Power Parity, Democracy, and the Severity of Internal Violence

Benson, Michelle; Kugler, Jacek

doi:10.1177/0022002798042002004

Cited by 122 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not surprisingly, a range of research questions fall within this phase. Some studies have been concerned with short-term effects, including how long the war lasts (Bennett & Stam, 1996), how severe it was (Benson & Kugler, 1998), and its outcomes (de Rouen & Sobek, 2004). Others have examined bargaining behaviors of the two sides in war (Pillar, 1983;Werner, 1998) or the effectiveness of third-party intervention, both diplomatically (Walter, 1997) or militarily (Regan, 2000).…”

Section: Phase Iii: War Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just a Phase?: Integrating Conflict Dynamics Over Time

Diehl

2006

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most international conflict research focuses on behavior within a given phase or stage of conflict. Little consideration is given to how actions in one phase affect the dynamics of conflict behavior in subsequent phases. This article postulates several different phases of conflict, gives a numerical overview of past research on those phases, and identifies and assesses several different approaches to integrating those phases, including selection effects, rational choice, path dependency, learning, and issue-centered approaches.

show abstract

Section: Phase Iii: War Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just a Phase?: Integrating Conflict Dynamics Over Time

Diehl

2006

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the lack of agreement among scholars as to the major causes of civil wars, there is a widespread consensus in the literature on the importance of state capacity for sustaining peace (Arbetman & Kugler, 1997;Buhaug, 2006;Johnson, 2004;Krasner, 1999;Benson & Kugler, 1998;Fearon & Laitin, 2003). Building on the earlier research that emphasizes the importance of the state, this study examines the effect of an important yet neglected dimension of state capacity: the ability of the state to provide social welfare policies to its citizens.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can states buy peace? Social welfare spending and civil conflicts

Taydaş

Peksen

2012

Journal of Peace Research

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether the state's ability to provide social welfare services has any major effect on the probability of civil conflict onset. We argue that welfare spending contributes to sustaining peace because the provision of social services reduces grievances by offsetting the effects of poverty and inequality in society. Welfare spending serves as an indication of the commitment of the government to social services and reflects its priorities and dedication to citizens. By enacting welfare policies that improve the living standards of citizens, governments can co-opt the political opposition and decrease the incentives for organizing a rebellion. Utilizing time-series, cross-national data for the 1975-2005 period, the results indicate that as the level of the government investment in welfare policies (i.e. education, health, and social security) increases, the likelihood of civil conflict onset declines significantly, controlling for several other covariates of internal conflict. Additional data analysis shows that general public spending and military expenditures are unlikely to increase or decrease the probability of civil unrest. Overall, these findings suggest that certain types of public spending, such as welfare spending, might have a strong pacifying effect on civil conflict, and therefore the state's welfare efforts are vital for the maintenance of peace.

show abstract

“…Building a robust rule of law in the aftermath of conflict has been linked to the reduced 14 Benson and Kugler 1998;Quinn, Mason, and Gurses 2007. 15 Hoddie and Hartzell 2003;Hoddie and Hartzell 2010;Stedman 2002;Walter 1999.…”

Section: Resolving Civil Conflict In the Midst Of Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Building the Rule of War: Postconflict Institutions and the Micro-Dynamics of Conflict in Eastern DR Congo

Lake¹

2017

Int Org

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why have peace-building and reconstruction efforts so frequently failed to create durable institutions that can deter or withstand resurgent violence in volatile sites of cyclical conflict? Extant theory predicts that new institutions can help overcome violence and mitigate commitment problems in postconflict contexts by reducing uncertainty in inherently uncertain environments. By contrast, this article argues that postconflict institutions often prove limited in their abilities to contribute to durable peace because they offer wartime elites new venues in which to pursue conflict-era agendas. Through a micro-analysis of efforts to build the rule of law in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, I demonstrate that wartime elites capture and instrumentalize new legal institutions to maximize their intra- and inter-organizational survival; to pursue economic, military, and political agendas behind the scenes; and, in some cases, to prepare for an imminent return to war.

show abstract

Power Parity, Democracy, and the Severity of Internal Violence

Cited by 122 publications

References 14 publications

Just a Phase?: Integrating Conflict Dynamics Over Time

Just a Phase?: Integrating Conflict Dynamics Over Time

Can states buy peace? Social welfare spending and civil conflicts

Building the Rule of War: Postconflict Institutions and the Micro-Dynamics of Conflict in Eastern DR Congo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About