Interpersonal violence costs the world more than war

Editor's note: You can listen to this podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever else you get your podcasts.

War dominates headlines and policy debates, but a new book argues that everyday interpersonal violence – homicide, intimate partner violence, and child abuse – inflicts far greater harm on humanity than collective violence ever does. James Fearon, co-author with Anke Hoeffler of Worse Than War: The Global Costs of Violence, joins us on VoxDevTalks to explain why this form of violence is so badly underestimated, and what can be done to reduce it.

Why interpersonal violence stays hidden from view

Fearon points to several reasons why interpersonal violence receives so little attention compared with war. News, by definition, favours sudden, dramatic change rather than a 'grinding along' pattern of harm that repeats year after year. Much of this violence also happens behind closed doors, within homes, making it far less visible than the images of conflict broadcast nightly. Another factor, Fearon suggests, is a lingering assumption that such violence is simply a matter of culture rather than a policy problem to be solved.

Measuring violence that isn't officially recorded

Estimating the scale of interpersonal violence required years of work, Fearon explains, because government data collection on intimate partner violence and child abuse is essentially unusable. Instead, the authors relied on victimisation surveys – chiefly the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), now discontinued, and UNICEF's Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS). Fearon and Hoeffler also drew on country-specific surveys to fill gaps, while acknowledging that both forms of violence are likely underreported, particularly child discipline practices.

The authors deliberately adopted a narrow definition of violence – physical attacks producing what is "justifiably considered harm" – to sidestep contested areas such as disciplinary practices or marital relations, where over 100 countries still do not criminalise rape by husbands.

Homicides and assaults dwarf the toll of war

The prevalence figures, covering 2000 to 2019, are striking. Global annual deaths from collective violence average around 1.5 per 100,000 people, compared with just over seven per 100,000 from homicide alone – meaning homicides are roughly five times more common than deaths in civil wars. Assault rates are even more disproportionate: each year, around 3,300 women per 100,000 globally experience physical assault by a partner, 1,600 experience sexual assault, and over 4,000 children per 100,000 experience severe physical beatings every month.

"We estimate that homicides are on the order of five times more prevalent than deaths in collective violence."

Fearon notes that while there is a steep income gradient for both forms of violence, interpersonal violence remains common even in high-income countries, unlike collective violence, which is heavily concentrated in low-income settings.

Putting a price on pain: Tangible and intangible costs

The tangible costs of war, Fearon explains, are dominated by lost economic growth rather than physical destruction, since buildings can be rebuilt. The authors estimate these tangible costs at around $3.4 trillion annually. Interpersonal violence generates tangible costs too – primarily lost income from homicide victims and long-run earnings effects on children exposed to abuse – though Fearon is careful to note that some major costs, such as the economic drag of high crime rates on entire cities, could not be estimated at all.

The larger gap emerges in intangible costs: pain, suffering, and lost wellbeing. Using the value of statistical life methodology – a standard tool in public health and government policy – the authors estimate intangible costs of interpersonal violence at around $30 trillion per year, compared with $3.7 trillion in total costs for collective violence.

"Our best estimate, we end up with intangible costs of about $30 trillion per year globally, compared to about 3.7 trillion for tangible and intangible costs of collective violence, which is primarily civil war."

Alcohol, policing, and the case for shifting priorities

Fearon highlights two policy levers with strong evidence behind them: policing and alcohol regulation. Low- and middle-income countries are dramatically under-policed relative to their homicide rates – high-income countries average 220 police per homicide, against just 16 in the poorest third of countries. Alcohol consumption is also closely linked to violence; Fearon cites Gorbachev's anti-vodka campaign in the Soviet Union, which cut homicide rates by roughly 30%, and a sharp 60% drop in South African homicides during COVID-era bar closures.

"Alcohol is terrible for violence... alcohol quite a bit more than other drugs, it turns out, really favours aggression, especially in men."

Fearon argues that, given more pessimistic prospects for reducing collective violence amid stalled peacekeeping efforts, marginal returns on aid spending are likely higher for tackling interpersonal violence.

What a less violent world could look like

For Fearon, the case ultimately rests on wellbeing rather than economics alone. Reducing interpersonal violence, he argues, offers some of the most cost-effective opportunities available to policymakers – not because collective violence doesn't matter, but because the intangible suffering caused by violence in homes and communities has been systematically overlooked.

Reference

Hoeffler, A, and J D Fearon (2026). Worse than War: The Global Costs of Violence.