Every time a civil war breaks out, some historian traces its origin to the 14th century and some anthropologist expounds on its ethnic roots. Don't buy into such explanations too quickly. Certain countries are more prone to civil war than others, but distant history and ethnic tensions are rarely the best explanations for a conflict. Look instead at a nation's recent past and, most important, its economic conditions.

COMMENTS (0) SHARE:

Twitter

 

Reddit

 

Buzz

 

More...

Once a country has reached a per capita income rivaling that of the world's richest nations, its risk of civil war is negligible. Today, about 900 million people live in such societies. Four billion more live in countries that are either already middle income or on track to becoming so, thanks to rapidly growing and diversifying economies. This group, which includes the economic success stories of the post-World War II era, faces fairly low risk of civil war. The potential for conflict is concentrated among the countries inhabited by the world's remaining 1.1 billion people. These countries typically have poor and declining economies and rely on natural resources -- such as diamonds or oil -- for a large proportion of national income. As the British, French, Portuguese, and Soviet empires successively dissolved during the last century, the number of such countries increased in waves.

Such at-risk countries are engaged in a sort of Russian roulette. Every year that their dismal economic conditions persist increases the odds that their societies will fall into armed conflict. Whether by luck or prudence, many such nations have so far escaped civil war. Others have not. And once civil war has started, the decline in income and the accumulation of arms, fighting skills, and military capabilities greatly increase the risks of further conflict.

To date, academics and policymakers alike have misdiagnosed the nature of the problem; little surprise, then, that their efforts to prevent civil wars have been ineffective. When the world's leaders can identify the real factors most likely to drive such conflicts, they will have a better chance of preventing future wars.

THE MYTH OF ETHNIC STRIFE
Between 1960 and 1999, there were 52 major civil wars for which comprehensive data is available on social, political, historical, economic, and geographic circumstances. Such wars spanned the developing regions, with the typical conflict lasting around seven years and leaving a legacy of persistent poverty and disease in its wake. To understand the causes of these conflicts, economist Anke Hoeffler and I studied each five-year period from 1960 to 1999 and identified preexisting conditions that helped predict the outbreak of war.

For example, income inequality and ethnic-religious diversity are frequently cited as causes for conflict. Yet surprisingly, inequality -- either of household incomes or of land ownership -- does not appear to increase systematically the risk of civil war. Brazil got away with its high inequality; Colombia didn't. And, in fact, ethnic and religious diversity actually reduces the risk of civil conflict. One important exception: Where the largest ethnic group constitutes a majority but lives alongside a substantial minority, such as in Sri Lanka and Rwanda, the risk of civil war roughly doubles. Once wars start, they also tend to last much longer if the nation in question displays two or three dominant ethnic groups.

Conflicts in ethnically diverse countries may be ethnically patterned without being ethnically caused. International media coverage of civil wars often focuses on history and ethnicity because rebel leaders adopt this sort of discourse. Grievances are to a rebel organization what image is to a business. The rebel group needs to stimulate a sense of collective grievance to build cohesion in its army and to attract funding from its diaspora living in rich countries.

Much to the dismay of democratization activists, democracy fails to reduce the risk of civil war, at least in low-income countries. Indeed, politically repressive societies have no greater risk of civil war than full-fledged democracies. Countries falling between the extremes of autocracy and full democracy -- where citizens enjoy some limited political rights -- are at a greater risk of war. Low-income societies with new democratic institutions are often at enhanced risk: Just consider the current catastrophe in Ivory Coast, where uncertainty over who could stand for the presidential election in 2000 triggered violent clashes and ongoing political instability.

Wherever a civil war occurs, observers will invariably find some deep history of conflict. But overwhelmingly, conflicts in the distant past are not generating civil wars in the present. The history that matters is recent history, not that of the 14th century. If a country recently experienced a civil war, it is much more likely to have another one. This risk fades the longer peace endures.

Civil war is self-perpetuating, partly because it changes the balance of interests within countries. Groups engaged in conflict invest in armaments, skills, and infrastructure that are only good for violence. These groups' leaders, and indeed all those who gain from lawlessness, prosper during war, even though society as a whole suffers. The part of the elite that prefers peace will have shifted much of its wealth outside the country. Hence, as a result of the conflict, the balance of elite interests shifts toward further conflict.

Geography matters, too. If a country is mountainous and has a large, lightly populated hinterland, it faces an enhanced risk of rebellion. Presumably, rebels are harder to find and defeat in such terrain. Nepal is therefore more at risk of civil war, geographically speaking, than Singapore.

1234NEXT