Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations

Full Text

While several studies have established the beneficial effects of peacekeeping operations (PKOs), by looking at individual effect pathways (intensity, duration, recurrence, diffusion) in isolation, they underestimate the peacekeeping impact of PKOs.
Writing in The Journal of Politics, HÅVARD HEGRE, LISA HULTMAN and HÅVARD MOKLEIV NYGÅRD propose a novel method of evaluating the combined impact across all pathways based on a statistical model of the efficacy of UN PKOs in preventing the onset, escalation, continuation, and recurrence of internal armed conflict. The authors run a set of simulations based on the statistical estimates to assess the impact of alternative UN policies for the 2001-13 period.
If the UN had invested US$200 billion in PKOs with strong mandates, major armed conflict would have been reduced by up to two-thirds relative to a scenario without PKOs and 150,000 lives would have been saved over the 13-year period compared to a no-PKO scenario, they write. “UN peacekeeping is clearly a cost-effective way of increasing global security.”
In their paper, “Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations”, HEGRE, HULTMAN and NYGÅRD have evaluated a number of potential UN PKO scenarios and their prospects in reducing conflict.
“The UN’s new peacebuilding agenda, spearheaded by Secretary-General António Guterres, puts the focus squarely on managing the outbreak, escalation, continuation, and recurrence of conflict. We have shown that PKOs are an efficient tool for managing these pathways.”
By simulating different scenarios, the authors have estimated the effect on the future incidence of conflict of different types of missions and of varying the money spent on PKOs. “The results show that PKOs have a clear conflict-reducing effect.”
The effect of PKOs is largely limited to preventing major armed conflicts. However, there is a discernible indirect effect since the reduction of conflict intensity also tends to increase the chances of peace in following years, the authors stress. There are also some interesting regional differences. PKOs have the strongest effect in three regions that have been particularly afflicted by conflict: West Asia and North Africa; East, Central, and Southern Africa; South and Central Asia.
These findings have clear policy implications, HEGRE, HULTMAN and NYGÅRD state, adding that they illustrate the effect of different PKO policies. “We also estimate the cost of those different policies. In one of the most extensive scenarios— in which major armed conflicts receive a PKO with an annual budget of US$800 million— the total UN peacekeeping budget is estimated to approximately double. However, in this scenario, the risk of major armed conflict is reduced by two-thirds relative to a scenario without any PKO.”
This indicates that a large UN peacekeeping budget is money well spent. Moreover, the total PKO budget would increase for about 10 years and then start decreasing again as a result of a reduced number of conflicts in the world.
In another scenario, which specifies that major conflicts get a PKO with a transformational mandate in the first year, the risk of conflict is reduced by two-thirds in 2013 compared to a scenario without any PKO.
“If the UN is serious about maintaining international peace and security, it is important to consider the impact of different policies regarding mandates and budgets, as well as the reaction time from a conflict outbreak to the deployment of a mission.”
The authors say that the methodology they use opens up new interesting questions and possible extensions to the research presented. “One pertinent question is whether the quality of PKOs may not be equally important for its efficiency as the mandate and the budget.” Troop-contributing countries have varying levels of military training, and a large number of countries contributing troops to a single mission may introduce coordination problems.
Another relevant issue is the impact of regional security actors. “In this paper, we have evaluated the effect of UN PKOs, but the UN is not the only actor doing peacekeeping. For example, the African Union and NATO have been involved in several conflict and post-conflict situations.”
Therefore, the authors stress, it would be interesting to assess whether these actors differ in their peacekeeping efficacy and subsequently simulate a future scenario that takes into account the involvement of regional actors in peacekeeping. “The simulation procedure used here offers a useful tool for evaluating the practical relevance of theoretical insights as well as assessing the impact of different policies.”

Håvard Hegre, Lisa Hultman, and Håvard Mokleiv Nygård, “Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations,” The Journal of Politics 81, no. 1 (January 2019): 215-232.
https://doi.org/10.1086/700203