Actor Fragmentation and Civil War Bargaining: How Internal Divisions Generate Civil Conflict
Abstract
Wars within states have become much more common than wars between them. A dominant approach to understanding civil war assumes that opposition movements are unitary, when empirically, most of them are not. I develop a theory for how internal divisions within opposition movements affect their ability to bargain with the state and avoid conflict. I argue that more divided movements generate greater commitment and information problems, thus making civil war more likely. I test this expectation using new annual data on the internal structure of opposition movements seeking self‐determination. I find that more divided movements are much more likely to experience civil war onset and incidence. This analysis suggests that the assumption that these movements are unitary has severely limited our understanding of when these disputes degenerate into civil wars.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
More recent studies code and analyze large cross-national samples of sub-national actors to circumvent problems of ecological inference resulting from over-aggregation to the country level.
“In order to circumvent problems of ecological inference resulting from over-aggregation to the country level, more recent studies code and analyze large cross-national samples of sub-national actors, such as rebel organizations, self-determination movements, or other types of political organizations (Cunningham, Gleditsch, and Salehyan's 2009; Cunningham 2013; Wucherpfennig et al. 2012).”
From Dynamics and Logics of Civil War (2017) · cites this paper as Cunningham 2013
David Cunningham (2006) and Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham (2013) find that the number of parties involved increases conflict duration by raising uncertainty and exacerbating commitment problems.
“David Cunningham (2006) and Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham (2013) find that the former increases conflict duration by raising uncertainty and exacerbating commitment problems.”
From Dynamics and Logics of Civil War (2017) · cites this paper as Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham (2013)
Cites
States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China
Skocpol, T. (1979) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815805 · Cited by 5,408 · see citing works
Armed Conflict 1946-2001: A New Dataset
GLEDITSCH, N. P., WALLENSTEEN, P., ERIKSSON, M., SOLLENBERG, M., & STRAND, H. (2002) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343302039005007 · Cited by 3,846 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These disputes often vacillate between nonviolent and violent, with periods of little violence even in cases such as Northern Ireland or the 1 Based on the Uppsala Armed Conflict Dataset (Gleditsch et al 2002).”
BackgroundInsurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador
Wood, E. J. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808685 · Cited by 1,644 · see citing works
Horizontal Inequalities and Ethnonationalist Civil War: A Global Comparison
CEDERMAN, L.-E., WEIDMANN, N. B., & GLEDITSCH, K. S. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055411000207 · Cited by 1,028 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dynamics and Logics of Civil War
Cederman, L.-E., & Vogt, M. (2017) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002717721385 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Climate change, agricultural production and civil conflict: evidence from the Philippines
Crost, B., Duquennois, C., Felter, J. H., & Rees, D. I. (2018) · Journal of Environmental Economics and Management · doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2018.01.005 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cunningham, K. G.
- Affiliations
- Peace Research Institute Oslo (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Cunningham, Kathleen Gallagher
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-03-18
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 659-672
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W2136851260
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 26.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Post-Soviet Geopolitical Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Peacebuilding and International Security
- Keywords
- civil war onset, self-determination (international law), commitment, information problems, civil conflict
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
