Inequality doesn’t cause war

Does economic inequality lead to conflict? This question has attracted the attention of prominent scholars at least since the time of Aristotle (Nagel 1974). The frequent assumption that unequal distribution somehow fuels rebellion has resulted in a vast amount of theoretical as well as empirical work. For long, results remained mixed. Despite countless qualitative studies asserting that inequality is a major reason for conflict outbreak, quantitative studies struggled to establish a firm relationship between the two (Blattman and Miguel 2010, Cramer 2005, Lichbach 1989).

These quantitative studies, including the most influential ones by Collier and Hoeffler (2004) and Fearon and Laitin (2003), rely on analysis of individual measures of inequality. However, as most prominently set forth by Frances Stewart, it is minority groups or collectives of individuals who rebel, not the whole population, nor individuals (Stewart 2002). Stewart’s theoretical development has given rise to several quantitative studies which uniformly support the role of economic group inequality in inducing conflict (Buhaug, Cederman, and Gleditsch 2014, Cederman, Weidmann, and Bormann 2015, Cederman, Weidmann, and Gleditsch 2011, Deiwiks, Cederman, and Gleditsch 2012, Østby 2008a, b, Østby, Nordås, and Rød 2009). Hence, there is an emerging consensus in the literature that inequality causes civil conflict when it overlaps with relevant group identities.

Promising as these studies are, they nevertheless neglect a potential crucial part of the inequality-conflict causal chain. Seemingly all studies of inequality and conflict, including those measuring group inequalities, are based on objective inequalities. Yet, as Stewart (2010, 14) herself notes, ‘People take action because of perceived injustices rather than because of measured statistical inequalities of which they might not be aware’. Economic inequality measured by the Gini coefficient, or by local GDP data, is most commonly used as proxies, leaving completely aside how economic inequality is actually interpreted and perceived by both groups and individuals (ref. Zimmermann 1983). It remains obvious, however, that in order for people to take action to address inequalities, the first step is to recognize them and to consider them unjust (Han et al. 2012). The use then, of objective measures in current empirical studies, is based on the assumption that both objective and perceived horizontal inequalities essentially amount to the same thing. Put another way it is assumed that all objective inequalities are actually perceived as inequalities by relevant groups, and conversely all perceived inequalities have an objective basis. These are strong claims that are so far largely untested. Existing studies of the link between objective and perceived horizontal inequalities range from concluding that there is no such link (Langer and Smedts 2013) to documenting imperfect correlations – ranging from 0.27 to 0.30 depending on indicators and datasets (Holmqvist 2012).

While cross-country analyses of conflict have neglected perceptions of inequality, the case study literature does offer some examples demonstrating their importance. Interviewing Muslim immigrants in London and Madrid, Gest (2010, 178) finds that what distinguishes democratic activists from those who engage in anti-system behavior, is the nature of their individual expectations and perceptions about shared economic realities. Moving on to larger conflicts, a recent World Bank report concludes that the so called ‘Arab Spring’ was driven by a decrease in popular subjective satisfaction, while the objective economic situation actually improved in the years before the widespread mobilization (Ianchovichina, Mottaghi, and Shantayanan 2015). The report also points to the importance of inter-group inequality as opposed to individual inequality.

My main argument is that in order to better capture the role of inequality in inducing civil conflict, measures have to account for relevant groups as well as for the perception of inequality in these groups. In addition, my analyses fill two other gaps in the literature. While Stewart emphasizes how groups can mobilize around different identities, current studies have almost exclusively focused on ethnic groups. However, a regional identity might be just as relevant (ref. Posner 2004). I will therefor look at the effect of regional economic inequality on civil war. And finally, most of the studies, and all of those with a global scope, rely on time invariant measures of economic horizontal inequality. This is commonly defended by referring to the demonstrated ‘stickiness’ of horizontal inequalities (see e.g. Stewart and Langer 2008, Tilly 1999). Still, a recent study covering 1992 to 2013 demonstrates a global decline of ethnic inequality (Bormann et al. 2016), while Kanbur and Venables (2005) compare case studies of 26 developing countries and conclude that regional inequalities are rising. The data used in this analysis also show that horizontal inequalities change quite substantially over time. Using inequality data from one particular year to analyze decades of conflict incidents is therefore questionable. Hence, my study represents the first time-variant analyses of the effect of both objective and perceived regional inequality on civil war covering developed and developing countries in all world regions14 .

Analysing data for the period 1989 to 2014 from the World Values Survey (WVS), I find that countries with a high level of perceived regional economic inequality have an elevated risk of civil war outbreak. On the other hand, mere objective regional economic inequalities do not have any significant effect. The group aspect remains essential, as neither objective nor perceived individual inequality is linked to increased civil conflict risk.