2nd stage paper, about Civil War, the country already chosen. good skills are required

  

The document paper two is the instructions to that paper 2one follow it, make sure not using any thing from Wikipedia or the reference from it. looking for perfect peer-reviewed references that can be from google scholar. (Paper must be professional, NO plagiarism)Peer review- from Google Scholar as example.The paper should be a minimum of twelve pages . page count does not include the cover page or reference list. 7<-- references. (will include articles that are very important to link to the paper and it must.) articles will be more than 8 just to help understand it and see how it going to make it perfect paper. (will include everything that require for the paper, must be Chicago style references follow (work need follow instructions)Anke Hoeffler: ‘Greed’ versus ‘Grievance’: A Useful Conceptual Distinction in the Study of Civil War? ‘Greed’ versus ‘Grievance’: A Useful Conceptual Distinction in the Study of Civil War? Anke Hoeffler* University of Oxford I. Introduction Since the end of World War II, civil war has been the most common form of large-scale violent conflict; in total, this type of armed confrontation has killed about sixteen million people (Regan 2009). Over the past decade, there has been a pronounced increase in the civil war literature. Economists, among other social scientists, have tried to investigate the causes of large-scale violent conflict by using economic theory, as well as empirical tests, which had hitherto been impossible due to lack of data. These analytical searches are driven by the hope that if we can gain a better understanding of the causes of civil war, we may be able to prevent future violent conflict and help to resolve ongoing wars. In this article I discuss whether ‘greed’ versus ‘grievance’ is a useful conceptual distinction to help us understand and prevent civil wars. I argue that the theory of collective action provides some useful insights into the organisation of rebellion. Group interests (e.g., common grievances) can only be addressed by collective action. One way of understanding how this collective action can be achieved is to frame rebellion as the production of a public good. Collective action theory suggests that in order to overcome the problem of ‘free riding’, participants have to receive private rewards. Thus, ‘greed’ may be an important factor in the organisation of rebellion. Since rebellion necessitates private gains even if it is based on common grievances, theories of civil war should consider both factors. In principle, empirical tests can be used to evaluate the relative importance of ‘greed’ versus ‘grievance’. A number of studies suggest that private incentives are more important determinants for individuals to join rebellions than the belief in the cause of the rebel movement.1 However, in many cases the empirical tests are not rooted in theory, making it difficult to distinguish conclusively between rival theoretical explanations. * Anke Hoeffler is a research officer at the Centre for the Study of African Economies, and a research fellow at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford. Her research focuses on the macroeconomics of developing countries, and the economics of conflict and political economy. She has published a range of articles on causes of war, military expenditure, post-conflict economies, the effect of aid and the problems of democracy in low-income and natural resource-rich societies. 274 Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism: Vol. 11, No. 2, 2011 The paper is structured as follows. Section II presents a synopsis of how collective action theory can frame our understanding of civil war. In section III, I present an overview of the empirical evidence, followed by a conclusion. II. Theory The key feature of civil war is the formation and persistence of a rebel army. Theories of rebellion should therefore focus on the explanation of this phenomenon. In a civil war, rebels challenge the government and rebellion can be thought of as the production of a public good. In economic theory a public good is defined as a non-rivalrous and non-excludable good (Samuelson 1954). Non-rivalry means that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others. Non-excludability means that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good. Rebellions can be understood as the production of a public good, because if the rebellion succeeds, the entire population will be living under the new regime, irrespective of individual support for the rebellion. According to the theory of collective action (Olson 1965), common interests within a group are insufficient to produce a public good. Individuals in any group have incentives to ‘free ride’ on the efforts of others since they cannot be excluded from the consumption of the public good. The incentive to ‘free ride’ is reduced if only active participants receive private benefits. Thus, without these so-called selective incentives to motivate participation, collective action is unlikely to occur even when groups have common interests. Based on these assumptions, Tullock (2005) models the individual’s decision whether or not to participate in a rebellion. Individuals will participate if their benefits outweigh their costs. They know that their individual decision will have very little impact on the outcome of the rebellion. Thus, Tullock argues that the public good aspect of rebellion has little relevance in the individual’s decision whether or not to participate; instead, individuals base their decision to join on the private good aspect of rebellion. Tullock recognises that much of the literature focuses on the public good aspect of rebellion, i.e. groups rebel because they are aggrieved and promise a new political regime addressing the underlying causes of economic and social inequalities. Tullock terms this ‘the paradox of revolution’, as the public good aspect dominates the discussion while the private rewards for rebels receive little attention, although they are key in the participation decision (Tullock 2005:174–85). The ‘greed’ versus ‘grievance’ debate is very much shaped by the understanding of rebellion as producing a public good. ‘Greed’ can be interpreted as concentrating on the importance of the private gains aspect, while ‘grievance’ focuses on the public good aspect of rebellion. A well-defined theory of rebellion has to consider both aspects because they are interrelated. Private gains and costs of participating in a rebellion are dependent on the likelihood of the rebellion succeeding, but the success of a rebellion in turn depends on how many individuals decide to participate. Typically, one would expect rebellions to start with a small group of rebels and then to swell to large, self-sustaining organisations. Olson (1965) argues that group size is critical in 275 Anke Hoeffler: ‘Greed’ versus ‘Grievance’: A Useful Conceptual Distinction in the Study of Civil War? achieving collective action: Smaller groups face lower costs of organisation and it is more lucrative for individuals to join because the private rewards are being shared among fewer participants. This suggests that the incentive for group action diminishes as group size increases; as a consequence, large groups are less able to act in their common interest than small ones. Thus, according to the theory of collective action, smaller groups are more likely to rebel, and in order to recruit followers, they will have to provide selective incentives. To mobilise a small rebel group may only require the promise of private returns rather than appealing to a public good aspect of rebellion. However, in order to motivate individuals to join a small group of rebels, the leader may want to appeal to the public good characteristic of rebellion. The more individuals join the higher the chance of success and the opportunity to gain private rewards. Therefore, theories of rebellion should consider common interests as well as private gains as possible decisive determinants. In sum, this discussion of the theory of rebellion centres on the key assumptions that 1) rebellion produces a public good; and 2) individuals make a rational choice regarding whether to join the rebellion. Public Good Since public goods are by definition non-rivalrous and non-excludable, it is debatable whether any such good really exists or whether it is just a useful concept in economic theory. This analysis focuses on rebellions, which aim to put a new political regime into power. While it can be argued that political regimes are non-rivalrous, they can certainly exclude individuals. Purges, expulsions, and the denial of a number of human/citizens’ rights are ways of punishing members and supporters of the previous regime. In this sense one might argue that rebellion produces a club good, rather than a public good. If individuals can be excluded, there is less of a free rider problem, and hence private incentives are less important to organise a rebellion. Appealing to a common interest may be sufficient. Likewise, other models of rebellion do not rely on the provision of selective incentives because the free rider problem will not arise due to varying preferences for the public good within the group. Kuran (1989) assumes that strongly motivated individuals start the rebellion and others with a less strong motivation join once the chances of success are higher. This ‘bandwagon’ effect is most likely to result in strong rebel support if preferences are uniformly distributed. Clustered preferences make rebellion less likely. Rebellions may start off as addressing grievances, but justice-seeking can turn into loot-seeking during the course of the war. Where there are opportunities for large profits, the composition of the rebel group will gradually shift towards those with a motivation for private gain rather than an interest in the public good: the rebellion experiences adverse selection in motivation (Weinstein 2005). Esteban and Ray (2008) suggest that the preference distribution within groups matters for the organisation of rebellions. In general, within-group heterogeneity makes it more difficult to achieve collective action, but the heterogeneity may enable a useful division of labour. The richer members of the group provide the finances for conflict while the poorer members provide conflict labour. They 276 Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism: Vol. 11, No. 2, 2011 hypothesise that groups defined by ethnicity have larger within-group heterogeneities than class-based groups. Ethnic groups can therefore use these differences within the group to finance and organise rebellions. Rational Choice Rational choice theory frames much of economists’ understanding of economic behaviour. It is the central paradigm of modern micro-economic theory, which has been more widely applied to explain a number of social behaviours such as those discussed in Becker (1976). The assumption of rational choice frames a number of formal models of rebel participation and recruitment. Grossman (1991; 1999) presents a model in which peasant households decide how to allocate their labour time to production, soldiering, or participation in an insurrection. The interaction between the ruler and the peasant households results in an equilibrium allocation of labour time and a probabilistic distribution of income from the three activities. One possible equilibrium outcome is a higher expected income if time is allocated to rebellion despite its opportunity cost. Gates (2002) argues that the leader faces a principal–agent problem, and he tries to overcome this by the offer of selective incentives. The greater the geographic or social distance between leader and recruits, the greater the supervision problem and thus the need for private gain. Potential recruits join the rebellion if these private gains are sufficiently rewarding. Analogous to the cost-benefit analysis in economic models, in social behaviour models individuals act as if balancing costs against benefits to maximise personal advantage. The models outlined above assume that potential recruits make a rational decision to join a rebellion, based on a cost-benefit analysis. However, many rebel armies use coercion in their recruitment process. Beber and Blattman (2008) argue that threats and punishments can be used as selective incentives. They provide a framework in which it is rational for the rebel leader to use force rather than rewards to solve the collective action problem. Like the other rational choice models, this attempt by Beber and Blattman focuses on explanations that tend to emphasise economic motivations for conflict. Psychological or sociological factors are less well integrated into formal approaches. For example, charismatic leadership may be crucial to the formation of a rebel army. There is some empirical evidence that leadership matters for economic outcomes (Jones and Olken 2005), but the importance of leadership has so far not received any formal treatment in the study of civil war. ‘Irrational’ behaviour may drive (some) rebellions. Based on the examples of Bosnia and Rwanda, Mueller suggests that leaders whip up hatred and recruit ‘fanatics, criminals and hooligans’ (Mueller 2004:88) to commit most of the violence. Another likely example of irrationality is the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army, whose leader claims to fight for the rights of the Acholi ethnic group in Northern Uganda. This rebel organisation has killed and kidnapped many members of its own ethnic group. With its only stated goal being the establishment of rule by the Ten Commandments, it is more akin to fanatical religious groups than to organisations of political opposition. ‘Irrational’ behaviour by leaders (Gartzke 2003) and followers (Mueller 2004) may be more difficult to integrate into formal modelling. 277 Anke Hoeffler: ‘Greed’ versus ‘Grievance’: A Useful Conceptual Distinction in the Study of Civil War? III. Evidence I now turn to the empirical evidence to evaluate the role of private incentives (‘greed’) and group interests (‘grievances’) as suggested by the theoretical framework outlined above. Over the past decade a large number of applied studies have tried to assess the causes of civil war.2 The empirical analysis can be grouped into the examination of: 1) the participation decisions of individuals; 2) what makes groups more likely to rebel; and 3) what makes countries more prone to conflict. Why Do Individuals Join Rebellions? Individuals’ attitudes to rebellion are analysed by MacCulloch (2004) and MacCulloch and Pezzini (2007). These studies tell us something about the taste for revolution, but there is currently no research linking these attitudes to actions. There may be a considerable gap between having a taste for revolution and joining one. A small number of surveys are used to analyse participation in an armed organisation (e.g., Arjona and Kalyvas 2006; Verwimp 2005). Since it is dangerous to conduct these surveys, they are either based on recall questions (Humphreys and Weinstein 2008) or they take place in situations that have not fully escalated (Oyefusi 2008). In their seminal study Humphreys and Weinstein (2008) examine participation in the rebel and regular forces based on survey data in Sierra Leone. A large proportion of the rebel recruits (88%) claim to have been abducted and forced to join, raising the question whether their participation can be modelled as a choice. Interestingly, their survey data suggest that abductees and volunteers do not seem to be systematically different from each other. Humphreys and Weinstein attempt to distinguish the various explanations of why individuals joined the rebellion by grouping the explanatory variables into explanations of grievance, selective incentives, and social sanctions. Men were more likely to participate if they were poor and/or had low levels of education. Poverty could be interpreted either as a grievance factor or as evidence that these individuals are facing low opportunity costs. However, Humphreys and Weinstein carefully try to disentangle grievance factors from selective incentives. They provide additional evidence by estimating the likelihood of joining the regular armed forces. Like joining the rebel forces, poverty seems an important driver in joining the government army. This evidence makes it hard to reconcile joining the rebellion as a result of grievances. Thus, in this context poverty is less likely to be a proxy for grievances than for the likelihood to be receptive to selective incentives due to low opportunity costs. Monetary incentives made participation more likely, as did social sanctions. Thus, there is evidence that positive and negative incentives were used to address the free rider problem.3 Volunteer participants were more likely to join because they felt safer inside the group. Abductees and volunteers only differed in respect to this last variable; unsurprisingly, abductees did not feel safer inside the group. Survey evidence from seven countries/territories4 conducted by the World Bank also suggests that the lack of economic opportunities is more important than addressing group grievances. Forty per cent of all respondents said that they joined 278 Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism: Vol. 11, No. 2, 2011 a rebel group because they were unemployed, while only 13% claimed they did so because they believed in the group’s causes (The World Bank 2011:80). Why Do Groups Rebel? Civil war requires an organised group that challenges the government. What makes groups decide to pursue their aims in a violent way while others stay peaceful? Dube and Vargas (2006) use event data for Colombia and find that when coffee prices are low, violence in coffee areas is significantly higher. This supports the hypothesis that individuals and groups are more likely to rebel when opportunity costs are low. Private incentives are more valuable in times of economic hardship and thus increase participation in violence. Jenne, Saideman, and Lowe (2007) and Toft (2003) use the Minorities at Risk (MAR) data set to examine the behaviour of ethnopolitical groups worldwide.5 Their findings with respect to geography are very similar: groups which are concentrated in rural areas are more likely to turn violent than groups that are concentrated in urban areas or that are dispersed across the country. Toft (2003) interprets these results as support for the hypothesis that these concentrated groups have a higher capability and greater legitimacy. Jenne, Saideman, and Lowe (2007) also find that external military support and low average national income make a violent campaign against the government more likely. They do not find any evidence that either political discrimination or economic differences make it more likely for organisations to turn to violence. Although this gives some interesting insights into which groups may be more likely to turn to violence to pursue their demands, this work suffers from the impossibility to define the universe of groups that are likely to rebel. As Fearon (2003:195) points out, ‘“ethnic group” . . . is a slippery concept’, and it is impossible to draw up a complete list of ethnic groups (ibid.). The MAR data set tracks minorities ‘at risk’, defined as groups that have collectively experienced systematic discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis other groups in a society. Thus, this definition is likely to introduce a selection bias. Ideally, comprehensive surveys would identify all sizeable groups in the population, irrespective of whether they have suffered or benefitted from discrimination.6 What Makes Countries Conflict Prone? The studies of individual and group behaviour are instructive as to why people join rebel organisations and what characterises the organisations that turn to violence in pursuit of their aims. However, the majority of empirical studies examine the causes of civil war at the country level, with a large body of case studies examining the causes of civil war for individual countries. An excellent compilation of case study evidence is presented in Collier and Sambanis (2005). A different literature draws on cross-country data to examine what makes countries more prone to civil war. Core articles of this literature on civil war onset include Hegre et al. (2001), Collier and Hoeffler (2004), and Fearon and Laitin (2003). While most of this literature does not provide a careful link between theory and empirical tests, Besley and Persson (2008; 2010) are notab... Purchase answer to see full attachment

Leave a Comment