Håvard Strand

Armed Conflict 1946-2001: A New Dataset

In the period 1946-2001, there were 225 armed conflicts and 34 of them were active in all of or part of 2001. Armed conflict remains a serious problem in the post-Cold War period. For three decades, the Correlates of War project has served as the main supplier of reliable data used in longitudinal studies of external and internal armed conflict. The COW datasets on war use the relatively high threshold of 1,000 battle-deaths. The Uppsala dataset on armed conflict has a lower threshold, 25 annual battle-deaths, but has so far been available for only the post-Cold War period. This dataset has now been backdated to the end of World War II. This article presents a report on armed conflict based on this backdate as well as another annual update. It presents the procedures for the backdating, as well as trends over time and breakdowns for the type of conflict. It assesses the criteria for measuring armed conflict and discusses some directions for future data collection in this area.

PRIO-GRID: A unified spatial data structure

Contributions to the quantitative civil war literature increasingly rely on geo-referenced data and disaggregated research designs. While this is a welcome trend, it necessitates geographic information systems (GIS) skills and imposes new challenges for data collection and analysis. So far, solutions to these challenges differ between studies, obstructing direct comparison of findings and hampering replication and extension of earlier work. This article presents a standardized structure for storing, manipulating, and analyzing high-resolution spatial data. PRIO-GRID is a vector grid network with a resolution of 0.5 x 0.5 decimal degrees, covering all terrestrial areas of the world. Gridded data comprise inherently apolitical entities; the grid cells are fixed in time and space, they are insensitive to political boundaries and developments, and they are completely exogenous to likely features of interest, such as civil war outbreak, ethnic settlement patterns, extreme weather events, or the spatial distribution of wealth. Moreover, unlike other disaggregated approaches, gridded data may be scaled up or down in a consistent manner by varying the resolution of the grid. The released dataset comes with cell-specific information on a large selection of political, economic, demographic, environmental, and conflict variables for all years, 1946–2008. A simple descriptive data assessment of population density and economic activity is offered to demonstrate how PRIO-GRID may be applied in quantitative social science research.

Why Is There So Much Conflict in the Middle East

The Middle East is one of the most conflict-prone regions—butwhy? The Collier-Hoeffler model of civil war provides the starting point for our analysis. In an application to Africa, Collier and Hoeffler found poverty to be the most significant predictor of conflict. For conflict in the Middle East, a more complex picture emerges. Consistent with Collier and Hoeffler, the authors find that economic development and economic growth, in addition to longer periods of peace, generally decrease the likelihood of conflict. They also find that ethnic dominance is significant, while social fractionalization is not. Contrary to Collier and Hoeffler, they find that regime type matters. Variables for the Middle East region, Islamic countries, and oil dependence are not significant. Conflict in the Middle East is quite well explained by a general theory of civilwar, and there is no need to invoke a pattern of “Middle Eastern exceptionalism.”

Population Pressure, Horizontal Inequality and Political Violence: A Disaggregated Study of Indonesian Provinces, 1990–2003

Abstract All parts of a country are rarely equally affected by political violence. Yet statistical studies largely fail to address sub-national conflict dynamics. We address this gap studying variations in ‘routine’ and ‘episodic’ violence between Indonesian provinces from 1990 to 2003. Within a grievance framework, the article focuses on the violence potential of resource scarcity and population pressure, as well as inter-group dynamics related to polarisation and horizontal inequality. Demographic pressure and inequality seem to have little effect in isolation. However, in provinces where population growth is high, greater levels of inequality between religious groups appear to increase the violence risk.

Peace research – Just the study of war?

The concept of peace has been under discussion in peace research from its start over 50 years ago. This article reviews the debate on broader and narrower conceptions of peace and investigates empirical patterns in the first 49 volumes of Journal of Peace Research, with some comparisons with Journal of Conflict Resolution. Negative peace, in the sense of reducing war, was the main focus in peace research from the inception. But positive peace, in the sense of cooperation or integration, has also always been on the peace research agenda, as reflected in the contents of both journals. Over time, a larger share of the articles in JPR has ‘violence’ or related terms in the title, while the incidence of the word ‘peace’ is fairly stable. Furthermore, articles on peace generally have fewer citations than those with violence-related terms. A broad concept of peace, as encouraged by the definition of positive peace as the reversal of structural violence, was popular in peace research for a decade or so, but has largely evaporated. To some extent, peace research has returned to its original agenda, although the main attention has shifted from interstate war to civil war and to some extent to one-sided and non-state violence. Articles dealing with patterns of cooperation, the traditional meaning of positive peace, now tend to address the liberal agenda and ask how they can foster a reduced probability of violence. Despite the ‘gender gap’, the increasing share of female authors in the journal appears to have had little influence on these developments although it may well have had other effects.

Symposium on Replication in International Studies Research

The following symposium tackles an important debate in the field of international studies research and in social science research more broadly. Originating as presentations at the 2002 International Studies Association meetings in New Orleans, the following set of papers examines issues concerning the potential replication of research results from a number of different conceptual and technical perspectives. It also spans an array of journals and journal editors in our field that confront issues of replication on a regular basis. The interactions generated by this symposium have already led to the agreement, detailed at the end of the symposium among the four leading internations relations journals to adopt a single common replication policy. The editors of these journals challenge others to follow their lead. The Editors of ISP hope that this symposium begins a larger discussion on these issues and invites commentary from interested scholars. Lastly, I want to thank Nils Petter Gleditsch for soliciting, organizing, and coordinating the contributions to this symposium. Without his work, this project would not have come to fruition as quickly or in as insightful a fashion. Three anonymous reviewers also provided detailed comments on the entire set of articles in this symposium. We are indebted to the care and effort they gave to the project. Mark A. Boyer For the Editors of ISP

Inclusion, Dispersion, and Constraint: Powersharing in the World’s States, 1975–2010

Arrangements for sharing political power serve three purposes: to give all relevant groups access to important political decisions; to partition the policy process, thereby granting groups relevant autonomy; and to constrain holders of political power from abusing authority. A new global dataset of political power sharing institutions, 1975–2010, is introduced here, disaggregated these along three institutional dimensions: inclusive, dispersive, and constraining. Existing literature associates power sharing with democracy and civil conflict resolution. Unlike the existing literature, this dataset shows inclusive institutions are common in post-conflict states, though least strongly associated with electoral democracy. Conversely, constraining institutions, though comparatively rare in states with current or recent civil conflicts, are highly correlated with electoral democracy.

Consequences of civil conflict

This paper reviews the literature on the development consequences of internal armed conflict and state fragility and analyzes the relationship using data from World Development Indicators, Ukraine Corporate Development Project UCDP/Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO) Armed Conflict Data (ACD), and World Bank state fragility assessments. Our main focus is on a set of development indicators that capture seven of the Millennium Development Goals, but the author also look briefly into the effect of conflict and fragility on growth, human rights abuses, and democratization. The author analyze these relationships using a variety of methods, averages by conflict and fragility status; cross-sectional regression analyses of change in each indicator over the time frame for which we have data; fixed-effects regression analyses of the impact on each indicator for each five-year period 1965-2009; as well as occasional panel time series models and matching techniques. In section two, the author summarizes the methodological choices and presents our conflict data. Section three summarizes the results of our analysis. Finally, section four analyzes the effects of internal armed conflict on the attainment of the individual Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Deconstructing civil war: A rejoinder

The article by Jacob Mundy in this issue of Security Dialogue draws attention to the ongoing debate between deconstructivists and quantitative researchers. The article criticizes the current state of the ‘new literature on civil wars’ and offers some recommendations as to how this literature might be improved. Yet, as a scholar on the receiving end of it, I am unable to make use of Mundy’s critique. I do not understand the premises for his article; I am not convinced by the case of Algeria; and I am unable to understand the recommendations made at the end of the piece. In other words, the dialogue here is not working. In large parts, this failure in communication is due to the fact that the relevant literatures very rarely connect with each other. The use of concepts in Mundy’s article might represent one of the few occasions on which they do. I propose a set of recommendations that I hope might assist in rendering the dialogue between these currently estranged literatures less futile.

Power Sharing, Protection, and Peace

Power sharing is often purported to lead to civil peace, though its effects are disputed. We identify three types of power sharing—inclusive, dispersive, and constraining—and analyze their mechanisms of power allocation. We argue that constraining arrangements, which limit the power of a party or social group, are most likely to protect vulnerable groups. Constraining power-sharing institutions, such as guarantees of civil liberties and independent judiciaries to protect them, create checks against governmental repression of minority groups and ordinary citizens, whereas other types of power sharing focus on political elites. Constraining power-sharing institutions limit incentives for mass mobilization and raise the costs of conflict, thus reducing the probability of civil war. Drawing on a new global data set, we examine the effects of power sharing on the onset and recurrence of civil war. In contrast to prior findings, our results show that only constraining power-sharing institutions have a pacific effect.