Horizontal Inequalities, Political Environment, and Civil Conflict : Evidence from 55 Developing Countries, 1986-2003
Several studies of civil war have concluded that economic inequality between individuals does not increase the risk of internal armed conflict. This is perhaps not so surprising. Even though an individual may feel frustrated if he is poor compared...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2007/04/7523837/horizontal-inequalities-political-environment-civil-conflict-evidence-55-developing-countries-1986-2003 http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6999 |
| Summary: | Several studies of civil war have
concluded that economic inequality between individuals does
not increase the risk of internal armed conflict. This is
perhaps not so surprising. Even though an individual may
feel frustrated if he is poor compared with other
individuals in society, he will not start a rebellion on his
own. Civil wars are organized group conflicts, not a matter
of individuals randomly committing violence against each
other. Hence, we should not neglect the group aspect of
human well-being and conflict. Systematic inequalities that
coincide with ethnic, religious, or geographical cleavages
in a country are often referred to as horizontal
inequalities (or inter-group inequalities). Case studies of
particular countries as well as some statistical studies
have found that such inequalities between identity groups
tend to be associated with a higher risk of internal
conflict. But the emergence of violent group mobilization in
a country with sharp horizontal inequalities may depend on
the characteristics of the political regime. For example, in
an autocracy, grievances that stem from group inequalities
are likely to be large and frequent, but state repression
may prevent them from being openly expressed. This paper
investigates the relationship between horizontal
inequalities, political environment, and civil war in
developing countries. Based on national survey data from 55
countries it calculates welfare inequalities between ethnic,
religious, and regional groups for each country using
indicators such as household assets and educational levels.
All the inequality measures, particularly regional
inequality, are positively associated with higher risks of
conflict outbreak. And it seems that the conflict potential
of regional inequality is stronger for pure democratic and
intermediate regimes than for pure autocratic regimes.
Institutional arrangements also seem to matter. In fact it
seems that the conflict potential of horizontal inequalities
increases with more inclusive electoral systems. Finally,
the presence of both regional inequalities and political
exclusion of minority groups seems to make countries
particularly at risk for conflict. The main policy
implication of these findings is that the combination of
politically and economically inclusive government is
required to secure peace in developing countries. |
|---|