The “Peace Index” – Moonbattery Masquerading As Statistics
Yesterday a group called the “Economist Intelligence Unit” came out with a ranking of world countries based on how “peaceful” they are. The US came in 97th out of 140 countries, and Israel came in 136th. It was heavily covered in newspapers worldwide.
They have a very elaborate methodology, taking into account many different factors. The factors themselves seem to be the product of an interesting mindset.
First, they try to make it sound like it is entirely the result of rigorous statistics:
Twenty-four indicators of the existence or absence of peace were chosen by the panel, which are divided into three key thematic categories. Many of the indicators have been “banded” on a scale of 1-5; qualitative indicators in the index have been scored by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s extensive team of country analysts, and gaps in the quantitative data have been filled by estimates. Indicators of quantitative data such as military expenditure or jailed population have been normalised on the basis of:
x = (x-Min(x)) / (Max (x) – Min (x))Where Min (x) and Max (x) are respectively the lowest and highest values in the 140 countries for any given indicator. The normalised value is then transformed from a 0-1 value to a 1-5 score to make it comparable with the other indicators.
The part highlighted shows that a great deal of the pseudo-scientific description that follows is, in fact, guesses based more on the bias of the “researchers” than on any real numbers.
Then they go into the specific indicators, which sound sort of reasonable until you dig in a little bit. They measure things like:
Number of external and internal conflicts fought: 2001-06
- Estimated number of deaths from organised conflict (external)
- Number of deaths from organised conflict (internal)
- Level of organised conflict (internal)
- Relations with neighbouring countries
- Level of distrust in other citizens
- Number of displaced people as a percentage of the population
- Political instability
- Level of disrespect for human rights (Political Terror Scale)
- 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
- 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
- UN Deployments 2007-08 (percentage of total armed forces)
- Non-UN Deployments 2007-08 (percentage of total armed forces)
- Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people
- Ease of access to small arms and light weapons
- Military capability/sophistication
Then they weight it according to various factors.
The problem is that many of these “indicators” are purely subjective, and when subjective criteria are used to come up with objective data, the results are anything but objective.
In the case of Israel, their breakdown shows exactly where they go wrong. For example, here are some rankings where Israel did poorly according to the EIU:
Level of distrust in other citizens
Qualitative assessment of level of distrust in other citizens. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts
Israel got a 4, on a purely subjective guess based on little knowledge.
Similarly:
Ease of access to weapons of minor destruction
Qualitative assessment of the ease of access to small arms and light weapons. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts.
Israel got a 3 (out of 5). Unmentioned are any controls around the access to these weapons or training in their use, as Israel’s handgun deaths are quite low.
Level of organised conflict (internal) – 4
Qualitative assessment of the intensity of conflicts within the country. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analystsRespect for human rights – 4
A qualitative measure of the level of political terror through an analysis of Amnesty International’s Yearbook.Potential for terriorist acts – 4
Qualitative assessment of the potential for terrorist acts. Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts
Any time it says “qualitative assessment” it is using a fancy word for “guesses based on reading newspapers and Amnesty International reports.”
Number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people – 5
Active armed services personnel comprises all servicemen and women on full-time duty in the army, navy, air force and joint forces (including conscripts and long-term assignments from the Reserves)Aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people – 5
Source: Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC)Military capability/sophistication – 5
Qualitative assessment of the grade of sophistication and the extent of military research and development (R&D) Ranked 1-5 (very low-very high) by EIU analysts
See the problem here? Thius august group makes an assumption that any country that has a large and sophisticated military must be, inherently, non-peaceful. The logical fallacy of these assumptions are staggering, yet escape this think-tank.
The basic thinking of this group is that armies are inherently evil. This is breathtakingly stupid.
But there is a patina of objectivity around this extraordinarily flawed, and simply wrongheaded, analysis. The media is quick to lap these sorts of things up as if they have any real value.
Even more ironically, the EIU says that one of the biggest reasons for having such an index is to help businesses decide where to set up shop:
Business benefits greatly from an environment of peace. Understanding the attributes of peace allows governments to better understand what they can do to improve the business environment This knowledge allows business to make more confident investment decisions on the basis of actual and predicted stability in a community or nation.
They are pretty clearly saying that companies that choose to do business in Israel are idiots, because of these rankings.
Now, who do you trust more to make business decisions: a group that includes Google, IBM, Motorola, Microsoft and Warren Buffet, or the EIU?
The EIU has been doing this sham for a few years now, and one would think that they would adjust their sacred methodology to account for what is obviously a ridiculous conclusion, that Israel is less peaceful than most African nations where tens of thousands die monthly. But they get lots of press, and no one calls them on their basic methodological flaws, so why not keep it going?
About the Author
Elder of Ziyon may or may not be a real person. He (or she, or it) blogs at http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/Filed Under: General
May I suggest you place the words “think tank” in scare quotes.
Bwahahahaha, hillarious ranking. Israel less peaceful than Zimbabwe, China being such a peaceful country… Also, judging from the countries at the bottom, USA is the main cause of grief in the world, heheh
Even if some of these can be measured objectively they are still meaningless.
For example, “Relations with neighbouring countries” is something that can “potentially” be measured objectively but that ignores the reality that “relations” is a two way street. In other words, Israel does not have very good relations with many of its neighbours. That is true. But does that mean that Israel is not peaceful or that its neighbours are not willing to extend (or even start) friendly relations to Israel? I would think the later.
If the idea behind this “study” was to help out businesses make “decisions” on where to set up shop then I wouldn’t worry. Any company stupid enough to use this as a criteria instead of real business reasons would likely go out of business anyways.
There are very few countries (African or otherwise) where tens of thousands die each month, probably just Congo and Sudan.
But interesting to see them pontificating about where businesses should and shouldn’t be setting up shop. Certainly clear-thinking companies are ignoring such lists and setting up shop in places down the bottom of the list like Russia, Lebanon, Nigeria (where telecoms are growing at the fastest rate on earth), Turkey etc.
Well, the truth is that wars make history. And, peaceful times just drop by the wayside.
How do I know this to be true? Well, starting with Homer, the stories of war and daring deeds makes its ways into books. Oh, and they get translated!
Are wars folly? Barbara Tuchman thought so. Because? They are high risk. And, one side loses.
Maybe, we can differentiate between all out wars, and the “fluff” that’s passed for them, since the UN got a hold of lots of diplomatic privileges; and? Well, both American and Israel tie themselves up in knots, to fight “majestically” … without causing injury. Those have failed, whenever they are tried.
While, yes. I do call this creating VEXING PROBLEMS. You’d be surprised, but “wars” to kill mosquitos, for instance. Or wars to solve drug usage. Are a big waste of time. and trouble. Employing lots of people.
Anyway, setting his gaze upon the world, Winston Churchill observed that the White Man is in short supply. But among all the nations, when you look for the world of ideas … you see that it started “first” … coming off of a small island. (They didn’t do so good, either, at helping other nations learn much. But, on the other hand? They sure did invent a whole bunch of systems that work well at managing people.)
You want governments to work well? Heck, you just got an American, Talansky, to come to Israel, to try and take down Olmert … WHen, lo and behold, America teaches all of its students, that our Founding Fathers set down the idea that all governments function better when you “put up a wall between the secular functions of government, and religion.”
So, instead? Talansky goes to Israel.
Can he shake up ‘da house? Or are you just looking at another VEXING PROBLEM?