Suchergebnisse

Why are some multiethnic countries more prone to civil violence than others? This book examines the occurrence and forms of conflict in multiethnic states. It presents a theory that explains not only why ethnic groups rebel but also how they rebel. It shows that in extremely unequal societies, conflict typically occurs in non-violent forms because marginalized groups lack both the resources and the opportunities for violent revolt. In contrast, in more equal, but segmented multiethnic societies, violent conflict is more likely. The book traces the origins of these different types of multiethnic states to distinct experiences of colonial rule. Settler colonialism produced persistent stratification and far-reaching cultural and economic integration of the conquered groups, as, for example, in Guatemala, the United States, or Bolivia. By contrast, in decolonized states, such as Iraq, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka, in which independence led to indigenous self-rule, the colonizersâ âdivide and ruleâ policies resulted in deeply segmented post-colonial societies. Combining statistical analyses with case studies based on original field research in four different countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, Vogt analyzes why and how colonial legacies have led to peaceful or violent ethnic movements.

Abstract
This article reviews the literature on nationalism and ethnic mobilization. I first discuss the different strands of research in the field, highlighting three key sources of division that characterize existing literature: geography, ethnic cleavage type, and strategy of mobilization. Arguing that the lack of dialogue between different niches of research can undermine the accumulation of general knowledge, I propose an integrated perspective on nationalism and ethnic mobilization that serves to assimilate findings from these separate niches. I conclude by discussing how such an integrated perspective can enhance our knowledge of the causes, dynamics, and consequences of ethnic mobilization.

I would like to start my response by expressing my profound gratitude to the three commentators for their in-depth engagement with my book, their generous comments, and the rich variety of though-provoking challenges and critiques. Their contributions urge me to refine the theoretical and empirical implications of the book in novel ways. Responding to all of their excellent observations would go beyond the scope of this short essay, but I will address what I identify as the most fundamental arguments, clustered in three main themes, according to which I will structure my response. The first part will address the comments of the reviewers that relate to key definitions and case classifications. The second part focuses on challenges to the theoretical argument, including alternative explanations. Finally, the third part addresses unresolved questions in the book identified by the reviewers, which open up promising avenues for future research.

AbstractWhy are ethnic movements more likely to turn violent in some multiethnic countries than in others? Focusing on the long-term legacies of European overseas colonialism, I investigate the effect of distinct ethnic cleavage types on the consequences of ethnic group mobilization. The colonial settler states and other stratified multiethnic states are characterized by an equilibrium of inequality in which historically marginalized groups lack both the organizational strength and the opportunities for armed rebellion. In contrast, ethnic mobilization in the decolonized states and other segmented multiethnic societies is more likely to trigger violent conflict. I test these arguments in a global quantitative study from 1946 to 2009, using new data on the linguistic and religious segmentation of ethnic groups. The results confirm that the extremely unequal colonial settler states experience less violence than the decolonized states and other multiethnic countries. Ethnic conflict is generally more likely the more segmented and less hierarchically structured multiethnic states are. Specifically, stable between-group hierarchies reduce the risk of governmental conflict, whereas segmentation affects secessionist violence.

AbstractOver the last decades, indigenous movements have propelled the political empowerment of historically marginalized groups in Latin America. The Maya struggle for ethnic equality in Guatemala, however, since its reawakening during the peace process, has reached an impasse. Based on field research consisting of dozens of elite interviews, this article analyzes the patterns of and obstacles to present-day Maya mobilization. It combines movement-internal and -external factors in an overarching theoretical argument about indigenous movements' capacity to construct strong collective voices. In the Guatemalan case, organizational sectorization, the lack of elite consensus on key substantive issues, and unclear alliance strategies compromise the effectiveness of horizontal voice among Maya organizations. These problems are exacerbated by the lasting effects of the country's unique history of violence and state strategies of divide and rule, preventing the emergence of a strong vertical voice capable of challenging the Guatemalan state.

This article reviews the literature on civil war. We focus on the most recent period of scholarly activity, beginning in the early 2000s when the publication of prominent quantitative studies triggered a surge in the empirical research of civil war as a well-defined conceptual category. We identify three explanatory logics that have dominated much of this literature and that view civil wars as a consequence of greed, grievances, and opportunities, respectively. We evaluate the arguments and findings of these theoretical approaches with respect to each of the main phases of war: outbreak, wartime dynamics, conflict termination, and postwar recovery. The article concludes by identifying key challenges confronting future civil war research. In particular, we emphasize the continuing need to advance theories that bridge the main explanatory logics as well as the different phases of conflict. Researchers should also pay more attention to defining the appropriate spatiotemporal scope of their studies.

Abstract
Ethnic movements continue to challenge state governments globally, with many ethnic conflicts revolving around the status of groups' territories. Yet, politically mobilized ethnic groups vary considerably in their territorial demands: some press for increased autonomy or even outright secession, while others do not make such demands at all and prefer integration in the existing state. What explains this divergence in ethnic group demands with respect to the group's territorial status? We argue that the expected benefits of ethno-regional autonomy or secession compared to integration in a centralized state differ across distinct segments within the group as a function of three structural factors: heterogeneity in the group's income sources, cultural divisions, and territorial fragmentation, leading to disagreement over self-determination demands between different political organizations representing the same ethnic group. We test our argument using an expanded version of the Ethnic Power Relations–Organizations (EPR-O) dataset. Our pre-registered study finds support for one of our hypotheses: heterogeneity in groups' income sources increases disagreement over self-determination demands. This finding sheds new light on the structural sources of internal divisions within ethno-political movements.