Hi, everyone. This is just a general introduction to topic five,
which is looking at the economic dimensions of conflict.
So with this topic, we're moving into the second part of the
unit where we're focusing on understanding the causes of
contemporary conflict.
In this topic we look at the economic drivers of contemporary
conflict and in topic six, we move on to look at questions
around how ethnicity or ethnic identity can serve as a driver of
conflict. One sort of word of warning on this topic, we will be
engaging with some economics literature, some studies that use
econometrics, which is to say, applying statistical methods to
economic data. Don't let that put you off too much.
The key thing is that you understand the approach that they're
taking broadly and that you understand their arguments.
So don't worry, you don't understand all the details of the
various models and regressions and how they do that econometric
analysis.
Broadly in this topic, we're going to be looking at what's known
in the academic literature as the greed versus grievance debate.
So we're going to be scrutinising both sides of that argument.
We'll also look at some potential alternatives to the greed
versus grievance perspectives.
We will then move on to examine some of the, kind of, wider
policy implications that have stemmed from this debate and from
the two different sides, and we'll be thinking through some of
the consequences for that.
So particularly in this topic, you can see here in this diagram
at the center really is what we'll be focusing on in the topic,
which is the theories the greed related theories or the more
grievance related theories.
But in order to do that, we'll be scrutinising also the evidence
and the methods that these theories draw on, we'll also be then
kind of looking forward at what happens when these theories,
kind of, hit the real world, if you like.
And we'll be trying to understand actually what happens to those
theories when they're picked up by policymakers.
Just a very brief background to this debate.
So the debate starts up really in the sort of 1990s, like a lot
of the things that we look at in this unit.
You'll remember that I've mentioned previously that in the
1990's we see particularly economists and other academics taking
a growing interest in questions around the relationship between
development and conflict and looking in more detail at the
economic dimensions of conflict.
Some of these studies are emerging in the context where the sort
of dominant accounts of the conflicts that were emerging after
the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s very much focus on
the kind of ethnic drivers, so questions about, y'know,
primordial ethnic tensions being unleashed by the end of the Cold
War that were captured in books by Samuel Huntingdon and Robert
Kaplan. And in some ways, what these theories, which focused
more on the economic dimensions, are doing is trying to kind of
rebalance that focus to debunk some of these theories, which are
heavily focused on identity.
I think when we're looking at questions around the economic
dimensions of conflict it's important to say that in a sense, no
one is really arguing that the economic dimensions of conflict
are completely new.
Some people do argue, like Mary Kaldor, that these economic
dimensions have become more important in the post-Cold War
period. But nobody denies that they've always been there.
And in a sense, you know, the debate is not about whether or not
there is some role for economic dimensions.
The debate is really about how important are these factors and
in particular are these sort of so-called greed related factors
which are to do with questions of rebel groups, for example,
making an analysis of the costs and opportunities of taking up
arms against the state, are those kinds of factors more or less
important that questions around identity, and questions of
people sense the, there's a sense of injustice which is
motivating them to take up arms.
So broadly, the debate that we look at in this topic, it's been
characterised in the academic literature as the greed versus
grievance debate. I think that characterisation is a bit of a
simplification. It can be a bit misleading in some ways, but
it's a useful sort of way to divide up various different
perspectives as well.
So what I'll do now is briefly sketch out the positions of the
two most prominent figures who tend to act as kind of
figureheads for both sides of this debate.
On the greed side, the most prominent figure is Paul Collier,
who's been very influential.
He's a professor of economics at Oxford University.
The broad argument that Collier puts forward, which we'll look
at in much more detail, is that basically it's poor countries,
particularly those with low rates of economic growth, those that
are reliant on primary commodities.
Those are the ones that are at greater risk of experiencing
conflict. The theory that he develops involves this concept of a
conflict trap. And basically the argument that he puts forward
is because countries that are poorer are more at risk of going
into conflict. What happens is you get a kind of vicious circle
whereby once conflict is going on, that further undermines
growth and development and then puts them at subsequent greater
risk of renewed conflict, even if they manage to come out of it.
So it creates this kind of trap, which they find difficult to
get out of. That's Collier's perspective, which is focusing very
much on these kind of economic opportunities and incentives that
will make it more likely for rebel groups to take up arms
against the state. On the other side of the debate, the
grievance side of the debate.
The most prominent figure or one of the most prominent figures
has been another now emeritus professor in development economics
at the University of Oxford, Francis Stewart.
Francis Stewart is more associated with this grievance side.
It's important to recognise that her approach very much does
incorporate an understanding of the economic dimension, but it
looks at how those interact with questions around social
identity. Now, broadly, Stewart's argument is it's countries
with sharp horizontal inequalities that are more likely to
experience conflict.
And just to kind of briefly explain what she means by horizontal
inequalities, basically horizontal inequalities are inequalities
between social groups.
It doesn't just cover income and wealth, although that is one
factor. It also covers inequalities in relation to political
representation and also importantly, inequalities in relation to
access to certain kinds of government mediated resources, for
example, housing, education, government jobs.
So she argues that in situations where you have inequalities in
these kinds of resources that run along social lines, which
could, for example, be along ethnic lines or could be along
religious lines. So, for instance, in Sri Lanka, there are
inequalities, horizontal inequalities between the Sinhalese and
Tamils in Northern Ireland there are horizontal inequalities
between Protestants and Catholics.
So broadly, Stewart's argument is that in order to understand
which countries are likely to experience conflict, the key
factor to look at is the horizontal inequalities, not simply,
as Collier would argue, the question of whether or not this is a
poor country with low rates of growth and that has got primary
commodities.