email icon Email this citation


The Structure of Structural Violence Revisited: Rules, Rational Choices, and the Physical Basis of Life

James C. Roberts

International Studies Association
March 1998

Abstract

In 1969, Johan Galtung proposed that physical violence be measured as the difference between actual and potential life expectancy. Structural violence occurs when the cause of this difference is caused by the economic structure of society. Measuring actual life expectancy is not difficult but potential life expectancy cannot be observed, it can only be projected.

What seems to be missing is the structure itself. Many peace researchers seek the structure in world-systems theory here the international system is constituted as a set of historical unequal exchange relations between superordinate and subordinate actors. A more useful explanation is found by understanding how rules - formed in social interaction and followed by individuals - create practices that structure how individuals and collectives engage in economic activities. The results of these practices are manifested in the Leontief input-output coefficients that document how value is created and distributed within an economy.

Human labor is created biologically but must bemaintained economically. If labor power declines as a whole, the economy cannot expand. If, however, the economy fails economically to reproduce the specific laborer but succeeds at replacing her labor power with that of her daughter, the economy will be viable, but it will be violent.

Introduction

This paper reexamines the operational definitions ofstructural violence used in peace research in terms of thetechnical and capital structure of production that resultswhen a capitalist economy pursues rational economic goals. With this paper, I reopen a research program that was firstpresented in a similar paper at the 1988 annual meeting ofthe International Studies Association in St. Louis (Roberts1988) and that I have not pursued since that time. Much ofthe material and most of the ideas in the current paper werepresented during that conference. My purpose in this paperis to present my conceptual definition of structuralviolence for comment and criticism.

This paper proceeds first by examining the concept ofstructural violence as it was initially presented in thework of Johan Galtung and other peace researchers. I thenpresent a definition of structural violence that is derivedfrom the theory of economic reproduction. Finally, thetechnical and capital input-output structure of an economyis examined to derive conditions whereby an otherwise viableeconomy can, over time, fail to reproduce its stock ofspecific laborers. Since these conditions are derived fromthe rational actions of a utility maximizing economy, theresult will be an understanding of the structures that cancause structural violence. Thus, the conceptual definitionI present here is the result of rules of behavior thatconstitute the market and the liberal economy.

This analysis is part of a larger study that willattempt to create a model of structural violence thatresults from both international and domestic exchangerelations. The goal of this paper is to take the first stepin that research. That is, it attempts to develop theconceptual framework for the model. The model, whencompleted, should provide a new understanding of whystructural violence occurs. This should lead to moreprecise measurement and, it is hoped, more rigorousnormative study and policy analysis of the phenomenon ofstructural violence.

The Concept of Structural Violence

"Death is one possible outcome of an encounter betweena specific morbid process and a vulnerable human target. Itis quite clearly a joint function of the potency of an agentand the vitality of the host." (Preston et. al., 1972 pp.1-2). This dual relationship between agent and host affirmsthat death can be attributed to either. Death may occur ifeither the agent is sufficiently potent or the host issufficiently weak. Medicolegal definitions of the causes ofdeath traditionally focus solely on the agent. The officialdefinition of the cause of death proposed by the WorldHealth Organization (1955, p. 357) is "the disease or injurythat initiated the train of morbid events leading to deathor the circumstances of the accident or violence whichproduced the fatal injury." The internationalclassification of causes of death gradually shifted from theanatomical to the etiological. Three very broad etiologicgroupings can be found (Preston 1972, 4):

1. External organic: Deaths from invasion of the body by living organisms,

2. External inorganic: Deaths from accident or injury, and

3. Internal: Deaths from organ malfunction.

Each reason defined above is in turn a function of othercauses. For example, death from an infectious disease(external organic) requires first that the host come incontact with the organism, second that the organism incubatein such a way that the damage is done, and finally that noeffective steps are taken to reduce either the effect or theincidence of the disease. More distal causes may existwhich affect the proximal causes. For example, in the caseof the infectious disease, that no effective steps weretaken to reduce the effect or incidence of the disease maybe a function of the host's inability to gain access tohealing resources because of politics or economics.

A distal cause of death can further be classified bywhether it is a direct cause or an indirect cause. A directcause is one that results in the end of life. An indirectcause is one that results in a failure to extend life. Thus, using Preston's definition of the cause of death(above), a direct cause provides or enhances the potency ofthe morbid process while an indirect cause provides orenhances the vulnerability of the host. An obvious directcausal path exists between international politicalstructures and external inorganic causes of death throughwar. A more interesting indirect causal path betweeninternational structures and causes of death might be thatunequal exchange structures in the international economyprohibit the distribution of physical resources (food,medicine, etc.) to certain parts of the system.

Johan Galtung (1969) of the Peace Research Institute ofOslo proposed that mortality and morbidity could beclassified in two categories. Mortality or morbidity thatcan be prevented is violence. Nonviolent mortality ormorbidity is that which cannot be prevented. Galtungfurther stated that violence could be directly caused by anagent or person or indirectly caused by economic and political structures of the society. Thusindirect violence is synonymous with structural violence.

Galtung conceptualized violence as the preventablecause of the difference between a person's potentialphysical capabilities and his or her actual capabilities. 1 He proposed that physical capabilities be measured in termsof actual and potential life expectancy. Measuring actuallife expectancy is not difficult. Potential life expectancy,however, cannot be measured empirically, it can only beprojected. One projection of potential life expectancy thathas been used is the ideal longevity which would result ifall the resources needed to sustain life were redistributedequally among the society's members (Galtung and Hoivik,1971). Another projection is the empirical maximum lifeexpectancy observed within the society (Kohler and Alcock,1976). The empirical maximum is easily measured but attemptsto operationalize the ideal longevity have beenunsatisfactory (see Kohler and Alcock, 1976; Hoivik, 1977a;Hoivik, 1977b; Alcock, 1976; and Alcock and Kohler, 1979).

One of the problems with the operationalization ofideal longevity is the concept of structure in theinternational system which is used as the basis of thepotential life expectancy. Working from statisticalrelationships between income and longevity, some researchershave merely computed the average life expectancy that isassociated with the average income. This then is used asthe ideal life expectancy. Figure 1, based on research byGaltung and Hoivik (1971), illustrates this definition. Thehorizontal line at the life expectancy associated with theaverage GNP per capita (65) is the cutoff point. Countriesfalling below this value experience structural violence. Those above have a higher than average life expectancy. Toeliminate structural violence in this model is toredistribute the GNP of countries above the line to thosebelow the line causing all countries to have a lifeexpectancy equal to the average (see Galtung and Hoivik,1971). 2

The empirical fact that life expectancy correlates withincome has given rise in the literature to an "economic lawof life" which states "...wealth cannot only buy a higherstandard of living, it also buys life itself." (Kohler andAlcock, 1976, pp. 355). This law, which is little more thana truism, has become the sine qua non for analysts ofstructural violence. The distribution of wealth, leftundefined or equated with income, has become the policylever for such theorists to examine as the remedy of theviolence. Structural violence is identified by thedistribution of wealth, and is thereby corrected by a newdistribution of wealth. Although this conceptualizationpresents a compact set of recursive problems and solutions,it leaves the policy maker with little understanding of whatto do short of a global reordering of income and it does notidentify to the theorist how structural violence is actuallycreated.

What seems to be missing in this body of work onstructural violence is the structure itself. Most of thetheorists appear to ascribe generally to the world-systemsor dependency schools of international relations thought. The international system, in these schools, is constitutedas a set of structured unequal exchange relations betweensuperordinate and subordinate actors embedded in historicalallocation of endowments stretching back to and beyond thecolonial experience. The existence of such structures is notargued in this paper, but it is noted that there is nodirect causal theory presented as to how such exchangesactually affect the life expectancies of individuals. A moreuseful explanation of the structures which cause violencecan be built from an understanding of the global politicaleconomy. A structure is by Galtung's own definition a "setof elements with an accompanying set of relationships."(Galtung, 1975). Differences in national income are theresults of structures in the society, not structuresthemselves.

In summary then, structural violence occurs when theactual life expectancy of a social group - say the group ofless developed countries in the world - is less than what itpotentially could be. The actual life expectancy isobserved. The potential life expectancy has beenoperationalized either as the maximum observed lifeexpectancy, or as the life expectancy that would exist ifwealth was distributed equally across all social groups(countries). Understanding structural violence, then,requires understanding the relationship between thestructure of the economy and the life expectancy of itsindividual citizens.

Life Expectancy and the Structure of the Economy

One approach to understanding the relationships betweenthe structure of the economy and the life expectancy of itsindividuals is to examine population dynamics within asociety and theories of reproduction of the labor force. These issues can be addressed within the framework of aninput-output model of an economy. In a Leontief typeinput-output analysis, the output produced by each sector inan economy becomes the input to the production of output bythat sector and by all other sectors of the economy. Thusthe output produced by the steel sector becomes the inputsneeded to produce output by the automotive, construction, ormanufacturing sectors, or the inputs needed to produceoutputs by the labor sector (households). The mathematicaloperation of such an economy will be reviewed later, but fornow it is important to understand that the economy mustexist in a certain balance if it is to be viable. Theoutput by a specific sector produced in the current periodmust be sufficient to meet the demand for its product asinputs to itself and as inputs to all other sectors whichrequire its product to produce. In a closed model, thelabor sector is considered to be a productive sector justlike the steel sector. Thus its output is used as theinputs of the other sectors and its output is recreated fromtime period to time period by its absorption of inputs fromthe other sectors.

There are two unique qualitites that distinguish thelabor sector from the other productive sectors of theeconomy. First among these is the concept of reproduction. In other sectors, productive capability is reproduced in twoways. The productive capability of the current capitalstock is reproduced by expenditure on maintenance. Machinesand other productive goods can only produce in the nextperiod if there has been sufficient expenditure in thecurrent period on basic maintenance to keep them running. The second method of reproduction in other sectors is theaddition of new capital goods to replace old machines or toexpand production. Both of these types of reproduction areendogenous to the input-output analysis since goods used formaintenance and new stocks of capital goods are commoditiesthat are created and exchanged within the structuralrelationships of the economy.

Labor power, the productive capability of the laborsector, is reproduced somewhat differently. Indeed there isa maintenance aspect to the reproduction of labor power, this aspect includes food, shelter and other basic needs forsurvival as well as access to medicine and infrastructure toprevent disease. In this regard the reproduction of laborpower can be examined as an endogenous activity of thetechnical structure of the economy. The production of newstocks of labor - human reproduction - is typically thoughtto be outside the structural relations of the economy. I donot dispute there are relationships to be found betweenbirth rates and economic variables, but the causality ofthese relationships is not clear.

The second quality that distinguishes labor from theother productive sectors is the moral value of theindividual. If a machine breaks down and is removed fromthe productive process, few tears are shed. Human societyplaces an innate value on the life of each individual. Theeconomic reproduction of the labor stock is the economicreproduction of living, breathing individuals. If thelifetime of capital is short such that the capital stock isreproduced mostly by the acquisition of new capital, theeconomy may suffer but no moral crisis is felt. If thelabor power is reproduced primarily by the addition of newpeople, existing labor is not being reproduced from oneperiod to the next. The very real consequence of thisfailure to reproduce the current stock of labor is death.

Thus there are two ways that the stock of labor powercan be reproduced. Economic reproduction reproduces thespecific individual worker from one time period to the nextby providing the inputs that are necessary to his or hersurvival. Human reproduction helps to reproduce the totalstock of labor power by creating new workers. Of course,these new workers cannot begin their labors immediately,there is a lag from 8 to 18 years before labor power can berealized from this new stock. This fact has an additionalaffect on the economic reproduction of labor. Unlike thesteel industry where a new furnace can begin production assoon as it is completed, the child must be sustained by thesociety's ability to economically reproduce its labor powerfor 8 to 18 years (or more). During this time, the childdoes not contribute (significantly) to the reproduction ofthe economy.

Life expectancy then becomes a function of the economic reproduction of labor power and the size of the population(both productive and nonproductive segments). To understandthis, think of the population as m age cohorts where m isthe maximum age in the population. At any point in time,the total population is the sum of the sizes of all the agecohorts.

In equation (1), P is the population size, Ck is the size ofcohort k, m is the maximum age in the population, and k isan age value between 0 and m.

The size of a given age cohort depends on two things. First it depends on the size of the k-1 age cohort in theprevious year and second it depends on the the number ofthat k-1 cohort in the previous year that the economy wasable to reproduce. In other words, the number of people whoare 22 years old this year is the number of 21 year oldpeople last year who survived to the current year. Sincesurvival is due at least in part to economic reproduction,cohort 22 is the number of 21 year old people last year whowere economically reproduced. More generally, this modelcan be displayed as:

where Ck is the size of age cohort k, B is the number ofbirths and Dk is the number of deaths at age k {k = 0,1, ...m}.

How inputs to labor are distributed across the cohortsis arguable. I assume here that inputs are allocatedproportional to the size of the cohort, that is, if the 22year old cohort comprises 7.5% of the population, then 7.5%of the inputs to labor are allocated to the 22 year oldcohort. The number of people that the ecomomy can reproduceis a function of the total stock of inputs to labor that isavailable, and the technical coefficients for labor. Themaximum population that can be supported is the minimum thatcan be produced with the given inputs and technicalrelationships:

Where E = the total size of population that can be supported(reproduced), XiL is the output of industry i available forabsorption by labor (L) and aiL is the Leontief technicalcoefficient for inputs to labor from industry i. The aiL isan important part of this formula. It represents thequantity of industry i's output needed to reproduce oneperson. Thus if we divide the output of the industry thatcan be allocated to labor (XiL) by the technical coefficient,we find the maximum number of people that can be sustainedby the input from that industry. Since reproduction iscomplex and requires inputs from many sectors (food,shelter, etc.). The minimum of these maximums is the sizeof the labor stock that can be economically reproduced.

The number of deaths due to a failure to economicallyreproduce the stock of labor is found by distributing Eacross the cohorts and comparing it with the size of eachcohort. As stated previously, it will be assumed that thisis a proportional distribution. The number of people ineach cohort that can be economically reproduced then becomes:

and the number of deaths caused by failure to economically reproduce the cohort becomes:

otherwise DEk = 0 or the difference between the currentpopulation of the cohort and the number that can bereproduced in the cohort.

Clearly, not all deaths are due to a failure toreproduce labor, so the number of deaths in the cohort canbe recast as:

where DNk is the number who died in cohort k of normal or "other" causes.

We can now show the relationship between the ability of the economy to reproduce the labor stock and the lifeexpectancy of the population. The life expectancy is, bydefinition, the average age of those who die. This can befound by the following formula.

Since Dk = DEk + DNk, and DEk is a function of the input-outputstructure of the economy, the life expectancy is linkeddirectly back to the technical structure of the economy andthe available stock of inputs to labor. If the economy isable to reproduce a larger stock of labor, the distributionof this reproduction across the age cohorts will increasethe life expectancy. If E > P as a whole, then there are nodeaths due to a failure to economically reproduce labor.

The Structure of an Economy and Structural Violence

The question that will now be addressed is this. Arethere conditions within a closed Leontief input-output modelwhereby the economy as a whole can be viable (i.e.productive and expanding), while the existing labor stockfails to be reproduced from time period to time period? Itis important to focus on the individual worker. If laborpower declines as a whole then the economy cannot be anexpanding economy since labor power is a necessary input toall sectors. Thus the conditions sought cannot logicallyexist. 3 If, however, the economy fails to reproduce thespecific laborer but succeeds at replacing her labor powerwith that of her daughter, the economy can be viable. Itcan be viable, but it will be a violent economy.

The answer to this question lies in a careful analysisof how an economy grows in an input-output model. Let usexamine a simplified input-output model. 4

Table 1. Simplified Physical Input/Output Table

Agric. Manuf. Hsehlds Total Output
25 20 55 100 Bushles Agriculture
14 6 30 50 Machines Manufacture
80 180 40 300 Person-yrs Households

Table 1 shows a physical input-output table for a simplifiedthree sector economy. The values across the rows representthe physical output of the row sector that is used as inputby the column sector. The total output of each sector isshown at the end of each row. To produce the 50 yards ofcloth requires 20 bushels of agricultural product, 6 yardsof cloth and 180 person years of labor.

Table 2. Simplified Technical Input/Output Table

Agric. Manuf. Hsehlds Total Output
.25 .40 .18 100 Bushles Agriculture
.14 .12 .10 50 Machines Manufacture
.80 3.60 .13 300 Person-yrs Households

Table 2, above, shows the Leontief input-outputcoefficients for this simplified economy. Each cell containsone technical coefficient aij. The technical coefficientsare found by:

where xij is the physical output of sector i used as input tosector j and xj is the total output of sector j. Thus thetechnical coeffienct aij is the amount of product of sector iused as input per unit of output j. For the current example:

a11 = 25/100 a12 = 20/50 a13 = 55/300
a21 = 14/100 a22 = 6/50 a23 = 30/300
a31 = 80/100 a32 = 180/50 a33 = 40/300

In static input-output models, the row and column forhouseholds are not included in the matrix. The vector thatforms the household column is used as a vector of finaldemand for goods and services produced in the other parts ofthe economy. The values in the vector are assumed to begiven. Static analysis proceeds by determining that theequilibrium conditions for the economy are:

where I is an n dimensioned identity matrix, A is a squarematrix of n sectors' technical coefficients, x is the columnvector that represents the output of each of the n sectors,and y is a column vector of final demand that represents theproduct of each sector that is absorbed by final users(households, government etc.). Given y, the output of eachindustry contained in x can be found by

The implication of this is that if the final demand byhouseholds and other final users is known, then theequilibrium output of each industry can be found.

While this type of analysis is of great benefit inpolicy planning and other types of research, the currentstudy must use a dynamic model. In a dynamic model, thefinal demand is a function both of the input-outputrelationships in the structure of physical inputs and of thesimilar relationships in terms of capital stocks. Theeconomy changes over time due to the formation of surplusproduct of one industry that can be used in otherindustries. To accommodate this, the Leontief systemincludes another matrix of capital use coefficients bij. Each bij is the technologically determined stock of thecapital goods produced by industry i - tools, machines,working inventories, etc., - that are needed per unit ofproduction of product in industry j. An example of a capitalcoefficient matrix is shown below:

Table 3. Simplified Capital Coefficient Matrix

Agric. Manuf. Hsehlds. Total Output
.35 .05 .11 100 Bushels Agriculture
.01 .52 .32 50 Machines Manufacture
0 0 0 300 Person-yrs Households

Each coefficient represents the technical need for capitalof industry i per unit of output in industry j. The firstcoefficient, b11, for instance, indicates that agriculturalproduction requires .35 bushels of product to be used ascapital per unit of production in agriculture. The column onthe far right can be interpreted as the stocks ofagricultural goods held in household larders and textilesstored in linen closets. Note that the last row is a row ofzeros. This indicates that the product of labor, laborpower, cannot be stored for use, thus labor does notcontribute capital toward production.

An open dynamic model 5 can be solved for equilibriummuch the same as the static model. If the final demand isknown in time t then the equilibrium conditions are:

where Xt and Xt+1 are the column vectors of outputs fromindustries in times t and t+1, A is a matrix of technicalcoefficients, B is the capital coefficient matrix and Yt isthe product absorbed by final users in time t. Given astarting value for the output of the beginning period (X0),and given an exogenously deterimined demand vector for eachperiod (Yt), the equilibrium output of industries can betraced through time, Xt.

The model which can be used as the structure ofstructrual violence is derived from a closed input-outputmodel. In the closed system, the household (labor) sectoris treated endogenously as a producing sector. The questionin the closed model is: at what rate can an economy withgiven technical and capital coefficients expand? A secondquestion is: by what proportion must each industry expand tomaintain the proper balance between input, output, andcapital formation?

The closed dynamic model is formed by a transformationof equation (10). All of the output absorbed by final userson the right side of the equation is transferred toappropriate rows of the X vector, and the A and B vector areexpanded to include the technical coefficients and capitalcoefficients of households and other final demand. Theresult is a set of n homogeneous linear equations of theform:

The n x n matrix [1-A-B] forms a characteristic matrix ofthe set of equations. By setting its determinant equal tozero, we can find its n characteristic roots, r1, r2, ... rn.

The interpretation of each of these roots is the focusof dynamic input-output analysis. The reciprocal of eachroot represents a rate of growth that is possible for theeconomy. In practical applications, not all of these ratesof growth are viable. For each root, there is an associatedcharacteristic vector. Each element in the vectorcorresponds to one of the sectors. The elements representthe relative proportions of output between sectors that mustbe maintained to obtain the growth rate derived from thecharacteristic root. Some of the characteristic vectorswill have negative elements. If the growth rate associatedwith these roots was in fact attained, the sectors withnegative elements in the characteristic vector would have todecrease and in time produce negative output. This isinfeasible. Yet by the Frobenius Theorem the largestpositive root will have an associated characteristic vectorwith all positive elements. If the economy grows at therate determined by 1/rmax, this theorem guarantees that thereis a positive ratio of output quantities that can sustainthe growth.

How then does the technical structure of the economyaffect life expectancy? If the labor sector like othersectors was reproduced fully endogenous to the model, therewould be a normal expansion of the sector that could betracked and supported by the expansion of the economy. Theproportion of labor to other sectors could be maintained inthe prescribed proportions of the characteristic vector. Yet since there is an element of the reproduction of laborpower that is exogenous - human reproduction - it ispossible that the expansion of the labor sector will exceedthat which can be supported by the otherwise expandingeconomy. Other forms of the expansion of labor power alsoexist but will not be considered here. Among these ismigration.

Structural Violence Revisited

Key to the measurement of structural violence is theconcept of potential life expectancy. Two methods have beendiscussed in the literature for operationalizing thisconcept. One is the egalitarian model which states that thepotential life expectancy of a society (the world societyspcecifically), is that which would exist if the wealth ofthe world was distributed in an egalitarian fashion. Theother method of operationalizing potential life expectancyis that which would exist if all the resources could bereorganized to give the world the highest of the lifeexpectancy currently among the nations (Sweden). Kohler andAlcock (1976) attempted to document and compare structuralviolence using these two definitions of the potential lifeexpectancy. Although the exercise generated values ofstructural violence that could be compared cross-sectionallyand in time series, the usefulness of such data must bequestioned. If structural violence is the difference betweena potential and actual life expectancy, the potential lifeexpectancy should be derived from the productive capabilityof the economy. Income does not logically enhance lifeexpectancy per se. What is done with the income is the issue.

There are two approaches to the definition ofstructural violence that arise out of the current research. The first is similar to the egalitarian model used by Kohlerand Alcock. In this model, income is redistributed not asincome but as technical structure. If all the world'sincome could be redistributed in an egalitarian manner, whattechnical structure of production would exist that would inturn improve the ability of the economy to economicallyreproduce its labor stock? This economic reproduction wouldbe the "potential" that could be used in a measurement modelfor structural violence. Questions of this type can beanswered in an extended input-output model where differentdistributions of productive wealth provide differenttechnical structures.

The second approach is more normative in nature but isstill similar to the maximum life expectancy approach usedby Kohler and Alcock. The technical structure of productionis that which results when competing enterprises usingavailable technologies engage in exchanges which areintended to maximize economic variables such as profit,revenue, or production. A much more normative approach tothe question of potential life expectancy would change theassumptions of the optimization to find out how lifeexpectancy can be maximized. If the objective of theoptimization is the maximum economic reproduction of thelabor sector, the allocation of inputs and even thetechnical structure of production could be changed toimprove life expectancy.

Both of these methods of approximating potential lifeexpectancy address the real nature of the problem - that anyrestructuring of the world economy to favor life expectancyis a political process that is likely to be antithetical tocapitalism. In the first case, the restructuring of thetechnical structure of production such that all economieshave the same technology would tend to equalize the rates ofprofit. In fact the rate of profit would likely fall. Thesecond approximation of potential life expectancy requires aradical reordering of the preference structures thatcurrently form the foundation of the competitive capitalistsystem. Any such reorganization could not occur within thecapitalist mode of production.

Conclusion and Review

It has been shown that the life expectancy of apopulation can be directly affected by the technicalstructure of production within the society and theallocation of inputs to labor that are possible under theexisting production system. The connection is particularlyclear when the conditions for a failure to reproduce thelabor power of an economy exist. These conditions arederived from the fact that the exogenous human production oflabor can, given certain technologies, place exceptionalpressures on the ability of the society to economicallyreproduce labor. It should be clearly understood that thisdoes not imply that excessive population growth is the solecause of reduced life expectancy. Indeed such pressuresexacerbate the problem, but the problem is derived in thetechnical structure of production.

The potential life expectancy that must be projected tomeasure structural violence is in fact a function of theability of the society to economically reproduce its laborsector. Two methods were proposed to address thisprojection. The first projection results from anegalitarian distribution of productive wealth. The affectof such a distribution must first be manifested in anequalization of technical structure and then it can bemanifested in changes in economic reproduction and lifeexpectancy.

The second method for projecting life expectancyrequires a radical reordering of the preference structureunderlying the current structure of production. Such areordering would place life expectancy as the highestpreference and find allocations of resources andtechnologies that would maximize life expectancy. In eithercase, the redistribution of productive wealth and oftechnologies is antithetical to capitalist production. Analternative is to seek out small changes in allocation andtechnologies which could improve the ability of the societyto reproduce the labor sector without radically changing theobjectives of capitalism or without seriously affecting theviability of capitalist economies. Such changes are unlikely to provide satisfying improvements in structural violence.

Notes:

Note 1: Galtung actually defined violence in terms of both somatic (physical) and mental (psychological) capabilities This research will only discuss violence in terms of somatic capabilities. Back.

Note 2: The form of the graph in Figure 2 is taken directly from Galtung and Hoivik (1970). Their discussion is mathematical using standard formulations of survival analysis. For more detailed discussion of the methods of survival analysis see Keyfitz (1985). Back.

Note 3: Throughout this paper it is assumed that technical coefficients of the input output analysis are fixed, at least within short time periods. If the technical coefficients for labor change, then the stock of labor power can decline as a whole without affecting the viability of the economy. Back.

Note 4: The example used here closely follows the example in Leontief (1986), pp. 19-34. Back.

Note 5: The model described is an open model since there is an exogenously determined sector - that of final demand. Back.

References