Does contemporary armed conflict have ``deep historical roots"?
Transcription
Does contemporary armed conflict have ``deep historical roots"?
Does contemporary armed conflict have “deep historical roots”? James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin Stanford University April 28, 2015 1/41 Motivation Lots of civil war since end of World War II. The dominant form of organized political violence. non intra extra inter 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Types of COW war in current state boundaries, 1816−2008 1816 1827 1838 1849 1860 1871 1882 1893 1904 1915 1926 1937 1948 1959 1970 1981 1992 2003 2/41 Motivation Asia N. Africa/Middle East subSaharan Africa L. America/Carib. EEur/FSU West World % country years with civil war since 1945 26 20 17 8 5 2 14 Note: Fearon-Laitin list. Civil war if ≥ 1000 killed, ≥ 100/yr avg 3/41 Motivation Plausibly quite large economic impact, outside Asia, West: avg annual avg yrs of war avg total region growth hit (%) p value (if some war) decline (%) Asia 0.29 0.40 28.5 -9 EEur -9.74 0.01 6.4 48 LA/Ca -3.33 0.01 13.0 36 NA/ME -1.31 0.28 18.9 22 SSA -2.36 0.03 20.5 39 Note: Avg annual growth hit is coef from regression of WB growth rates on dummy for civil war, country and region-year FEs (se’s are clustered by country). 4/41 Motivation A good number of countries with many years with civil war: 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 % of countries 70 80 90 100 % of countries with at least x years of civil war, 1945−2012 (countries with pop > .5m) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 total years of civil war 5/41 Questions I How much of this persistent warfare post-1945 is a reflection, or continuation, of a greater tendency for armed conflict in the same area pre-1945? I Does contemporary protracted conflicts have deep historical roots, as the journalists like to say? I If pre-45 or 19th century conflict experience predicts post-45 or post-independence conflict years, why is this? 6/41 Answers, in brief 1. We find some evidence of anti-persistence at the regional level. I I Regions with more conflict pre-45 had less after, regions with less/moderate amount pre-45 had more after. Argue that an IR-theory + Tilly-ish story is a plausible explanation. Violence and arc of state-building. 2. More interesting: Within regions, places that had more colonial/imperial war pre-45, or in 19th C, have tended to have more civil war post-1945. I I Will consider a number of possible explanations for this curious relationship. But note this is not the sort of persistence invoked by typical “deep historical roots” arguments (i.e., long lasting ethnic feuds). 7/41 Outline 1. Why is degree of persistence of armed conflict in particular places an interesting question? 2. Some “theory,” or reasons you might expect or not expect long-run persistence. 3. Data. 4. Results. 4.1 Anti-persistence at regional level. 4.2 Pre-45 colonial war → post-45 civil war within regions. 5. Possible explanations for 4.2. 8/41 Why is degree of persistence in armed conflict interesting? 1. Answers could tell us new things about nature and causes of contemporary conflict, with possible relevance for strategies to for reducing it. I If persistence is very strong, suggests that either 1. highly durable structural factors are important, maybe more important than changing institutional forms and boundaries of state system. 2. Or that there is a strong tendency for some conflict to cause more conflict, not just year to year but epoch to epoch. 9/41 Why is degree of persistence in armed conflict interesting? 2. Journalists, historians, and political scientists often say that particular conflicts have “deep historical roots.” I I I Must be true in some sense. But is it true in the specific sense that current violent conflicts are just the latest versions of violent conflicts from the distant past? Surprisingly, almost no research in IR/Pol Sci on this question. A tiny bit, very recently, by some economists (Besley and Reynal-Querol 2014, Voightl¨ander and Voth 2012). 10/41 Why is degree of persistence in armed conflict interesting? 3. Economists keep finding stunning degrees of persistence or long-run historical impact of things like I I I I I Political institutions (AJR, “extractive” vs “inclusive”) Plantation economies in new world (Engerman and Sokoloff) Some economic institutions like slavery (Nunn, Acharya et al re attitudes) Culture and democracy (Tabellini, re Europe) Innovations, like intro of potato or plough (Nunn). I Is this also the case for armed conflict? If so, it would be surprising, at least for political scientists who study conflict. I Q is basically unstudied, except for Besley and Reynal-Querol paper on Africa, who find some conflict persistence from 1400-1700 to 1997-2010 (!) 11/41 Some “theory” 1. Reasons/hypotheses for why armed conflict over last 200 years might NOT be very persistent in particular places or between particular groups. 2. Reasons/hypotheses for why armed conflict over last 200 years might show considerable continuity. 12/41 1. Anti-persistence? I Massive change in international system after 1945, and int’l system/int’l politics conditions the nature and extent of armed conflict, for the most part. I I Nuclear weapons, effects of Cold War on European integration, perhaps trade and democracy, essentially eliminate great power armed conflict (interstate war). Thus Europe (East and West) saw much armed conflict before 1945 but little after. In Asia and Africa, colonial era pax gives way to new states in which ethnic or religious groups that had little or nothing to do with each other before colonialism or even during, now have something to fight over: control of new states, or acquisition of “own” state in UN system. 13/41 1. Anti-persistence? For example: I In Africa, colonizers draw administrative boundaries that create larger zones of political competition than formerly existed ⇒ ethnic groups form that didn’t exist as such before, and start to compete. I eg: Kikuyu, Luo, Kalenjin, Luhya in Kenya. Or Yoruba, Hausa and Ibo in Nigeria. No pre-colonial history of organized conflict between these groups as such, because they didn’t exist as such and had nothing to fight over as groups! Conflict was more local. 14/41 1. Anti-persistence? I In sum: Colonizers create largely arbitrary boundaries (an institution) that then shape political conflict and even the nature of the parties to it. After decolonization, 1. These new groups have something new to fight over (the colonial state apparatus), and sometimes they do. Or 2. Groups that control the new states now seek to consolidate control in peripheries where formerly they had little engagement and/or that colonial powers left alone (eg, hill tribes in many S.E. Asia countries). I From colonial pax to post-colonial state-building or state-destroying warfare. 15/41 1. Anti-persistence? Thus, regions with most conflict before 1945 expected to have least after, and regions with least before expected to have most after. 1. Tilly (“War made the state and the state made war”) + Schelling, Waltz, Kant, . . . . I Once war (inter and civil) makes relatively strong states in Europe (and 19th C Latin America to a degree), they are strong enough to prevent civil war and deter or not care to fight interstate wars. Related: nuclear weapons, trade, democracy, EU. 2. By contrast, in Africa, Asia, Middle East, modern state building process starts later and we are still in violent phase. I A possible implication: Will see gradual decline in armed conflict in these areas as state building proceeds along with civil and interstate wars. 16/41 2. Persistence? I But not difficult to come up with reasons that armed conflict might be persistent in a locale as well. Two kinds of reasons: 1. Proxy effects: Particular places are persistently conflict-prone because of durable, “structural” factors that affect conflict odds in multiple periods of time (e.g., rough terrain). 2. Causal effects: Particular places are conflict prone because they happen to get wars in the past, and warfare in one time period itself causes higher odds of warfare in later periods. 17/41 2. Persistence? Proxy effects: Durable factors cause both pre and post conflict in particular places. P1 Valuable territory attracts military competition at all times. P2 Rough terrain favors insurgents or attracts fierce, anti-state people (Scott 2010). P3 Certain colonial powers messed things up before, enduring effects. P4 Greater ethnic diversity in 1800 could have favored more conflict both pre and post. P5 Ancient hatreds between communal groups even before 1815? P6 Maybe some groups already had more martial institutions and traditions in 1815, and these are persistent. Causal effects: Conflict in period t causes conflict in period t + 1. C1 Conflict causes enduring enmities, hatreds. C2 Conflict destroys institutions that kept/favored peace. C3 Conflict creates “conflict capital,” martial institutions. 18/41 What we did I Coded all COW wars (inter, intra, extra, and non-state) for “locales,” meaning where there were significant battles fought. Covers 1815-2007. I Used current country boundaries as our “grid” (mainly bec interested in question of whether there is persistence of conflict for today’s countries). I I e.g.: We code conflicts occurring within bounds of present-day Nigeria as in Nigeria even before Nigeria became a British colony. Did the same for Peter Brecke’s “Conflict Catalog,” for 1800-2000. Much lower death/conflict threshold, many more conflicts. Lots more for 19thC Africa. 19/41 Types of conflict I COW codes four types, depending on whether one or both sides are “members of the interstate system” (based on de jure-ish criteria): 1. interstate: two system members. 2. intrastate: within a system member. 3. extrastate: system member vs non-member. Mainly colonial and imperial wars. 4. nonstate: non-member vs non-member. e.g., small precolonial kingdoms, or Latin American republics and Indian princes in early years. I We applied same criteria to code types of conflict for the Brecke cases. 20/41 Conflict locales in COW and Brecke war type # wars Share in 1 locale Share in 2 locales Share in > 2 locales # locales intra 334 0.97 0.02 0.01 348 COW wars extra inter non 163 94 62 0.92 0.57 0.76 0.06 0.31 0.19 0.02 0.12 0.05 180 238 84 all 653 0.88 0.09 0.03 850 conflict type # conflicts Share in 1 locale Share in 2 locales Share in > 2 locales # locales intra 636 0.92 0.06 0.03 720 Brecke conflicts extra inter non 468 215 204 0.83 0.52 0.76 0.13 0.34 0.16 0.04 0.13 0.08 573 463 281 all 1523 0.81 0.13 0.05 2037 21/41 Results 1. “Anti-persistence” at the level of whole regions. 2. Within regions, colonial/imperial wars before predict civil wars after. 22/41 Results: (1) Anti-persistence at regional level I Regions with most conflict before 1945 tended to have least post-45, and vice-versa COW data Brecke data 0.2 EEur 2.5 2.0 1.5 SSA LA/Ca 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 LA/Ca post−45 inter−, intra−, and non−state conflict yrs/decade NA/ME SSA Asia 0.5 1.0 1.2 NA/ME 0.0 post−45 inter−, intra−, and non−state conflict yrs/decade Asia West West 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 pre−45 inter−, intra−, and non−state conflict yrs/decade 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 EEur 1.8 2.0 pre−45 inter−, intra−, and non−state conflict yrs/decade 23/41 Results: (1) Anti-persistence at regional level Theory: 1. War made the state and the state made war. 2. Once war (inter and civil) makes relatively strong states in Europe (and 19th C Latin America to a degree), they are strong enough to prevent civil war and deter or not care to fight interstate wars. 3. In Africa, Asia, Middle East, modern state building process starts later and we are still in violent phase. 24/41 Results: (2) Within regions, persistence of armed conflict I Basic model: yi,post = α + βyi,pre + X Γ + i , where I I I I I I i is country yi,t = log(1 + # conflict years in i in period t) pre = 1816-1945 (or 1815-1913), post = 1946-2000/07 X = covariates. β = “persistence,” coefficient of interest. Results same or stronger if use a count model instead of OLS. 25/41 Results: (2) Within regions, persistence of armed conflict yi,post = α + βyi,pre + X Γ + i , I Questions: 1. Is β > 0 if control only for population in 1800 (and/or land area) and region dummies? 2. Can we make estimate go to zero if control for possible proxy effects? I I I I I Soil quality (P1). Rough terrain (P2). Colonial power dummies (P3). Ethnic diversity in 1800 (P4). Initial income level? Use distance from equator. 26/41 Results: (2) Within regions, persistence of armed conflict DV = log(all COW post-45 war years +1) All regions Asia, Africa, Middle East 0.35∗∗∗ 0.46∗∗∗ 0.27∗∗∗ 0.23∗∗ 0.69∗∗∗ 0.71∗∗∗ 0.40∗∗∗ 0.39∗∗ (0.07) (0.06) (0.08) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09) (0.12) (0.12) log(pop c. 1800) 0.17∗∗∗ 0.21∗∗∗ 0.23∗∗∗ 0.25∗∗ (0.04) (0.06) (0.06) (0.08) log(land area) −0.10† −0.00 (0.06) (0.08) log(ruggedness) 0.14∗∗ 0.23∗∗ (0.05) (0.08) language diversity c. 1800 0.13† 0.03 (0.07) (0.10) ∗∗ % fertile soil −0.81 −0.89∗ (0.31) (0.43) distance from equator −0.00 −0.03∗ (0.01) (0.02) region fixed effects? N Y Y Y N Y Y Y colonial power fe’s? N N N Y N N N Y N 194 194 194 191 105 105 105 104 adj. R 2 0.12 0.35 0.40 0.46 0.37 0.37 0.44 0.52 Notes: se’s in parens. a log(x + 1); † p < .10; ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001 pre45 conflict yearsa 27/41 Results: (2) Within regions, persistence of armed conflict DV = log(all Brecke post-45 war years +1) All regions Asia, Africa, Middle East 0.47∗∗∗ 0.56∗∗∗ 0.38∗∗∗ 0.30∗∗∗ 0.64∗∗∗ 0.66∗∗∗ 0.42∗∗∗ 0.45∗∗∗ (0.07) (0.06) (0.07) (0.08) (0.09) (0.09) (0.11) (0.11) log(pop c. 1800) 0.18∗∗∗ 0.29∗∗∗ 0.23∗∗ 0.26∗∗ (0.05) (0.07) (0.07) (0.09) log(land area) −0.10 0.03 (0.06) (0.09) log(ruggedness) 0.12∗ 0.29∗∗ (0.06) (0.09) language diversity c. 1800 0.06 −0.08 (0.08) (0.11) % fertile soil −0.99∗∗ −1.37∗∗ (0.34) (0.48) distance from equator −0.02∗ −0.05∗∗ (0.01) (0.02) region fixed effects? N Y Y Y N Y Y Y colonial power fe’s? N N N Y N N N Y N 194 194 194 191 105 105 105 104 adj. R 2 0.20 0.44 0.47 0.53 0.34 0.37 0.43 0.54 a † ∗ ∗∗ ∗∗∗ Notes: se’s in parens. log(x + 1); p < .10; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001 pre45 conflict yearsa 28/41 Results: (2) Within regions, persistence of armed conflict Doubling pre-45 conflict years in a territory associates with a 30-40% increase in post-45 war years in the Africa, Asia, Middle East regions. 29/41 Variants, robustness: Region by region. 2 6 19 54 147 Argen Brazi Hondu Mexic 402 Antig St. K Domin Beliz Guyan Surin St. VL St. Barba Trini Baham 0 Urugu Jamai 2 6 19 54 19 Azerb 6 Georg Roman CroatBosni Ukrai Russi 54 147 Yugos Tajik Kosov 2 54 19 Peru El Sa Grena 0 San M Irela Belgi Switz Italy Swede Norwa Denma Austr Monac Austr Franc Finla Malta Canad Luxem New Z Germa Liech Andor Icela 0 Germa Spain Portu Brecke war years post 1945 2 Nethe Parag Domin Cuba EcuadBoliv Chile Costa Panam Haiti Slova Hunga Moldo SloveCzech 0 Greec Colom Guate Nicar Venez 6 19 6 Unite EEur 2 Brecke war years post 1945 54 LA/Ca Unite 0 Brecke war years post 1945 West 402 Czech 0 2 Kyrgy MonteBulga Polan Turkm Eston Maced Lithu Alban Kazak Belar LatviArmen Uzbek 6 19 54 Brecke war years pre 1945 Brecke war years pre 1945 Brecke war years pre 1945 NA/ME SSA Asia 147 402 2 Libya 0 2 6 19 54 Brecke war years pre 1945 147 402 Mauri Gabon Comor Mauri Zanzi Seych Sao T Cape 0 Burki Botsw Togo Gambi Centr 2 Madag Zambi Seneg Lesot Guine Ghana Malaw Mali Swazi Ivory 6 19 Benin 54 Brecke war years pre 1945 147 402 54 Bangl Sri L 19 6 54 Tanza 0 Unite Bahra Qatar Yemen Yemen Niger Djibo CamboPhili Thail Vietn Laos Myanm Indon Pakis Malay China Afgha Singa EastPapua 2 Jorda Brecke war years post 1945 Tunis Saudi Guine Sierr KenyaNiger Rwand Equat CongoCamer Liber Nepal South North Brune Maldi 0 6 Cypru Kuwai Burun Namib Zimba Democ South 19 Moroc Alger Syria Turke Egypt Eritr Ugand Angol Somal Chad Mozam Sudan 6 Iran 2 19 Leban Ethio South Israe Brecke war years post 1945 54 Oman 0 Brecke war years post 1945 India Iraq Yemen Taiwa Vanua Tonga Fiji Bhuta Tuval Repub 0 2 Marsh Nauru Solom Palau Kirib Mongo Samoa Feder 6 Japan 19 54 147 402 Brecke war years pre 1945 30/41 Variants, robustness 1. Results same or stronger if pre = 1815-1913 or post = max{1945, year indep}. → not about continuation of specific conflicts immediately before/after 1945. 2. Results very similar if use post-45 (“post-treatment”) measures for population, ELF, per capita income, avg Polity score. → suggests that these are not pathways for a causal effect, if any. 3. Not much change in estimated β if add many more covariates: Natural resource measures, relig frac, % muslim in 1900, climate variables, landlocked. I I (using Altonji et al logic) Omitted variables would have to be at least twice as related to pre and post conflict as measured covariates to make β = 0. Much larger if use main controls measured “pre treatment” with full sample. Suggests some of the estimated effect is probably causal rather than entirely due to omitted proxies. 31/41 Types of conflict and persistence Most of the action is in relationship between colonial and imperial war before 1945 and civil war after 1945. 32/41 Results: (3) Colonial/imperial war pre and civil war post DV is logged post-45 civil conflict years (plus 1) COW COW Brecke pre45 interstate conflict years −0.14 −0.10 −0.14 (0.11) (0.11) (0.12) pre45 civil conflict years −0.02 −0.09 0.07 (0.10) (0.10) (0.09) pre45 extra-state conflict years 0.24∗∗ 0.21∗ 0.24∗∗ (0.09) (0.09) (0.08) pre45 non-state conflict years 0.26∗ 0.22∗ 0.17∗ (0.10) (0.11) (0.09) region fe’s Y Y Y log(pop) c. 1800 Y Y Y colonial power fe’s N Y N other controls N Y N N 194 191 194 adj. R 2 0.32 0.38 0.34 Brecke −0.14 (0.12) −0.01 (0.09) 0.19∗ (0.08) 0.10 (0.09) Y Y Y Y 191 0.42 Notes: Pre-45 conflict years are all log x + 1. se’s in parens. † significant at p < .10; ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001 33/41 Why would colonial war in 19th C predict civil war after independence? Recall, two types of explanations: 1. pre-45 conflict has a causal effect on post-45 conflict. C1 Conflict causes enduring enmities, hatreds. C2 Conflict destroys institutions that kept/favored peace. C3 Conflict creates “conflict capital” or martial institutions. 2. Proxy effects: Durable factors cause both pre and post conflict in particular places. P1 Valuable territory attracts military competition at all times. P2 Rough terrain favors insurgents or attracts fierce, anti-state people (Scott 2010). P3 Certain colonial powers messed things up before, enduring effects. P4 Greater ethnic diversity in 1800 could have favored more conflict both pre and post. P5 Ancient hatreds between communal groups even before 1815? P6 Maybe some groups already had more martial institutions and traditions in 1815, and these are persistent. 34/41 Why would colonial war in 19th C predict civil war after independence? I We controlled for valuable territory (P1), rough terrain (P2), colonial powers (P3), ethnic diversity (P4), initial income/dist from equator. See little or no change in persistence estimates. I Suggests at least a portion, possibly large, of effect is causal rather than due to unmeasured, omitted variables. I That is, maybe random things w/r/t post-45 conflict determined placement of pre-45 colonial wars, and the conflicts themselves then (somehow) caused increased risk of civil war post-independence. 35/41 Why would colonial war in 19th C predict civil war after independence? I Not ethnic feuds causing enduring enmities (C1, P5). Not the type of conflict persistence we observe, and . . . I For subSaharan Africa and Asia we have coded “Side A” and “Side B” in COW wars (not interstate) and find only four cases of ‘same’ ethnic groups fighting each other before and after 1945 (out of 165 conflicts). I Might be more if use lower-threshold Brecke conflicts (will try), but very unlikely to account for more than a very small share of the persistence we observe. 36/41 Why would colonial war in 19th C predict civil war after independence? Another proxy effect possibility: Pre-colonial state structures → persistence? I Maybe colonizers tended to fight with locals where locals had more developed state structures and then either 1. these structures survive post-independence and are used in attempts to “rationalize” modern states in new, formal boundaries (e.g., Burma). Or 2. colonial wars destroy state structures that might kept peace or developed more effectively (e.g., Sudan). I We use Putterman et al’s measure of precolonial state structures. 37/41 Why would colonial war in 19th C predict civil war after independence? Dep. var. state structures, 1701-1850 state structures, 1701-1850 N Region fe’s Pop and land area All other controls Africa, Asia, Middle East only COW data extrastate, pre45 civil war, post45 0.11 0.21 -0.09 (0.44) (0.50) (0.60) 0.54 (0.49) 76 Y Y N Brecke data 0.92† (0.55) 76 Y Y Y -0.41 (0.70) 76 Y Y Y 38/41 Why would colonial war in 19th C predict civil war after independence? What’s left? I Somewhat by process of elimination, evidence seems most consistent with a “conflict capital” or “martial institutions” hypothesis (C3 or P6). I Conflict in one period encourages development of culture or institutions that favor conflict later on. Could have happened both in 19th C with colonial/imperial wars (C3), and/or before (P5). 39/41 Why would colonial war in 19th C predict civil war after independence? Evidence: 1. 18th C COW conflicts among locals in Africa, Asia, Middle East predict, somewhat, colonial/imperial war in 19th C. However, not significant as predictors for post45 civil war. 2. Groups that fought colonizers often appear post-45 fighting with other groups in new state. For example: 2.1 Group fights colonizers in 19thC then minorities in new state post-45: I Han, Burmese, northern Arabs (Sudan), Xhosa, Sinhalas (Sri Lanka), Christian Malays (Philippines), Javanese, Amhara, Mbundu (Angola), Turks, Hausa-Fulani, Darods (Somalia). 2.2 Group fights colonizers in 19thC then for autonomy vs group that dominates post-colonial state: I Kashmiris and Sikhs (India), Pashtuns (Pakistan), Zulus, Moros (Philippines), Palestinians, Tigreans (Ethiopia and Eritrea), Acehnese, Tibetans. 40/41 Summary 1. Some evidence of “anti-persistence” at regional level, consistent with Tilly’s famous arguments supplemented by some IR theories about deterrence, democracy, nuclear weapons, etc. 2. More interesting and novel: Within regions and in particular in the regions that were mainly colonies in 19th century, colonial/imperial wars in 19th century or 1815-1945 associate with civil war post-1945. 3. Apart from population of territory, this persistence effect does not diminish much at all if control for measurable durable influences on armed conflict. Suggests that some part of this likely to be a causal effect. 4. Hard to say, but evidence most consistent with idea that conflict leads to development of martial cultures or institutions in particular groups that are quite persistent. 41/41