Why Development Doesn’t Prevent War

Omar Al-Qattaa/AFP via Getty Images

Violent conflicts have reached levels not seen since World War II, even as global poverty has fallen to historic lows, challenging long-held assumptions about the relationship between development and peace. This outcome calls for a reassessment of the theory of change that underpins development aid.

Listen to this commentary Please log in to listen to this commentary 0:00 / 0:00 1x Audio unavailable

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 its “half-life”—is nearly eight years.

Secure your copy of PS Quarterly: Winners & Losers – and $20

In the new issue of our magazine, leading thinkers examine how recent developments, from the AI revolution to intensifying geopolitical volatility, are reshuffling the economic and financial deck and generating new winners and losers across the global economy.

Subscribe to PS Premium now, with a $20 discount, to read the issue, featuring Claudia Goldin, Mark Blyth, Dambisa Moyo and others.

Subscribe Now

By contrast, development’s pacifying effects are fleeting. Across multiple dimensions, the impact of improved development outcomes on conflict has a half-life of roughly 13 months. Within two years, any measurable reduction in conflict intensity has effectively disappeared.

This asymmetry reflects the scale of the damage armed conflicts cause. War does not simply disrupt livelihoods and public services; it wipes out assets that took generations to build: physical infrastructure, human capital, functioning institutions, and the basic social trust that makes collective action possible. Development interventions work differently. Cash transfers, clinics, and irrigation systems can improve lives and ease grievances, but they rarely transform the underlying political conditions that sustain violence, let alone on a global scale.

The policy implications are far-reaching. If development yields only short-lived reductions in violence, then the case for development aid as a tool of conflict prevention is weaker than often assumed. That is an uncomfortable conclusion for institutions that have long justified aid budgets on security grounds.

To be sure, the argument that investing in development today helps avoid the far higher costs of war tomorrow is not entirely wrong. There is evidence that aid to conflict-affected areas can reduce violence, though the effects are often modest and not always statistically robust. But while development spending is justified on humanitarian and ethical grounds, regardless of the strategic implications, the evidence does not support the claim that sustained investment can reliably prevent or resolve armed conflicts.

What the evidence does show is the inverse: sustainable development depends on peace to a far greater extent than the Truman-era paradigm recognized. Preventing conflict yields enormous development gains, as each year without war preserves years of progress that would otherwise be lost. Investments in conflict prevention—including political settlements, power-sharing arrangements, and credible peace processes—are not substitutes for development spending but rather preconditions for it.

Consequently, we must rethink the theory of change that currently underpins development economics. In developing countries plagued by distrust, poor services, and recurring violence, political stability and state legitimacy must come first. Only after that foundation is in place can institutional reform and sustained development spending deliver tangible results.

None of this is meant to suggest that Truman was wrong to argue that poverty poses a threat to global peace. But the causal pathway is more complex, asymmetric, and contingent than the prevailing linear model assumed. While development can help sustain peace, it is far less effective at creating it.

Recognizing this distinction obviously does not mean abandoning the pursuit of development. Rather, it calls for an honest reckoning with the limitations of the current model and to lay the groundwork for a more realistic and effective approach to development policy.

Help us strengthen our reporting on global health and development by taking a short survey.

Take Survey

Featured

1. The Real Question About the AI Future

   Apr 8, 2026 Ricardo Hausmann & Andrés Velasco

2. When Fools Go to War

   Apr 3, 2026 Federico Fubini

3. Remaking Europe’s Energy System for the Age of AI

   Mar 30, 2026 Lucrezia Reichlin

4. Why Iran Is Beating America

   Apr 3, 2026 Brahma Chellaney

5. Is Economic Forecasting Still Possible?

   Apr 6, 2026 Morten Nyboe Tabor

• Licensing

0Contact UsLicensing

https://prosyn.org/uelTl7K

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

CancelPost Commentedit

Your name

Your email

Friend’s name

Friend’s email

Message

CancelSend

Choose an option…

• Feedback/general inquiries
• Advertise with us
• Careers
• Corporate Subscriptions
• Education Subscriptions
• Secure publication rights
• Submit a commentary for publication
• Website help

First Name

Last Name

Email

Please provide more details about your request

Please wait, fetching the form

Please wait, fetching the form

Please wait, fetching the form

Please wait, fetching the form

Please wait, fetching the form

Please wait, fetching the form

Please wait, fetching the form

CancelSend