New directions in conflict research from an economics perspective - Conflicts Over Natural Resources in the Global South - page 49

undermine the position of the state. Attention has to be focused on the distributional
consequences of growth. New sources of tension arise in our globalised world because
of rising food and fuel prices that intensify existing grievances against the state, bur-
dens of servicing international debt, and through the relative deprivation felt because
of the ever-widening gap in living standards between rich and poor countries. Sec-
ondly, we have the non-linear impact of increased democratisation on conflict risk.
Mature democracies are usually more peaceful, but democratic transitions enhance
the chances of violent conflict. This means we have to have a nuanced take on the role
of institutions, eschewing the naïve institutional fundamentalism that pervades the
contemporary mainstream thinking about long-term development. Thirdly, greater
emphasis has to be put on detailed case studies of local conflict. This means a deeper
understanding of local economic conditions and social capital. Household surveys, if
intelligently designed, can also yield deeper psychological insights on how the trauma
of violence affects economic behaviour, as well as gauging the contribution of group
identity and group grievances to any future conflict risk. The role of intrinsic motiva-
tion in joining movements, particularly the part played by an individual's identification
with the cause of a disadvantaged group that he belongs to, deserves much more than
the scant and passing attention that it has hitherto received in the rational choice lit-
erature on conflict. The study of sectarian (or communal) conflicts in countries such
as India, Indonesia and Nigeria deserves more sophisticated study.
In the ultimate analysis, conflict resolution has ubiquitously required justice, and
not just the justice that is in the interest of the stronger. In this connection a few
words about the new liberal imperialism, which for example favours regime change
by direct action, are in order. Just as in the 19th century, the excuse of civilizing the
backward is being increasingly used to justify direct intervention in developing country
conflicts. Despite the rhetoric, there is a great danger that these actions are much more
in tune with the old imperialist objective of controlling the non-European world to the
advantage of Europe (the present West), or at the very least in the spirit of colonialism's
misplaced 'white man's burden' aim of civilizing the uncivilised; something that has
been historically such a resounding failure.
REFERENCES
Akerlof, G. and R. E. Kranton. 2000. Economics and Identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics
115, no. 3: 715-753.
Auty, R. M. and A. G. Gelb. 2001. Political Economy of Resource Abundant States. In Resource
Abundance and Economic Development , ed. R. M. Auty, 126-44. Oxford: University Press.
Bates, R. H. 2001. Prosperity and Violence . New York: Norton.
Boyce, J. 2007. Public Finance, Aid and Post-Conflict Recovery. Working Paper 2007-09,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
Brass, P.R. 2003. The Production of Hindu-Muslim Violence in Contemporary India . Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Brunnschweiler, C. N. and E. H. Bulte. 2009. Natural Resources and Violent Conflict: Resource
Abundance, Dependence and the Onset of Civil Wars. Oxford Economic Papers 61, no. 4:
651-674.
Cederman, L.-E., N. Weidmann and K.-S. Gleditsch. 2011. Horizontal Inequalities and Ethnona-
tionalist Civil War: A Global Comparison. American Political Science Review 105, no. 3:
478-495.