One of the earliest studies assessing the true cost of conflict on a variety of parameters was commissioned by Saferworld and compiled by Michael Cranna.
A key benefit of using this tool is to encourage people to look at conflict in new ways and to widen public discussion of the subject, and to bring new insights to the debate on global security.
Each study also serves as an analytical tool and assesses the past, present, and future costs of conflicts using a wide range of parameters.
With the use of such a tool and methodology, the question arises as to why researchers, intellectuals, and organizations might look at the cost of conflict, as opposed to discussing the benefits of peace.
While it is important for people to benefit from peace and reconciliation through trade, cultural exchange and cooperation, it is much more crucial for them to understand and unravel the incentive structure of conflict and rid themselves of cost.
Thus the use of 'cost of conflict' as a new and evolving tool to mobilize public opinion, broaden debate and examine new avenues for peace becomes extremely crucial.
Researchers and analysts engaged in using this tool acknowledge that it is highly ambitious to identify the price of war, and there are limitations to assessing the total cost of any conflict.
For example, the 'Cost of Conflict in the Middle East' report by Strategic Foresight Group, uses 1991 as a basis and explains how they believe that the Madrid Conference provided a historic opportunity for peace.
The costs entail the effects of conflict on health, education, civil and political rights, trade, power supply, and transportation, amongst others.
By taking a cross section analysis of Bolivia, Chile, and Ecuador, they conclude that Peru recorded the most significant drop in GDP growth due to international recession and suffered the highest rate of inflation in the 1980s.
"[citation needed] Strategic Foresight Group offers three reports—published in 2009 (Middle East), 2006 (Sri Lanka), and 2004 (India/Pakistan)—on the cost of conflicts in Asia.
[5] The reports take into account a varied number of parameters, including military, economic, socio-political, environmental, psychological, and diplomatic costs, among others.
[citation needed] Strategic Foresight Group led the first endeavor in the field of cost of conflict studies, which was received extremely well by the media and political strata.
In addition, troop mobilization in Operation Prakaram (December 2001 – October 2002), cost India and Pakistan a combined $3 billion.
According to the reports, countries in the Middle East that are directly involved in or affected by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, internal strife in Lebanon, and the US invasion of Iraq have lost $12 trillion (in 2006 dollar value) in opportunity costs from 1991 to 2010.
In 2004, Strategic Foresight Group stated that, provided the absence of major conflict, no global recession, and effective political and resource management, India and Pakistan could achieve growth rates of 10% and 7%, respectively.
[citation needed] A report conducted by 3 international organizations in 2007 highlighted the heavy cost of development in Africa, due to ensuing conflicts in various countries.
In other words, the money lost in conflict could have been used in more effective ways, such as addressing the needs of education, clean water and sanitation, and the prevention of harmful diseases in African countries.
The report features individual accounts by some of the survivors of the conflict as well as aid workers and human rights activists, and hence it takes a more qualitative approach to the costs.