the female population

Regional & international framework/conditions
Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition

Extent of regional
integration

EIU

2010

Qualitative assessment of the level of membership oftrade alliances, as NAFTA, ANSEAN, etc. Ranked 1-5(Very low-very high ) by EIU analysts

Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition

Current education
spending(as a % of GDP)UNESCO, data refer tothe UNESCO Institutefor Statistics estimate,when no value isavailable

2008-09(dependingonavailability)

Public spending on education, total (% of GDP)

Primary school enrolment
ratio(% Net)World Bank, World
Development Indicators

2008-09(dependingonavailability)

Net enrolment ratio is the ratio of the number ofchildren of official school age (as defined by the national
education system) who are enrolled in school to the
population of the corresponding official school age

Secondary school
enrolment ratio(% Net)World Bank, World
Development Indicators

2008-09(dependingonavailability)

Net enrolment ratio is the ratio of the number ofchildren of official school age (as defined by the national
education system) who are enrolled in school to the
population of the corresponding official school age

Higher education
enrolment(% Gross)

World Bank, World
Development Indicators

2008-09(dependingonavailability)

Gross enrolment ratio is the ratio of total enrolment,
regardless of age, to the population of the age group that
officially corresponds to the level of education shown

Mean years of schooling

UNESCO, data refer tothe UNESCO Institutefor Statistics estimate,when no estimate isavailable

2010 andearlier years(dependingonavailability)

School life expectancy (years), Primary to tertiary

Adult literacy rate (% ofpopulation over the ageof 15)UNESCO, data refer tothe UNESCO Institutefor Statistics

2008-09

Data refer to national literacy estimates from censuses or
surveys.

Education

Page 46

Culture
Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition

Hostility to foreigners/
private property

EIU

2010

Scored 1-5 by EIU analysts

Importance of religion innational life

EIU

2010

Qualitative assessment of the level of importance ofreligion in politics and social life. Ranked 1-5(very low to very high) by EIU analysts

Willingness to fight

EIU

2010

Qualitative assessment of the willingness of citizens tofight in wars. Ranked 1- 5 (very low to very high)by EIU analysts

Indicator

Central Source

Year

Definition

Nominal GDP (US$PPP
bn)

EIU

2010

Nominal gross domestic product at 2005 US$ purchasing
power parities

Nominal GDP(US$ bn)

EIU

2010

Nominal gross domestic product US$ market prices

GDP per capita

EIU

2010

Nominal gross domestic product (US$) per capita

Gini coefficient

UN HumanDevelopment Index
2010; World Bank,World Development
Indicators; EIU
estimates

Latestavailable year

The Gini index measures the extent to which the
distribution of income among individuals or households
within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal
distribution

Unemployment %

EIU

2010

ILO defines the unemployed as members of theeconomically active population who are without work
but available for and seeking work, including people
who have lost their jobs and those who have voluntary
left work

Life expectancy

World Bank, World
Development Indicators

2009Life expectancy at birth is the number of years a
newborn infant would live if prevailing patterns ofmortality at the time of its birth were to stay the same
throughout its life

Infant mortality
per 1,000 live births

World Bank, World
Development Indicators

2007

Infant mortality rate is the number of infants dying
before reaching one year of age, per 1,000 live births
in a given year

Material well being

Page 47

PO Box 42, St Leonards, Sydney NSW 1590, Australia
email info@economicsandpeace.org web www.economicsandpeace.org© Institute for Economics and Peace 2011
Page 48