The peace field works without a shared definition of peace. Progress is hard to measure, funding is hard to coordinate, and policy is hard to evaluate. The Institute for Global Peacecraft develops a framework that lets the field's work be traced against shared foundations.
Violence imposes a cost measured in the tens of trillions, while direct investment in peace remains a tiny fraction of that burden. A field that cannot define its central outcome struggles to compare evidence, fund what works, or design policy that compounds across institutions.
A shared structure makes research findings and programme outcomes easier to read against each other instead of leaving them trapped in separate vocabularies.
Portfolio decisions become clearer when grants can be mapped to the same peace-building structure and read for concentration, omission, and overlap.
Policy instruments can be designed against a common referent, making it easier for each law, strategy, or mandate to build on previous work.
Different traditions of peace research appear to share certain foundational elements. Identifying them may give the field a shared anchor without displacing what makes each tradition distinct.
What the framework offers researchersWith a shared definition of peace, the link between activity and outcome becomes more traceable, and the projects that belong inside a coalition's effort become easier to see together.
What the framework offers organisationsA shared definition makes the path from capital to impact more traceable. Funders can see where money becomes cause and where peace appears as effect, across a portfolio.
What the framework offers fundersA shared definition lets laws and frameworks be designed against a coherent theory of change, with each successive instrument able to build on what previous ones established.
What the framework offers policymakers