Cited by 749Political Conflict and GovernanceNatural Resources and Economic DevelopmentSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Polarization, Horizontal Inequalities and Violent Civil Conflict

Østby, Gudrun·2008·Journal of Peace Research

Abstract

Recent large-N studies of civil war conclude that inequality does not increase the risk of violent conflict. This article argues that such conclusions may be premature because these studies, which usually test the conflict potential of `vertical inequality' (i.e. income inequality between individuals), tend to neglect the group aspect of inequality. Case studies suggest that what matters for conflict is a concept closely linked to both economic and ethnic polarization: `horizontal inequalities', or inequalities that coincide with identity-based cleavages. Horizontal inequalities may enhance both grievances and group cohesion among the relatively deprived and thus facilitate mobilization for conflict. This article provides a quantitative test of this argument, exploring whether various forms of polarization and horizontal inequalities affect the probability of civil conflict onset across 36 developing countries in the period 1986—2004. National household data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) are used to construct measures of ethnic, social and economic polarization, as well as vertical and horizontal inequalities along two dimensions: social and economic. The article also introduces a combined measure of ethnic/socio-economic polarization as an alternative to the horizontal inequality measure. Robust results from panel and cross-section analyses show that social polarization and horizontal social inequality are positively related to conflict outbreak. Variables for purely ethnic polarization, inter-individual inequalities and combined ethnic/socio-economic polarization are not significant.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022343307087169

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Horizontal inequality between entire groups may be more consequential than inequality measured along individual and household lines.

    “In this sense, 'horizontal inequality' between entire groups may be more consequential than inequality measured along individual and household lines (Stewart 2008; see also Østby 2008).”

    From Dynamics and Logics of Civil War (2017) · cites this paper as Østby 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Østby, G.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Østby, Gudrun
Venue
Journal of Peace Research
Published
2008-03-01
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
143-162
ISSN
  • 0022-3433 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3578
OpenAlex
W2116212710
Cited by
749
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 26
FWCI
69.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Peace Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • United States Agency for International Development
  • United Nations Development Programme
  • Norges Forskningsråd
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Natural Resources and Economic Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
civil conflict, horizontal inequality, ethnic polarization, social polarization, economic inequality, conflict onset, grievances, group cohesion, mobilization, developing countries

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