Peace and Conflict: Their Impact on Economic Development

By Raffi Manzoor

Anger is a psychological instinct in human beings, and one of the major outcomes of uncontrolled anger is conflict. If anger is controlled and differences are resolved through dialogue and understanding, societies can create the conditions necessary for peace. Peace and conflict are two determining factors that influence almost every aspect of human society. Peace acts as a positive force, while conflict and disturbance act as negative forces because they represent opposite conditions of social and economic life. These two factors can significantly determine whether an economy moves towards progress and prosperity or becomes trapped in instability and decline.

In modern economics, the term economic development cannot be understood merely through the growth of GDP. It must also incorporate the concept of peace and human well-being. An economy may experience a very high rate of GDP growth, but if its people are not living peacefully and securely, such growth cannot be considered complete economic development. In other words, an economy suffering from conflict, violence, political instability, or prolonged disturbance faces serious obstacles in achieving sustainable economic development.

Peace can therefore be treated as a special input for economic development. All kinds of innovation, technological advancement, investment, entrepreneurship, and the creation of new markets require a stable and peaceful environment. Businesses need security to invest, workers need stability to remain productive, and governments need peace to implement long-term development policies. When an economy is continuously affected by conflict, resources that could have been used for education, healthcare, infrastructure, employment generation, and technological development are often diverted towards security and damage control.

Conflict also affects the confidence of both domestic and international investors. Investors generally prefer economies where there is political stability, social security, functioning institutions, and predictable economic policies. When conflict becomes widespread, businesses may reduce their activities, investment may decline, tourism can suffer, and employment opportunities can shrink. Thus, conflict does not only create immediate social problems; it can also produce long-term economic consequences that may take years to overcome.

The mere reduction of poverty, inequality, and unemployment cannot, by itself, be treated as complete economic development. Development also involves an improvement in the quality of life of people. Quality of life, in a broader sense, includes the opportunity to live a secure, peaceful, healthy, and dignified life. People cannot fully enjoy economic prosperity if they constantly live under fear, uncertainty, or conflict. Therefore, peace is an important condition for transforming economic growth into genuine human development.

For example, an economy may record a high GDP growth rate, but if it subsequently enters a situation of conflict or war, its position on the scale of economic development can deteriorate. Production may be disrupted, infrastructure may be damaged, businesses may suffer losses, and people may lose access to education, healthcare, and employment. Internal as well as external business operations can also be badly affected. Hence, economic growth without peace may prove to be fragile and unsustainable.

Economic development should therefore be interpreted not only as an additional increase in economic well-being but also in terms of providing people with greater opportunities and a better quality of life. According to Prof. Amartya Sen, development involves the “enlargement of opportunities for people and freedom of human choice.” Similarly, the UN Human Development Report of 1994 emphasized that human beings possess potential capabilities and that the purpose of development is to create an environment in which people can expand those capabilities. Such an environment requires security, freedom, stability, and peace. In a conflict-ridden environment, human capabilities cannot develop to their full potential, and valuable human and economic resources may instead be directed towards survival and destruction.

Peace also has a measurable economic value. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), in conjunction with Economists for Peace and Security (EPS), has highlighted the enormous economic cost associated with the absence of peace. Such analyses demonstrate that conflict and violence impose substantial costs on economies through lost productivity, destruction of infrastructure, reduced investment, displacement of people, and increased expenditure on security and military activities.

In a peaceful economy, every sector of production gets an opportunity to flourish according to its potential. Agriculture, industry, services, tourism, education, technology, and trade can all benefit from stability. Peace encourages entrepreneurship and innovation because individuals are more willing to take economic risks when they believe that their future is secure. Thus, peace and development have a strong positive relationship: as peaceful conditions improve, the possibilities for sustainable development also increase.

The Global Peace Index (GPI) provides an important framework for examining levels of peacefulness across countries. It considers various dimensions related to internal and external peacefulness. The broader relationship between peace and economic performance suggests that peaceful societies tend to have better conditions for investment, business activity, institutional development, and human well-being.

Moreover, peace does not have benefits only within national boundaries. It can produce a spill-over effect across borders. In today's interconnected global economy, countries depend on one another through trade, investment, tourism, supply chains, technology, and financial systems. Therefore, conflict in one region can affect neighbouring countries and, in some cases, the wider world economy. Disruptions to trade routes, migration pressures, uncertainty in financial markets, and interruptions in supply chains can create economic consequences far beyond the immediate area of conflict.

The Kashmir Conflict can also be understood in this broader relationship between peace and development. Prolonged conflict and instability can affect investment, tourism, employment, education, business confidence, and the overall economic environment. A peaceful atmosphere, on the other hand, can create greater opportunities for human capital development, entrepreneurship, tourism, trade, and productive economic activity. Sustainable development requires an environment where people can use their abilities and resources for constructive purposes rather than being constrained by instability.

Unfortunately, some economies and political actors may attempt to create disturbances in other regions in pursuit of strategic or economic advantages. However, they often overlook an important fact: just as peace has spill-over benefits, conflict also has spill-over costs. Instability in one economy can eventually affect neighbouring economies and even the wider international system. In an increasingly interconnected world, no country can remain completely isolated from the consequences of prolonged conflict.

Therefore, if we want a prosperous world economy, global peace is essential. Economic development should not be measured only by GDP figures, production levels, or income statistics. True development should also be reflected in the ability of people to live with security, dignity, freedom, opportunity, and hope for the future.

In conclusion, peace is not merely the absence of conflict; it is an essential foundation for sustainable economic and human development. A peaceful society provides the environment in which people can develop their capabilities, businesses can flourish, governments can invest in long-term development, and economies can achieve their full potential. Therefore, creating and maintaining conditions of peace at local, national, and global levels is not only a moral responsibility but also an important economic necessity. If the world wants sustainable prosperity, poverty reduction, employment generation, and improvement in the quality of life, it must recognize that peace is one of the most valuable investments in economic development.

Tags: Kashmir Conflict | Peace and Development | Economic Development | Global Peace | Human Development

JKBOSE Result 12th class result declared

 JKBOSE Result 

12th class result declared 

Click here 👇

https://jkbose.nic.in/results/jkboseresults.aspx

Click👇

https://jkbose.nic.in/results/jkboseresults.aspx

JKBOSE 8th Class Result 2023 UPDATE

 The link of which will be made available to you in our website.

JKBOSE 8th Class Result 2023

Organized by: Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education [JKBOSE]

Class: 8th class

State name: Jammu & Kashmir

Exam started on: 27 feb 2023

Last date of exam: 10 March 2023

Result mode: Online

Result date: Available soon

Website: www.jkbose.nic.in or diet website

JKBOSE 8th class Result Release Date 2023

Your result will be released only on the official website of the board. You can get in online mode by entering your roll number and date of birth. Your result will be released in fair form only on the basis of your written test marks.

Luxurious car of Commons- Solar car invented of kashmiri Math teacher

 A kashmiri man has gone viral for his creation of a solar-powered car, a solo project 11 years in the making.

Bilal Ahmed, a maths teacher from Srinagar in Kashmir, made it his aim to build a ‘luxurious’ and sustainable vehicle that is not just for the super wealthy.

Soaring fuel prices in the northern region have made his invention even more timely. While Tesla’s continued absence in India means the solar panel-adorned design has caught the imagination of car enthusiasts.

“Cars like Mercedes, Ferrari, BMW are just a dream for a common person. Only a few people are able to afford it while it remains a dream for others to drive such cars and roam in [them]. I thought of something to give a luxurious feel to the people,” he told the Rising Kashmir newspaper.

It’s been hailed as the Valley’s first solar car. The Jammu and Kashmir region of India is one of the country’s coolest, with typically “gloomy” weather, he said. “I used solar panels which can give higher efficiency even in low sunlight days.”

Ahmed’s creation is all the more remarkable for having been achieved without any external funding. The father-of-two says he has spent more than Rs 15 lakh (€18,200) building the fully-automatic car, after studying various 1950s models and networking with other experts.

“When I began the project and even after I completed it, no one provided me with any financial assistance; if I would have got the necessary support, perhaps I would have been India’s Elon Musk,” he told reporters.

• I borrowed a Tesla for a month and it changed my mind about electric cars
• This rickshaw driver is keeping customers cool with a roof of lettuce and tomatoes

What makes the solar-powered car so special?

Ahmed says he has received a good response from the passers-by when he drives his distinctive car around. Basit Zargar

The first notable thing about Ahmed’s car is that nearly every available surface is covered in solar panels, from the bonnet to the rear windshield.

Maximising the amount of energy that could be generated from the sedan’s relatively small surface area was key to his success. The entrepreneur opted for monocrystalline solar panels, in which each photovoltaic (PV) cell is made of a single silicon crystal. These produce more kilowatt-hours of electricity than the other main kind of solar receptor, polycrystalline panels.

The second, perhaps even more striking design feature, is that the car has ‘gullwings’ which open upwards. Despite the DIY aesthetic, it looks like it could take flight with a strong enough gust.

Former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah compared it to the famous ‘Back to the Future’ film car on Twitter.

The crime Imran khan Committed, so was necessary to remove him

 Nasir Javed Iqbal daughter-in-law of Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal and retired Judje of LHC

I will tell you what crime you committed Dear IK. I have been asking why IK had to be removed immediately rather than wait for 16 months to complete the term. So here is the answer. 

To understand this first let’s cover two concepts 

1) What is Petrodollar. It’s an agreement signed between King Faisal and President Nixon in 1974. 

Saudi responsibility was to convince all OPEC countries to sell oil in US dollars and not accept any other currency or gold. All proceeds from sale will be deposited in US banks or Federal Reserve. (Then there is a lengthy formula how the OPEC county do withdrawals. We can go over it some other time) This increase the demand for USD because for any country to buy oil they first have to buy USD. This arrangement keeps USD strong. 

In return Saudi currency was pegged at 1 USD = 3.75 SR, the Saudi economy may do good or bad the conversation rate will remain same. They will not face devaluation. Second US guaranteed that House of Saud will remain in power, no regime change. 

US responsibility was to make sure none of the opec countries opt out of this arrangement. Iraq and Libya renegade and we all know what happened. 

2) What is Indian rupee-ruble trade singed between India and Soviet Union (subsequently Russia) of 1953.

For Indian purchases from Russia they will pay in Indian Rupee. This increases the demand for Indian rupee and the currency remain strong. 

For Russian purchases from India they will pay in Ruble. This increases the demand for ruble and the currency remain strong. 

An Indian bank will open a branch in Russia and a Russia bank will open a branch in India to facilitate trade. There are safeguards built in so neither country do not cheat (we can go over these some other time). 

This arrangement bypasses SWIFT. Please note, it is very important to understand that this deal occurred in 1953 before the petrodollar deal in 1974. 

IK was the first Pakistani PM to do a Pakistani Rupee-Chinese Yuan deal in 2019. This deal covered semiconductor, transformers, broadcasting equipment. US was not happy, but let it go because it never included oil. 

IK was in the process of doing a Pakistani Rupee-Russia Ruble deal for oil in 2022. Remember Petrodollar deal is dated 1974. This is a no, no. US cannot accept this because if other countries follow suit USD will weaken and US economy will come down to EU level. No more superpower. 

If IK would have succeeded in doing within next 16 months, even at the expense of loosing the next election Pakistan would have come out of slavery. Hence he had to be removed immediately. He left US no choice. 

IK should be thankful that he is not sitting with Saddam Hussain and Qadhdhafi in heaven. US has given him a second chance, but if he is determined not to avail then only God knows what will happen to him or Pakistan. 

If IK is successful in getting this through in his second term, this constant devaluation of Rupee (1 USD = 180 PKR) will stop, Pakistan will start paying IMF and conversion rate recover.

MONETARY POLICY AND FISCAL SUITABILITY

 

As you well know, monetary policy has powerful effects on financial markets, the financial system, and the broader economy. Conversely, financial instability, by impairing the provision of credit and other financial services, can depress economic growth, cause job losses, and push inflation too low. Accordingly, financial stability, through its effects on the Federal Reserve’s dual-mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices, must be a consideration in the setting of monetary policy.

Against this backdrop, a natural—yet quite complex—question is whether monetary policy should be used to promote financial stability. This question is hotly debated in a large and growing academic literature, and any serious answer has to be subject to considerable nuance. At the same time, my sense is that the balance is clearly tilted toward the conclusion that macroprudential policies—through-the-cycle resilience, stress tests, and the countercyclical capital buffer (CCyB)—may be better targeted to promoting financial stability than monetary policy.1

Before I wade into the lessons from past research and experience, I would like to highlight that this question is not just academic. As you know, the economy, monetary policy, and financial stability are intertwined. For example, the past three recessions were preceded by some combination of elevated asset prices, rapid increases in borrowing by businesses and households, and excessive risk-taking in the financial sector. These financial vulnerabilities have amplified adverse shocks to the overall economy time and again. Such concerns have resurfaced among some observers, as the current long expansion has brought business borrowing to new heights. My own assessment is that even though business debt is elevated, at least by some measures, overall financial stability risks are not, as the financial sector has substantial loss-absorbing capacity and is not overly reliant on unstable short-term funding. Yet, even if the risk of financial system disruption does not seem high, it well remain true that if the economy weakens, some businesses may default on this debt, potentially leading to a contraction in investment, a slow-down in hiring, and possibly to an unusual tightening in financial conditions. These concerns highlight how cyclical factors influencing monetary policy borrowers may overlap with financial stability considerations.

How Monetary Policy Can Influence Financial Stability

Let me begin by laying out how monetary policy can influence financial stability. Monetary policy, operating primarily through adjustments in the level of short-term interest rates, has powerful effects on the entire financial system. A more accommodative monetary policy lowers interest rates across the maturity spectrum. The textbook result is that mortgage rates and corporate borrowing rates, among others, decline; equity prices rise; and the dollar exchange rate depreciates. In other words, financial conditions broadly ease, spurring households to buy more and businesses to invest and hire, thereby supporting economic growth and price stability.2

Monetary policy, however, if too accommodative, may lead to a buildup of financial vulnerabilities. These incentives arrive through a number of channels. For instance, low interest rates reduce the cost of borrowing, and so may prompt businesses and households to overborrow. Low rates may lead to a speculative bubble by compressing risk premiums for assets—such as equity, corporate bonds, and housing—and potentially leading investors to extrapolate price gains into the future in a bout of irrational exuberance. Low rates may also squeeze the profitability of financial intermediaries through narrow interest margins and other factors. In turn, these intermediaries as well as investors that had promised fixed nominal rates of return—such as insurance companies and pension funds—may “reach for yield,” or take on more credit or duration risk in their portfolios in order to maintain high returns. Taken to extremes, this story often does not end well. Periods of excessive leverage, rapid credit growth, or buoyant credit market sentiment increase the risk to economic growth.3

These dynamics point to the possibility that accommodative monetary policy, while necessary to support activity during the early stages of an economic expansion, may also increase vulnerabilities in the financial system, especially if maintained for too long. These vulnerabilities weaken the financial system’s ability to absorb negative shocks, and so when a shock arrives, losses mount, the financial system weakens, lending slows, and economic activity slows by more than it would have otherwise, potentially leading to an economic downturn or a more severe recession.

Should Financial Vulnerabilities Affect the Stance of Monetary Policy?

These observations lead to the important question of whether and how financial vulnerabilities should affect the setting of monetary policy. One simple framework for evaluating the tradeoffs associated with actively setting monetary policy to lean against the buildup of financial vulnerabilities is to examine the costs and benefits of such a policy in terms of unemployment and inflation. In this approach, the costs of tightening monetary policy in response to a buildup of financial vulnerabilities are lower employment and potentially below target inflation in the near term. The benefits are possibly reducing the risk of a future financial crisis, an event likely associated with a much larger fall in employment and inflation.

One view is that monetary policy curbs household and business borrowing only modestly but can boost the unemployment rate notably. And so using monetary policy to damp borrowing does more harm than good. According to this view, using monetary policy to lean against financial vulnerabilities does not generate significant net benefits and may be counterproductive—increasing unemployment and decreasing inflation below a desired level with little reduction in risks to financial stability.4

At the same time, some research has identified circumstances under which the benefits of using monetary policy to lean against financial vulnerabilities could outweigh the costs.5 A key consideration is the estimated amount of economic activity lost in a financial crisis—and some research suggests such losses may be quite large, which raises the benefits of leaning against imbalances. Similarly, monetary policy may affect a broad range of financial imbalances—excessively high house or equity prices and leverage within the financial sector—and the full set of these effects could shift the risk of financial instability sufficiently, at least under some circumstances, to make leaning against financial vulnerabilities with monetary policy desirable. The broader point is that we do not fully understand the cost–benefit tradeoff and whether monetary policy adjustments for financial stability reasons may be appropriate at some times.

Whither Macroprudential Policy?

Of course, there is one additional and critical factor to consider when weighing adjustments to the stance of monetary policy for financial stability reasons: the availability and efficacy of other instruments to promote financial stability. After all, the pursuit of multiple goals—full employment, price stability, and financial stability, for example—likely requires multiple tools. This is just common sense. Economists have a name for this common-sense notion: the Tinbergen principle.

Effective supervisory, regulatory, and macroprudential policy tools appear to be well placed to address financial vulnerabilities. In particular, these tools may be used to increase the resilience of the financial sector against a broad range of adverse shocks and, perhaps, lean against the buildup of specific financial vulnerabilities. At the Federal Reserve, we have emphasized a set of structural, or through-the-cycle, regulatory and supervisory policies as our primary macroprudential tools to promote financial stability. These measures include strong capital and liquidity requirements for banks, especially the largest and most systemic institutions. In addition, our supervisory stress tests evaluate the ability of large banks to weather severe economic stress and the failure of their largest counterparty as well as examining the risk‑management practices of the firms. Moreover, the stress-test scenarios are designed to generally be more severe during buoyant economic periods when vulnerabilities may build. Furthermore, our stress tests consider the potential effects of specific risks we have identified in our financial stability monitoring work. For example, the tests in recent years have included hypothetical severe strains in corporate debt markets, exploring the resilience of the participating banks to the risks associated with the increase in business borrowing.

In addition, the Federal Reserve monitors a wide range of indicators for signs of potential risks to financial stability that may merit a policy response, and we now publish a summary of this monitoring in our semiannual Financial Stability Report. If vulnerabilities are identified as being meaningfully above normal, the Federal Reserve can require large banks to increase their loss-absorbing capacity through increases in the CCyB.6

Despite all of these efforts, we understand that these tools have limitations. First, central bankers’ experience with macroprudential tools, including the CCyB, is limited. Second, regulation and macropudential tools can reduce economic efficiency and hamper economic growth by limiting the ability of the market to allocate financial resources. For this reason, the Federal Reserve has been evaluating ways in which our supervisory and financial stability goals can be achieved more efficiently, and it has been participating in global efforts to evaluate the effects of reforms under the auspices of the Financial Stability Board. Third, macroprudential policies that are targeted to banks may create an incentive for financial intermediation to migrate outside of the regulated banking system. The vulnerabilities may still emerge, albeit elsewhere in the financial system—perhaps in institutions or structures that are less stable and resilient than our banks. In part reflecting these incentives, we regularly monitor financial intermediation both inside and outside of the banking system.

Summary

To sum up, while there is evidence that financial vulnerabilities have the potential to translate into macroeconomic risks, a general consensus has emerged that monetary policy should be guided primarily by the outlook for unemployment and inflation and not by the state of financial vulnerabilities. Financial system resilience, supported by strong through-the-cycle regulatory and supervisory policies, remains a key defense against financial system and macroeconomic shocks.

There is a clear need for new theory and empirics to address the questions about monetary policy and financial stability I have posed today. I encourage you to continue to contribute to these answers. By engaging the help of the wider academic community, conferences such as this one provide an invaluable opportunity to make progress on issues of great importance for economic policy.

JKBOSE 10th, 12th Result Updat

 It is good news that the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education, JKBOSE Class 12th Result 2022 Kashmir Division is going to be declared today on 22nd January 2022. All the candidates who have appeared in the JKBOSE Summer Exam can check their results from the official website. Here in this article, we are going to provide you with complete details about the result and also attach a direct link that will be activated after the official announcement.

So stay connected with us and collect the available updates of the board from here. We are updating this article with the latest updates of available JKBOSE Result Class 12th. So don’t miss the chance to get the result on time of release. If there is any trouble in getting the result online then enter your credential in the below comment box. We will try to provide your result as soon as possible.

JKBOSE 12th Result 2022

JKBOSE Class 12 Summer Session Exam was held from 1st to 29th April 2021. A huge number of candidates appeared in this Class 12 Arts, Science and Commerce Examination. After the exam, the board is evaluating the performance of the students in the exam, and soon the result of JKBOSE Class 12 Arts, Science, and Commerce will be made available on the official website. If you eagerly want to know the result then wait for some time and also wait for the official announcement.

We will update this article with the attached direct link whenever the result will be available by the board. It is good news for the candidates who are participating in the JKBOSE 12th Class Summer Exam that they can check their JKBOSE Result 2022 Class 12 Summer Session from the official website. You can go through the below section for details.

CBSE 10th Term 1 Result 2022 { Release Date }

CBSE 12th Term 1 Result 2022 { Release Date }

UP Free Tablet & Smartphone Yojana 2022 { Login & Registration }

UP Free Laptop Yojana 2022 { Login & Registration }

There is good news for all the students associated with JKBOSE. As per the recent official update, JKBOSE 12th Result 2022 Kashmir Division will be declared soon. If you have given the exam then have a look at this complete article and collect information from here. The result will be available as per the presentation given by the students in the class 12th examination.

So wait for some time and visit the official link which is now linked to this article. The official link will be activated after the official announcement. If you want to wait for their result then we suggest you don’t miss your chance to get JKBOSE Result Class 12th Kashmir Division Name Wise 2022 from here. To know more updates can visit the official portal or stay connected with us.

JKBOSE 12th Result 2022 Direct Link -> Click Here