Global Peace Index 2026: Reading Egypt’s Peace Performance Through a Competitiveness Lens

An ENCC reading of Egypt’s official score, rank and domain evidence

Executive summary

The Global Peace Index 2026, issued by the Institute for Economics & Peace, ranks Egypt 113 with an official score of 2.186. In this index, a lower score indicates greater peacefulness. The result is a governed evidence snapshot for this edition, not a stand-alone verdict on national performance.

Peace and security are foundational to competitiveness because they shape investment risk, tourism, trade continuity, human-capital retention, fiscal pressures and the cost of doing business. The composite result is most useful when read with its three domains and with national administrative evidence.

Release and methodology

Edition	2026
Release/update	2026-06
Issuer	Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP)
Egypt rank	113
Egypt score	2.186
Direction	Lower scores indicate greater peacefulness

The index covers 163 independent states and territories—approximately 99.7% of the world’s population—and uses 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators across Societal Safety and Security, Ongoing Conflict and Militarisation. Composite scores are diagnostic; they do not establish causality.

Egypt’s official result

Egypt’s official 2026 result is rank 113 and score 2.186. The three official domain scores are:

Domain	Official edition-native score
Ongoing Conflict	2.045
Societal Safety and Security	2.496
Militarisation	1.856

The domains should be interpreted together. A change in one domain may coexist with a different direction in another, while the overall rank can also move because of changes in other countries.

Competitiveness implications for Egypt

First, predictable security conditions reduce uncertainty for investors and firms, support tourism and logistics, and protect the continuity of production and trade. Second, conflict exposure and security pressures can affect fiscal space and divert resources from productive investment. Third, institutional trust, social stability and human security influence labour participation, skills retention and the durability of reform.

For ENCC, the index is therefore best used as a cross-sector diagnostic. It should be connected to measurable domestic outcomes—firm costs, tourism flows, logistics reliability, regional inclusion, employment and public-service performance—rather than treated as a score-chasing exercise.

Priority actions

Create an edition-controlled peace-and-competitiveness dashboard: retain the release year, score direction and methodology beside every value.
Link the three domains to national outcomes: connect security and conflict evidence to investment, tourism, logistics, employment and fiscal-resilience indicators.
Use geographically detailed national data: identify regional disparities and local bottlenecks that a country score cannot reveal.
Assign shared delivery responsibilities: define lead institutions, partners, baselines, milestones and outcome KPIs for selected structural priorities.
Review annually without mechanical trend claims: reconcile the next edition with methodology changes and domestic evidence before drawing conclusions.

Monitoring framework

Monitor the edition-native rank and overall score, the three domain scores, methodology or indicator revisions, and a small set of national outcome measures. Preserve the lower-is-better direction and distinguish evidence of association from evidence of causality.

Data limitations

Annual GPI scores and domain values are edition-native. Indicator sources, estimates and revisions can change. Historical values may also be revised in later databases. Rank movement alone is not a causal measure and can reflect movement elsewhere in the country set. This reading therefore makes no unlabelled cross-edition performance claim.