Pay or pray for world peace

Professor Dominic Lieven, in a letter to the editor of the Financial Times, writes about the origins of the First World War:

Far more than any other individual, it was the German chancellor, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, whose miscalculations led to war. These miscalculations were rooted in a deeply pessimistic analysis of the probable future European geopolitical developments, which owed something to personal anguish caused by the death of his wife shortly before the assassination of the Habsburg heir at Sarajevo. America's declining empire: more Vienna 1914 than Suez 1956, Dominic Lieven, 'Financial Times',. 27 January 2026

It's scary how much the life of every human on the planet depends on the psychological make-up and stability of the very few individuals who lead our countries. Just as scary is that it's accepted that the systems that give these people such power are rarely challenged. How far have we advanced since the days of von Bethmann Hollweg, whose state of mind and mood swings arguably caused the catastrophe of World War 1, with consequences that blighted the entire twentieth century? Not much really, except that we can now imagine that a similarly disturbed individual could cause hundreds, rather than tens of millions to die.

We need to cut out the middleman - politicians and their policies - and instead vote directly for the outcomes we wish to see. This could be done by issuing Social Policy Bonds that would reward investors for achieving these goals, and at every step along the way. At first, targeted outcomes could be modest, and set at the national level. They could include such goals as increasing the health of the population by five percentage points, or reducing crime rates by 20%. Politicians could do something useful, and translate our wishes into coherent, actionable, policy goals. They would also raise the revenue that would be used to redeem the bonds once the targeted goal had been achieved. 

But what about the possibility of war? A bond regime could target the sustained absence of conflict, supplying incentives for the people who influence those in positions of power, to avoid war or face being removed from office. This could work at the national or global level. In the long run, a carefully crafted World Peace Bond regime would see incentives cascading downwards from the goal of world peace through all levels of all political systems, reducing the likelihood that the people at the top will inflame conflict. 

Avoiding violent political conflict - war and civil war - should be our first priority. Sadly, the incentives currently on offer make such violence more likely rather than less. A bond regime, at first reading, might seem outlandish but the alternative is simply 'business as usual' ie, rely on hope, and pray that the people in power resist their instincts and those of their ideologically motivated advisors and refrain from using their military might to impose their will on others. It's a scenario judged 'alarming' by the Economist, as well as me:

To an alarming degree, war and peace now depend on the whims of a handful of vain old men. Vladimir Putin is determined to add square miles to Russia, no matter how many Russians die or are impoverished in the process. Whether or not China invades Taiwan hinges on Xi Jinping, who craves a chapter in the history books and a chance to honour his late father, who was once the official in charge of reclaiming the island. Mr Trump is the least predictable of all, wielding American firepower willy-nilly to give short-lasting dopamine shots to his own ego. A chilling but plausible scenario: What if Putin wins?, 'the Economist', 22 January 2026 

I'd rather see a system, like a bond regime, that would reward people who work for and achieve peace in ways linked to their success in doing so. This would expand the numbers of people and the range of activities directed towards the ending of war. As well, the bonds would channel market forces - in economic theory and on all the evidence, the most efficient way of allocating society's scarce resources - into achieving peace as cost-effectively as possible. The alternative means continuing to place the fate of millions of people in the hands a tiny number of people who are just as subject to frailty, delusion and instability as the rest of us.