Institut d'Anàlisi Económica, CSIC and Barcelona GSE, ES08193, Spain.
Science. 2012 May 18;336(6083):858-65. doi: 10.1126/science.1222240.
Over the second half of the 20th century, conflicts within national boundaries became increasingly dominant. One-third of all countries experienced civil conflict. Many (if not most) such conflicts involved violence along ethnic lines. On the basis of recent theoretical and empirical research, we provide evidence that preexisting ethnic divisions do influence social conflict. Our analysis also points to particular channels of influence. Specifically, we show that two different measures of ethnic division--polarization and fractionalization--jointly influence conflict, the former more so when the winners enjoy a "public" prize (such as political power or religious hegemony), the latter more so when the prize is "private" (such as looted resources, government subsidies, or infrastructures). The available data appear to strongly support existing theories of intergroup conflict. Our argument also provides indirect evidence that ethnic conflicts are likely to be instrumental, rather than driven by primordial hatreds.
在 20 世纪后半叶,国家内部冲突变得越来越突出。三分之一的国家经历了内战。许多(如果不是大多数)此类冲突都涉及到种族冲突。基于最近的理论和经验研究,我们提供了证据表明,先前存在的种族分歧确实会影响社会冲突。我们的分析还指出了特定的影响渠道。具体来说,我们表明,两个不同的种族分歧衡量指标——极化和分裂——共同影响冲突,前者在获胜者获得“公共”奖品(如政治权力或宗教霸权)时更为明显,后者在奖品是“私人”时更为明显(如掠夺资源、政府补贴或基础设施)。现有数据似乎强烈支持群体间冲突的现有理论。我们的论点也间接表明,种族冲突很可能是工具性的,而不是由原始仇恨驱动的。