From Accelerators to Ecosystems

Abstract

PeaceTech has evolved from a small number of experimental projects and startup programs into a broader global ecosystem that now includes university research labs, grassroots innovation initiatives, prizes, policy alliances, diplomatic programs, and AI-governance forums.

This white paper traces that evolution and proposes a taxonomy of five institutional models through which PeaceTech is developed and accelerated. It distinguishes technologies designed primarily to reduce conflict and harm from approaches intended to build positive peace through measurable prosocial engagement, cooperation, and mutual benefit.

The paper also examines the Peace Innovation Lab at Stanford’s early contribution to the field. Rather than beginning with a formal accelerator, the Lab conducted a series of probes that explored whether peace could be defined behaviorally, designed through technology, and measured across social difference boundaries.

The paper argues that PeaceTech is moving from ecosystem formation toward institutionalization. Its next phase will depend less on launching more isolated programs and more on developing shared terminology, evidence standards, ethical safeguards, financing models, data practices, educational pathways, and institutional infrastructure.

Key Findings

PeaceTech has evolved institutionally

The field has expanded beyond individual tools and startup accelerators. It now includes research centers, community programs, prizes, alliances, standards initiatives, and governance forums.

Different definitions of peace produce different technologies

Programs focused on negative peace tend to address violence prevention, humanitarian response, early warning, and civilian protection.

Programs focused on positive peace seek to increase trust, reciprocity, inclusion, collaboration, and mutually beneficial engagement.

Accelerators are only one field-building mechanism

Universities accelerate knowledge and methods. Prizes accelerate legitimacy and visibility. Alliances accelerate coordination and governance. Community programs accelerate local capability and participation.

Stanford’s early work functioned as a series of PeaceTech probes

PeaceDot, peace.facebook.com, citizen-diplomacy experiments, Peace Entrepreneurs in Residence, and the Peace Data Standard explored how technology might produce and measure positive engagement before PeaceTech developed into a more formal accelerator category.

PeaceTech is approaching institutionalization

The field has recognizable organizations, programs, publications, and networks, but still lacks consistent definitions, comparative evidence, professional standards, ethical governance, and durable financing.

A Selective PeaceTech Timeline

[Insert timeline graphic]

Selected milestones in the evolution of PeaceTech from early experiments and accelerator programs to research hubs, prizes, policy alliances, standards, and AI-governance initiatives.

Five Models of PeaceTech Acceleration

The paper identifies five overlapping institutional models:

1. Conflict-response and humanitarian accelerators
   Technologies designed to reduce violence, protect civilians, and improve crisis response.

2. Positive-peace and behavioral innovation labs
   Programs that design and measure prosocial engagement, cooperation, and mutual benefit.

3. Grassroots and community innovation programs
   Locally led initiatives emphasizing participation, legitimacy, reconciliation, and community capacity.

4. Regional alliances and policy ecosystems
   Cross-sector institutions focused on coordination, governance, standards, and responsible adoption.

5. Ethical AI, diplomacy, and governance incubators
   Programs addressing the effects of AI and emerging technologies on diplomacy, security, information systems, and human agency.

Why This Matters

PeaceTech has reached a strategic transition.

The central question is no longer whether technology can affect peace and conflict. It clearly can.

The more difficult questions are:

• What kind of peace is being pursued?

• Who defines the desired outcome?

• What evidence demonstrates success?

• Who benefits from the technology?

• Who bears its risks?

• How is it governed?

• Does it create lasting cooperative capacity?

The next phase of PeaceTech should focus on shared field infrastructure: flexible definitions, measurable outcome standards, longitudinal evidence, community governance, ethical safeguards, Peace Data interoperability, durable financing, university curricula, and clearer distinctions between PeaceTech, civic technology, humanitarian technology, security technology, and defense-adjacent systems.

Download the Full White Paper

The complete paper includes:

• a selective history of PeaceTech

• a taxonomy of institutional models

• a field-maturation framework

• analysis of key tensions and risks

• a roadmap for the next phase

• references and source-verification notes

[Download “From Accelerators to Ecosystems”]

Suggested Citation

Quihuis, Margarita. From Accelerators to Ecosystems: The Evolution and Next Phase of PeaceTech. Stanford, CA: Peace Innovation Lab at Stanford, 2026.

About the Author

Margarita Quihuis is Executive Director of the Peace Innovation Lab at Stanford. Her work spans behavior design, persuasive technology, entrepreneurship, peace engineering, and the design of measurable prosocial engagement.