Civil War Studies: Income Interpretation
10 Questions
2 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the primary interpretation of low per capita income in the Greed vs. Grievance model proposed by Collier and Hoeffler?

  • It reflects limited economic opportunities making rebellion attractive. (correct)
  • It signifies the effectiveness of state governance.
  • It indicates a high opportunity cost of joining a rebellion.
  • It suggests the success rate of previous insurgencies.
  • In the context of Fearon and Laitin's study, what does low per capita income primarily reflect?

  • State capacity and governance effectiveness. (correct)
  • The effectiveness of military strategies.
  • Individual economic motivations for rebellion.
  • Cultural factors influencing civil conflict.
  • According to Collier and Hoeffler, how does low per capita income affect the opportunity cost of joining a rebellion?

  • It raises the opportunity cost of participating.
  • It decreases the recruitment potential for insurgents.
  • It has no impact on opportunity cost.
  • It lowers the opportunity cost, making rebellion more viable. (correct)
  • Which aspect do Fearon and Laitin emphasize when discussing the implications of low per capita income on civil war risk?

    <p>The state's ability to control insurgent activities.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What common finding do both Collier and Hoeffler, and Fearon and Laitin share regarding low per capita income and civil war risk?

    <p>It is positively associated with a higher risk of civil war.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    How does Collier and Hoeffler's theory explain the relationship between low per capita income and civil war risk?

    <p>It reduces the opportunity cost of rebellion due to economic motivations.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the context of civil wars, what does Fearon and Laitin attribute to low per capita income?

    <p>It indicates weak state capacity for governance.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    How do the models of Collier and Hoeffler differ from those of Fearon and Laitin in their focus?

    <p>Collier and Hoeffler emphasize economic incentives, while Fearon and Laitin focus on the feasibility of insurgency.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What underlying concept does the 'greed' model of conflict relate to according to Collier and Hoeffler?

    <p>Economic motivations for participation in rebellion.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which statement best reflects the implications of low per capita income in Fearon and Laitin's model?

    <p>It makes insurgency more feasible due to weak state governance.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Study Notes

    Comparison of Studies on Per Capita Income and Civil War

    • Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler's Approach
      • Emphasize the "Greed vs. Grievance" model, linking economic factors to the risk of civil war.
      • Argue that low per capita income reflects limited economic opportunities, encouraging rebellion as an alternative income source.
      • Use low income per capita as a proxy for the opportunity cost of joining a rebellion; lower incomes mean lower forgone earnings when choosing to fight.
      • Empirical evidence indicates a strong correlation between lower per capita income and higher risk of civil conflict, suggesting economic deprivation motivates rebellion.

    James Fearon and David Laitin's Approach

    • Focus on Insurgency Feasibility
      • View per capita income as an indicator of state capacity and effectiveness in governance.
      • Argue that low per capita income signals weak institutions, inadequate policing, and ineffective territorial control, enabling insurgencies to take root.
      • Differentiate their model by prioritizing state strength over individual economic motivations; low income reflects a state's inability to maintain stability and control.
      • Find a significant link between low per capita income and civil war risk, interpreting it as a manifestation of state weakness instead of economic motives for rebellion.

    Summary of Differences

    • Interpretation of Low Per Capita Income

      • Collier and Hoeffler: Associate low per capita income with a decreased opportunity cost for rebellion; portrays economic motivations as a primary driver.
      • Fearon and Laitin: Link low per capita income to weak state capacity; emphasizes governance failure as a facilitator of insurgency.
    • Role of Per Capita Income in Models

      • Collier and Hoeffler: Utilize per capita income to gauge economic incentives driving individuals toward rebellion.
      • Fearon and Laitin: Use per capita income to assess overall state strength and capacity to manage conflict.
    • The contrasting theories reflect the broader debate between the economic motivations for conflict (Collier and Hoeffler) and the feasibility of insurgency stemming from state weaknesses (Fearon and Laitin).

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Description

    Explore the differing interpretations and methodologies of Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler compared to James Fearon and David Laitin in their studies on per capita income's role in civil war. This quiz delves into their unique approaches, focusing on the greed versus grievance model and the economic factors affecting conflict.

    More Like This

    Annotating Social Studies Texts Quiz
    14 questions
    Social Studies Final: Civil War Overview
    16 questions
    Environmental Studies CVL-103
    9 questions
    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Browser