What the programme does
The Theory of Change for Global Peace programme brings together the work of the three programmes before it: the definitions of peace gathered by Concepts and Definitions of Peace, the common ground identified by Common Ground for Peace and the indicators developed by Peace Measurement and Indicators. From these it drafts a comprehensive theory of change for global peace. It is offered as a starting point for discussion, to be examined, tested and corrected by others. The Peace in Law, Policy and Institutions programme then applies it.
What a theory of change is
A theory of change explains how an organization expects its work to lead to the change it seeks. It sets out, step by step, how what is invested and done is expected to produce results. Governments, United Nations entities, funders and civil society organizations use theories of change to plan, fund and evaluate their work.
The chain of a theory of change
Each step is expected to lead to the next.
- InputsWhat is invested, such as funding, time and expertise
- ActivitiesWhat is done, such as mediation, training or research
- OutputsWhat is produced, such as agreements, reports or trained people
- OutcomesWhat changes as a result
- ImpactThe lasting change sought, which for peace work is peace itself
The last step names the goal. Every other step is chosen because it is expected to lead there.
Why the goal matters
A theory of change can only be as clear as its idea of the goal. In peace work, that goal is seldom defined. The Charter of the United Nations makes the maintenance of international peace and security the first purpose of the Organization, but international law has no generally accepted definition of peace.
As a result, those who work for peace often work towards different ends. As early as 1976, a review of the peace research field found researchers “studying different problems and pursuing divergent goals, all under the banner of ‘peace’” (Johnson 1976, quoted in Reagan 2023). The same holds in practice, from mediators and educators to funders, States, courts and United Nations bodies. A 2023–2024 synthesis review for the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund found that evaluations struggled to judge impact across the Fund’s portfolio without a portfolio-level theory of change.
When the concept of peace is fragmented
- Each actor works towards their own idea of peace
- Efforts pull apart and can cancel each other out
- Commitments to peace are difficult to assess against a common standard
- Those who use violence can co-opt the word peace
When the common ground is stated explicitly
- The same actors work towards a shared goal
- Efforts can reinforce one another
- Shared standards carry more weight
- Claims of peace can be tested
Not one more definition
A review published in 2024 counted 61 concepts of peace in research published between 1969 and 2022. The Institute deliberately does not propose another concept of peace to compete with these. One more competing concept would only deepen the disagreement it seeks to resolve. It looks instead for the common ground that the existing concepts share, and for a framework that sits beneath them and gives them a common vocabulary.
Peace and violence are meant to apply to everyone equally. The common ground that gives them their meaning must therefore hold for every person equally, whatever their language, culture, religion, gender, age, class or any other characteristic. How we work sets out the method this requires.
A starting point for discussion
Actors at every level, from faith leaders and local communities to intergovernmental bodies, have their own theories of change, each suited to their own work. Our comprehensive theory of change for global peace is offered as an organising proposal about the goal these actors may already share, drawn from what their own understandings of peace likely already have in common.
If the proposal survives critical examination by others, the work of many actors could add up. Results could be compared and measured against the same standard, and gaps and duplication would become easier to see. The aim is that efforts for peace reinforce rather than compete with one another.
The misuse of the word peace
Because peace is valued everywhere, the word has at times been invoked to justify armed conflict and repression.
In 1969 the peace researcher Takeshi Ishida warned of such “wars for peace”. This misuse works only while peace has no generally settled meaning.
A shared account of peace would allow such claims to be examined. A claim of peace can be checked against the conditions it produces for the people affected: does an action leave them more able, or less able, to determine their own lives?
Where the programme fits
The Institute’s five research programmes form one sequence. The first three together yield the theory of change, and the fifth applies it.
- Concepts and Definitions of PeaceGathers how peace is defined and used in research, law, policy and practice. Its intended output is a systematic record of these definitions, the evidence base for the programmes that follow.
- Common Ground for PeaceCompares those definitions to find what they have in common, including assumptions they make without stating them. Its intended output is a statement of that common ground, precise enough to be tested and critiqued.
- Peace Measurement and IndicatorsWorks out how peace can be observed and measured in practice: within a person, between people and between groups. Its intended output is a set of indicators of peace that can be tested against data.
- Theory of Change for Global PeaceBrings together the definitions, their common ground and its indicators. Its intended output is a comprehensive theory of change for global peace, offered as a starting point for discussion.
- Peace in Law, Policy and InstitutionsApplies the theory of change to law, policy and institutions. Its intended output is an assessment of how far they are aligned with it, and how far they produce peace or violence.