TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsWhy development doesn't prevent war
While the Truman-era linear model had its time and place, its underlying assumptions must be reassessed toward laying the groundwork for a more realistic policy approach in the context of today's more complex, asymmetric causal pathway between development and peace.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
A health worker from the Puskesmas (community health center) of Ulee Kareng, a district in Banda Aceh, Aceh, administers a vitamin A oral supplement to a toddler on Feb. 4, 2026, at the Posyandu (integrated health services post) in Lambhuk subdistrict. (Antara/Irwansyah Putra)
I
n 1949, United States president Harry S. Truman laid out a bold vision that would shape global policy for generations. Poverty, he argued, was not merely a humanitarian concern but a threat to peace itself, and development was the remedy.
The logic was compelling in its simplicity: raise living standards, and the risk of conflict would diminish. Over the years, the linear model that cast development as the pathway to stability became the intellectual foundation of international aid.
Today, however, the world looks very different. Violent conflict has reached levels not seen since World War II even as extreme poverty has fallen to historic lows. Taken together, these trends suggest it is time to reassess the linear development model and its underlying logic.
Conventional wisdom, as articulated in the United Nations 2030 Agenda, holds that conflict undermines development, while poverty and inequality fuel conflict. This framing implies that progress on one front reinforces the other, enabling policymakers to present development aid as both a moral imperative and a strategic investment that promotes a virtuous cycle of prosperity and peace.
But that view has always rested more on assumption than evidence. While a growing body of empirical research has documented the devastating effects of conflict on economic output, human capital and institutional capacity, the link between development and peace has proven far harder to establish.
How strong is the causal relationship between development and geopolitical stability? My recent research offers a sobering answer and reveals a striking asymmetry.
When conflict erupts, its effects on development are profound and long-lasting. The average time it takes for the damage to diminish by half, what economists call “half-life”, is nearly eight years.
