According to IEP, violence containment refers to any economic activity that is related to the consequences or prevention of violence, where the violence is directed against people or property.<\/p>\n
The study found that the direct global cost of violence containment is over $4.7 trillion – and over $9.4 trillion when the peace multiplier is applied.<\/p>\n
The peace multiplier determines the extent to which additional expenditure has flow-on impacts in the wider economy.<\/p>\n
The study assumes that the multiplier approaches two, signifying that for every dollar saved on violence containment, there will be an additional dollar of economic activity.<\/p>\n
“This is the equivalent of $1,300 for each person in the world, and almost double the value of world agricultural production.”<\/p>\n
“Were the world to reduce its expenditure on violence by fifteen percent it would be enough to provide the necessary money for the European Stability Fund, repay Greece\u2019s debt and cover the increase in funding required to achieve the United Nation\u2019s Millennium Development Goals,” the IEP said.<\/p>\n
![\"Economic](\"http:\/\/businesstech.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/Economic-impact-compared.png\")
<\/a>Economic impact compared<\/p><\/div>\n
The world’s biggest spenders<\/h3>\n
The biggest portion of violence containment expenditure comes from military costs (51.2% of total) – with violent crime (15.1%) and internal security costs (13.7%) accounting for the second and third biggest portions of expenditure.<\/p>\n
The world’s largest economies are obviously spending the most on violence containment, with the USA ($1.7 trillion) taking top spot, followed by the BRIC nations – China ($354 billion), Russia ($207 billion), India ($186 billion) and Brazil ($176 billion).<\/p>\n
<\/a>Top 10 spenders<\/p><\/div>\n
However, when violence containment costs are represented as a percentage of a country’s GDP, militant nations come out at the top, led by North Korea (27% of GDP), Syria (24%) and Liberia (23%).<\/p>\n
<\/a>Top 10 spenders – % of GDP<\/p><\/div>\n
“Expenditure on violence containment is economically efficient when it effectively prevents violence for the least amount of outlay,” the IEP said.<\/p>\n
“However, money that is spent on surplus violence containment, or money that is spent on inefficient programmes has the potential to constrain a nation\u2019s economic growth.”<\/p>\n
As Africa’s biggest economy, South Africa has the highest violence containment costs ($51.2 billion), and has one of the biggest violence containment budgets in the world – 17th, globally out of 152 countries.<\/p>\n
South Africa is listed 30th in terms of costs as a percentage of GDP (8.5%).<\/p>\n
The global cost of violence containment is 2.4 times the size of Africa’s GDP, according to the study.<\/p>\n
<\/a>Impact of violence containment by category<\/p><\/div>\n
Top 10 African countries<\/h3>\n\n\n\nCountry<\/strong><\/td>\nCost (US$mil)<\/strong><\/td>\nCost per capita (US$)
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n% of GDP
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nLiberia<\/td>\n 670<\/td>\n 160<\/td>\n 22.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nLibya<\/td>\n 20,395<\/td>\n 3,175<\/td>\n 19.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nSomalia<\/td>\n 1,085<\/td>\n 115<\/td>\n 18.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nZimbabwe<\/td>\n 1,355<\/td>\n 105<\/td>\n 18.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nCote d’Ivoire<\/td>\n 6,115<\/td>\n 305<\/td>\n 14.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nDemocratic Republic of the Congo<\/td>\n 3,615<\/td>\n 55<\/td>\n 12.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nSudan<\/td>\n 9,385<\/td>\n 275<\/td>\n 11.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nCentral African Republic<\/td>\n 425<\/td>\n 95<\/td>\n 10.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nLesotho<\/td>\n 435<\/td>\n 200<\/td>\n 10.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nUganda<\/td>\n 5,075<\/td>\n 145<\/td>\n 9.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\nTop 5 African spenders<\/h3>\n\n\n\nCountry<\/strong><\/td>\nViolence Containment costs (US$bn)
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nSouth Africa<\/td>\n 51.210<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nEgypt<\/td>\n 35.155<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nNigeria<\/td>\n 26.835<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nAlgeria<\/td>\n 25.775<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \nLibya<\/td>\n 20.395<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\nAccording to the IEP, the figures found in its study were “conservative”, as many categories of violence were not included in costs due to a lack of data.<\/p>\n
This includes international spill-over effects of violence, costs related to property or vehicle crimes, as well as preventative measures such as insurance or surveillance.<\/p>\n
More on studies<\/h3>\n
South Africa\u2019s most violent city<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\nThe \u201cselfiest\u201d city in South Africa<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\nJoburg: Africa\u2019s best city for youth<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n
Country<\/strong><\/td>\n| Cost (US$mil)<\/strong><\/td>\n | Cost per capita (US$) | \n<\/strong><\/td>\n % of GDP | \n<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n Liberia<\/td>\n | 670<\/td>\n | 160<\/td>\n | 22.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Libya<\/td>\n | 20,395<\/td>\n | 3,175<\/td>\n | 19.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Somalia<\/td>\n | 1,085<\/td>\n | 115<\/td>\n | 18.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Zimbabwe<\/td>\n | 1,355<\/td>\n | 105<\/td>\n | 18.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Cote d’Ivoire<\/td>\n | 6,115<\/td>\n | 305<\/td>\n | 14.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Democratic Republic of the Congo<\/td>\n | 3,615<\/td>\n | 55<\/td>\n | 12.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Sudan<\/td>\n | 9,385<\/td>\n | 275<\/td>\n | 11.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Central African Republic<\/td>\n | 425<\/td>\n | 95<\/td>\n | 10.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Lesotho<\/td>\n | 435<\/td>\n | 200<\/td>\n | 10.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Uganda<\/td>\n | 5,075<\/td>\n | 145<\/td>\n | 9.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n | Top 5 African spenders<\/h3>\n
|