The Problem

Peace is barely funded.

The field has no shared definition of peace. Without one, progress cannot be measured, organisations cannot coordinate, and the case for investment is hard to make. Peace stays underfunded as a result, and money tends to react to violence rather than prevent it.

Blueprint technical drawing showing 0.24 percent

The field works with many definitions of peace, but lacks a shared conceptual root that connects them.

A 2024 review in the International Studies Review found that scholars have created 61 distinct peace concepts, each adding a qualifier to the root term. The researchers call this "peace with adjectives." Concepts multiply, but without a shared foundation they cannot build on one another.

This is the challenge the IGP was founded to address. Where that review maps the fragmentation, the IGP's structural framework proposes one possible foundation, one that different analytical approaches can build on without losing their focus.

61
Competing definitions of peace in the literature
180+
Scholarly works reviewed (1969–2022)
3
Diverging conceptual strategies with no shared root
0
Shared root definitions across all three strategies

Without a shared definition, the case for sustained peace investment is hard to make.

The economic impact of violence reached an estimated $19.97 trillion in 2024. By contrast, global peacebuilding and peacekeeping spending totalled $47.2 billion. While these figures measure different things, the disparity speaks for itself.

How peace spending compares to the cost of violence
0.24% of the total economic impact of violence is invested in peacebuilding and peacekeeping

Pie chart drawn to scale.

A framework that addresses this.

The framework offers a candidate definitional foundation against which research, funding, and policy can be traced. Read it in full, or open a conversation about a stakeholder context.