The value of sub-national data: The dynamics of contentious politics in Nepal

Abstract

Over the last decade, a renewed interest in the empirical analysis of contentious politics has led to significant improvements in the quality and quantity of data. The related wave of research has thus turned to analysis of the dynamics of contentious politics from a comparative perspective. Unfortunately, these studies use country level datasets for their analysis, creating a mismatch between the original actor-based theoretical framework and the empirical conceptualization of contentious collective action. We discuss the conceptual challenges this theoretical-empirical gap generates and highlight how contentious dynamics can be studied with a bottom-up sub-national approach. To do so, we present a new fine-grained dataset of contentious collective action in post-conflict Nepal (2007 to 2010). We descriptively show how this type of data can help us improve our understanding of repertoires of contentious politics. This paper highlights the relevance of gathering information on active organizations to study the inherent dynamics of contentious politics.

Introducing MACEDA: New micro-data on an indigenous self-determination conflict

“…Firstly, considering a variety of strategies beyond violent events is fundamental for the understanding of contemporary conflicts (Gleditsch, 2020). Secondly, subnational data is consistent with the actor-oriented theoretical frameworks used in the study of contentious politics (González & Vüllers, 2020). Moreover, incorporating strategies like land invasions provides a bridge with theories of conflict over contested rural property in the framework of peasant movements and land reforms (Albertus, 2015).…”

Civilian Protest in Civil War: Insights from Côte d’Ivoire

“…A second strand unpacks the causes and consequences of nonviolent civilian action in civil war (Avant et al 2019; Chenoweth, Hendrix, and Hunter 2019; Dorff 2019; Masullo 2021) and other violent contexts (González and Vüllers 2020; Ley, Mattiace, and Trejo 2019). Existing research shows that demonstrations, strikes, protest marches, and sit-ins are more common in civil war than often assumed.…”

“…To conceptualize this variation, I develop a conceptual typology of wartime civilian protest demands 3 . Focusing on stated demands provides a relevant classification basis because it goes to the heart of what protesters (claim they) want (González and Vüllers 2020, 310; White et al 2015, 473). Both conflict resolution (Wallensteen 2015) and civil resistance scholars (Chenoweth and Stephan 2011; Nepstad 2015) stress the importance of demands for understanding contentious politics and resolving conflict.…”

“…León 2017; Nilsson et al 2020; Paffenholz 2014; Svensson et al 2022), as wartime social movements that “mobilize against a peaceful or transformative agenda” are “often overlooked” (Dudouet 2021, 6). Several reasons may underlie this omission, including a notion that more authoritarian preferences engender political apathy (Hellmeier and Weidmann 2020, 74), a lack of integrated data on wartime contentious politics (González and Vüllers 2020), and the moral complications of depicting nonviolent action as “uncivil” (Chenoweth 2021, 68–70). Nevertheless, this lacuna is surprising given that scholars recognize that civilians can both resist and support armed actors (Arjona 2016; Barter 2012; Wood 2003).…”