Home > Culture > Books

Keeping the peace: Economist Dominic Rohner's insights into reducing conflict on the world stage

Published: 25 Feb. 2025, 15:25 Updated: 25 Feb. 2025, 21:25

LEE JIAN
[email protected]

Book cover of ″The Peace Formula,″ left, and its author, economist Dominic Rohner [SCREEN CAPTURE]

[Interview]

World War II was an imperative learning moment for humanity. In its aftermath, the international community agreed that war was to be avoided at all costs, aggression could not be appeased and democracy should be seen as a bastion of freedom and peace. Now, almost 80 years later, these reflections have seemingly begun wearing off.

For the first time since 1945, the past 10 years have seen more than 50 simultaneous conflicts worldwide. The number of democracies has shrunk, and in their place has appeared a global wave of autocratization and nationalism. Swiss economist Dominic Rohner, currently a professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute, has been grappling with this global shift away from peace for the past two decades.

With a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Cambridge, he has published over 40 research papers, largely on the role of economic policies to bolster peace and inhibit violence.

“The Peace Formula” (2024) is his first book, published as Rohner sensed a heightened demand from the general public for an evidence-based synthesis of the reasons for war and solutions to reduce conflict risks and foster peace. “Even just a few years ago, people weren’t as interested in my job,” Rohner said.

The book, which is available in its original English version for purchase in Korean bookstores, is an easy read, avoiding jargon and complex mathematics. Instead, it provides numerous historical accounts. The writer's points are backed by research and other scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals by scholars globally. They build to support his proposed peace formula: voice plus work plus warranties.

“As individuals in a civil society, it is important to stay engaged, and having the world’s eyes on political actions and holding politicians accountable can lead to better scrutiny and accountability,” said Rohner. “In that sense, fostering peace is a responsibility for all of us, not just a select few leaders.”

Below is the Korea JoongAng Daily’s interview with Rohner. Excerpts have been edited for conciseness and clarity.

Q. Many conflicts stem from struggles over power and wealth, yet your research challenges that narrative by also saying that cash can promote peace. How can economic policies promote peace rather than fuel further violence?

A. Having a strong, productive economy that provides people with jobs, opportunities and perspectives in life will reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in armed violence. There is evidence showing that most individuals do not enjoy violence. If given the choice between earning their money through peaceful, legal means or becoming rebel soldiers, the majority would prefer to pursue a nonviolent path. So, in that sense, a strong economy is an important pillar of peace.

You also mention misconceptions about how money can promote peace, pointing out that a country’s funding sometimes strengthens corrupt regimes instead of fostering stability. Should nations intervene in foreign conflicts at all? And if so, what approach should they take?

In a German study titled "Paying Them to Hate US,” researchers Eugen Dimant, Tim Krieger and Daniel Meierrieks focus on the transfers made to certain governments to combat terrorism and find that these payments do not actually reduce violence or anti-American sentiment but that this money often reaches only certain parts of society, leaving many feeling excluded, which can foster grievances rather than provide genuine assistance. This is a case where monetary transfers could backfire.

In a study I conducted with a colleague from the World Bank, we focused on the country of Niger, and we found that while this cash transfer program is overall beneficial, helping people escape poverty and offering various positive impacts, it also appears to increase the risk of armed conflict. This increase is not from domestic issues but is more related to armed groups from abroad, such as Boko Haram, which may attempt to steal the cash. Our conclusion is not to cut foreign aid but rather to maintain it while also providing additional security guarantees, like UN peacekeeping troops, for example.

The recent impeachment of South Korea’s president has deepened political polarization. What is your take?

A significant lesson from the recent events in Korea is that even mature, stable democracies are not immune to moments of crisis. This lesson is crucial because, in my generation, growing up in a democracy was something we never imagined could be anything but secure. We thought democracy was a permanent achievement and not something that could falter or face challenges. The events in Korea, along with various other contexts around the world, remind us that democracy is actually quite fragile.

Are international institutions the best bet we have for peace?

There is strong statistical evidence that UN peacekeeping troops play a significant role in maintaining peace, especially by helping local families and injecting funds to empower individuals in conflict areas. Economic empowerment for individuals is critical for peace. For instance, if you have a nice, well-paying job in an office, you are much less inclined to join a rebel force or a warlord compared to if you are struggling to survive and find food for your family. Therefore, by fostering a strong economy with ample opportunities, people are less likely to turn to armed violence, and it can put an end to a cycle of violence.

What then are the biggest obstacles preventing the United Nations from playing a more decisive role in global peacebuilding?

Polarization in the UN Security Council has undoubtedly contributed to the paralysis of UN action at times. However, I believe another crucial factor is funding. Major powers have a vested interest in fostering peace in various situations. Therefore, it's not solely about political polarization between superpowers. It ultimately comes down to the funding needed to deploy UN peacekeeping forces to promote peace in various regions around the globe.

I believe we should remember that investing in peace is truly a worthwhile investment. Apart from saving human lives, from a purely economic perspective, an average civil war can cause a permanent drop in GDP by nearly a fifth.

BY LEE JIAN [[email protected]]