Explaining the Severity of Civil Wars

Bethany Lacina

Journal of Conflict Resolution · 2006 · 402 citations · 39 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Civil‑war literature rarely explains why some wars are far deadlier than others. The study examines why some civil wars are deadlier by analyzing combat‑death data from 1946‑2002. The authors analyze battle‑death statistics by era, type, and region, then test state strength, regime type, and cultural factors as predictors of combat‑death counts. Determinants of severity differ from those of onset; democracy is linked to fewer deaths, wars have become less deadly post‑Cold War, religious heterogeneity is not a predictor, and ethnic homogeneity may increase deadliness.

Abstract

The burgeoning literature on civil conflicts seldom considers why some civil wars are so much deadlier than others. This article investigates that question using a new data set of the number of combat deaths in internal conflicts from 1946 to 2002. The first section presents descriptive statistics on battle deaths by era, conflict type, and region. The article then tests state strength, regime type, and cultural characteristics as predictors of the number of combat deaths in civil war. The determinants of conflict severity seem to be quite different from those for conflict onset. Democracy, rather than economic development or state military strength, is most strongly correlated with fewer deaths; wars have also been less deadly on average since the end of the cold war. Religious heterogeneity does not explain the military severity of internal violence, and surprisingly, ethnic homogeneity may be related to more deadly conflicts.

References

39