The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 30 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Ethnic Polarization, Potential Conflict, and Civil Wars
Abstract
This paper analyzes the relationship between ethnic fractionalization, polarization, and conflict. In recent years many authors have found empirical evidence that ethnic fractionalization has a negative effect on growth. One mechanism that can explain this nexus is the effect of ethnic heterogeneity on rent-seeking activities and the increase in potential conflict, which is negative for investment. However the empirical evidence supporting the effect of ethnic fractionalization on the incidence of civil conflicts is very weak. Although ethnic fractionalization may be important for growth, we argue that the channel is not through an increase in potential ethnic conflict. We discuss the appropriateness of indices of polarization to capture conflictive dimensions. We develop a new measure of ethnic heterogeneity that satisfies the basic properties associated with the concept of polarization. The empirical section shows that this index of ethnic polarization is a significant variable in the explanation of the incidence of civil wars. This result is robust to the presence of other indicators of ethnic heterogeneity, other sources of data for the construction of the index, and other data structures.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that ethnic fractionalization is the wrong measure for capturing potential conflict; an ethnic polarization index (Q) better predicts civil war incidence. Using logit regressions on 138 countries from 1960–99, ethnic polarization is positive and significant while ethnic fractionalization is not.
Key findings
- Ethnic fractionalization (ETHFRAC) has no statistically significant effect on civil war incidence (coefficient 1.19, z=1.89 in column 1), consistent with Fearon and Laitin (2003) and Collier and Hoeffler (1998).
- Ethnic polarization (ETHPOL) has a positive and statistically significant effect: coefficient 2.37 (z=2.97) alone, and 2.28 (z=2.23) when ETHFRAC is included; ETHFRAC remains insignificant (0.17, z=0.19).
- The effect is economically important: moving polarization from the average (0.51) to Guinea’s level (0.84) almost doubles the probability of conflict; a one-standard-deviation increase (0.24) raises the probability by 67%.
- Robustness checks support ethnic polarization across alternative civil-war definitions (PRIO1000, PRIO25, Doyle–Sambanis, Fearon–Laitin), alternative data sources (Alesina et al., Atlas Narodov Mira), regional dummies, and cross-section regressions; religious polarization is less robust and depends on specification.
Methods
- Logit regressions for civil war incidence using a panel of 138 countries over 1960–99, divided into five-year periods; dependent variable is PRIOCW (PRIO intermediate/high-intensity civil war), with robustness using PRIO1000, PRIO25, DSCW, and FLCW definitions.
- Core explanatory variables: log real GDP per capita at period start (LGDPC), log population (LPOP), primary exports (PRIMEXP), mountains (MOUNTAINS), noncontiguous state (NONCONT), and democracy (DEMOCRACY); ethnic and religious fractionalization/polarization indices are added.
- Ethnic heterogeneity data primarily from the World Christian Encyclopedia; religious data from L’Etat des Religions dans le Monde and The Statesman’s Yearbook; robustness uses Alesina et al. (2003) and Atlas Narodov Mira data.
Limitations
- The paper states no formal limitations section. It notes that religious polarization’s statistical relevance depends on the particular specification, and that when Sub-Saharan African countries are eliminated and ethnic fractionalization is included, ethnic polarization becomes insignificant (coefficient 1.98, z=1.32).
- The paper also reports that ethnic polarization is only marginally significant using the Fearon and Laitin civil-war definition (coefficient 1.95, z=1.97).
- Evident from the text: the analysis is observational cross-country panel logit, so causal interpretation is limited; results may depend on group classification and data source, though the paper argues robustness across sources.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
50 Own result · 19 No basis given · 16 Own interpretation · 11 No full text of the sources · 6 Sources not found · 4 Not checked yet · 4 Own method · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In general the correlation between the index of fractionalization obtained using these alternative data sources is very high (over 0.8).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Montalvo and Reynal-Querol (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Alesina et al (2003) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.2 reports a correlation of 0.88 between the paper’s linguistic index and the Soviet index, supporting one instance of the claim. But the corresponding ethnic-index correlation is 0.76, and the paper says the religious index has much lower correlations, so it does not support the generalization that correlations exceed 0.8. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites Fearon (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The correlation with the index of Alesina et al. (2003) is 0.83.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Alesina et al. (2003) source
The Introduction (page unavailable) says Alesina et al. construct new fractionalization indices, so the citation correctly identifies the source of an index. The 0.83 correlation is presented as the citing paper’s comparison, not as a result attributed to Alesina et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The empirical section shows that this index of ethnic polarization is a signi cant variable in the explanation of the incidence of civil wars.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 3 · plain
“In the empirical section we show that the index of ethnic polarization is a signi cant explanatory variable for the incidence of civil wars.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · p. 3 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We develop a new measure of ethnic heterogeneity that satis es the basic properties associated with the concept of polarization.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The index of ethnic fractionalization calculated with our data has a correlation of 0.86 with the index obtained using the Atlas Nadorov Mira (ELF).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It shows that for low levels of fractionalization the correlation between ethnic fractionalization 20 and polarization is positive and high.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When we move from two groups to three groups the relationship between FRAC and Q breaks down.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Column 4 shows that religious fractionalization (RELFRAC) is not statistically signi cant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In column 7 we include together the index of ethnic polarization and religious polarization. Only the estimated coe¢ cient of the rst one is statistically signi cant.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However only three out of the ten countries with the highest level of religious fractionalization su/ered a civil war.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An increase in one standard deviation (0.24) of the average polarization increases the probability of con ict by 67%.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However if we substitute the index of ethnic fractionalization by the Q index of ethnic polarization, ETHPOL, we nd (column 2) a positive and statistically signi cant e/ect on the incidence of civil wars.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using the results in column 3, if the level of polarization increases from the average (0.51) to the level of Guinea (0.84) then the probability of con ict almost doubles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance in Nigeria there is a high level of religious polarization between Christians (49%) and Muslims (45%)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Q index satis es this condition.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this section we describe the alternative data sources for ethnic and religious heterogeneity and we show that the index of fractionalization and polarization are very di/erent independent of the source of data used in their calculation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast the sensitivity of the Q is the highest when groups are close to 50%.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“similar to the case of Bosnia (50% Christians and 40% Muslims).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, and in contrast with the polarization index of Esteban and Ray (1994), there is only one level of polarization sensitivity ( α = 1 ) for which the discrete polarization measure satis es the properties of polarization.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rst column shows that the index of ethnolinguistic fractionalization (ETHFRAC) has no statistically signi cant e/ect on the incidence of civil wars.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the same sample period civil wars occurred in 7 out of 10 countries with the highest level of religious polarization.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither is the coe¢ cient of religious polarization (RELPOL) in column 5.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition there is only one value of k ( k = 4 ) such that the index DP ranges between 0 and 1.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If all the groups have equal size the proportional contribution of each of the groups is equal to its relative size in both, fractionalization and polarization, that is c i = ˜ c i = π i .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Columns 5 and 6 show the robustness of ethnic polarization to eliminating from the sample the Latin American countries.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When we run the regression with the Q index of polarization calculated using the row data of the Atlas Nadorov Mira, we nd out that it has a positive e/ect (estimated coe¢ cient=2.35 and z=3.33) on the probability of civil wars”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally we should notice that using the data of Doyle and Sambanis (2000) and Fearon and Laitin (2003) the importance of initial level of democracy is much larger than using the dataset of PRIO.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In column 4 we can see that this variable has a coe¢ cient that is not signi cantly di/erent from 0.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance for intense civil wars (PRIO1000 de nition) the coe¢ cient on ethnic polarization calculated using the data of Alesina et al. (2003) is 1.95 (z=2.22).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while ethnic polarization continues to be signi cant even in the presence of this new variable (column 7).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In column 2 of table 2 we show that ethnic dominance (ETHDOM) does not have any signi cant”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Columns 3 and 4 show that the statistical signi cance of the coe¢ cient on ethnic polarization is robust to the use of the other two de nitions of PRIO.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact it is interesting to notice that the coe¢ cient that measures the e/ect of ethnic polarization on the probability of civil wars increases monotonically with the intensity of the con ict (2.05 including minor con icts; 2.28 for intermediate and high intensity con icts, and 2.33 for the most violent con icts).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If ethnic polarization is calculated using the ANM then its estimated coe¢ cient on the incidence of intense civil wars is 1.98 (z=2.63).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 6 shows that the index of ethnolinguistic polarization is signi cantly di/erent from zero with (column 1) or without including the regional dummy variables (column 2) 33 .”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Columns 1 shows that ethnic polarization is statistically signi cant when we use as dependent variable the de nition of civil wars of Doyle and Sambanis (2000).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, columns 7 and 8 con rm that the e/ect of ethnic polarization on civil wars is robust to the elimination from the sample of the Asian countries.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The result is robust to the use of di/erent dataset for civil wars like Doyle and Sambanis (2000), columns 3 and 4, or Fearon and Laitin (2003), columns 5 and 6.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which is not signi cant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both cases ethnic fractionalization is not statistically signi cant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we add also as explanatory variables the degree of ethnic fractionalization and religious fractionalization (column 8) only the coe¢ cient of ethnic polarization is signi cantly di/erent from 0.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Columns 6 to 9 show that the statistical signi cance of ethnic polarization in the explanation of civil wars is robust to the use of alternative datasets for the endogenous variable even if we do not consider the DEMOCRACY variable in the speci cation.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we eliminate those African countries and include in the regression the index of ethnic fractionalization, column 4, then the coe¢ cient on ethnic polarization is not signi cant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Column 5 shows that the results of table 1 are robust to the exclusion of the DEMOCRACY variable”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In column 5 we show that the index of polarization is signi cant even when the product of the largest ethnic group by primary exports is included as an explanatory variable.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The elimination from the sample of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, column 3, does not a/ect the statistical signi cance of ethnic polarization.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Column 6 shows that the coe¢ cient on this new variable is not statistically signi cant”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another interesting fact in columns 1 to 4 of table 4 is the robustness of the coe¢ cient of initial GDP per capita.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the index of fractionalization calculated with the same dataset is not statistically signi cant (estimated coe¢ cient=1.20 and z=1.41).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Column 2 shows that ethnic polarization is marginally statistically signi cant if we use the de nition of civil war of Fearon and Laitin (2003).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However many empirical studies nd no relationship between ethnic fractionalization 1 , ethnic con icts, and civil wars.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fearon and Laitin (2003) source
- Not matchedcites Collier and Hoeffler (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although ethnic fractionalization may be important for growth, we argue that the channel is not through an increase in potential ethnic con ict.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result is robust to the presence of other indicators of ethnic heterogeneity, alternative sources of data for the construction of the indicators, and alternative data for civil wars.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However the empirical evidence supporting the e/ect of ethnic fractionalization on the incidence of civil con icts is very weak.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fearon and Laitin (2003) source
- Not matchedcites Collier and Hoeffler (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the case of ethnic fractionalization only four out of the ten most fractionalized countries have su/ered a civil war.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The index of fractionalization has, at least, two theoretical justi cations based on completely di/erent contexts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Fearon and Laitin (2003) argue that income per capita is a proxy for state s overall nancial, administrative, police and military capabilities.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fearon and Laitin (2003) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We use periods of ve years for civil wars and the GDP per capita at the beginning of each period. This set up reduces also the potential endogeneity problem.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Figures 3 and 4 con rm that the previous results do not depend on the source of data used in the construction of the indices.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Esteban and Ray (1999) show, using a behavioral model and a quite general metric of preferences, that a two-point symmetric distribution of population maximizes con ict.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Esteban and Ray (1999) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that, conditional on a given degree of polarization, more religious diversity decreases the probability of a civil war.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition a low level of income per capita reduces the opportunity cost of engaging in a civil war.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fearon and Laitin (2003) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore the correlation is low when there is a high degree of heterogeneity, which is the interesting case.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this is so then an index of polarization should capture better the likelihood of con icts, or the intensity of potential con ict, than an index of fractionalization.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that one possible reason for the lack of explanatory power of ethnic heterogeneity on the probability of armed con icts and civil wars is the measure for heterogeneity.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A previous version of this paper 22 shows that nine out of the ten most ethnically polarized countries have su/ered a civil war during the sample period (1960-95).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [22] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As in the case of alternative data sources, the correlation of the index of ethnic fractionalization, using these distances , with the original ELF is very high, 0.82.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fearon (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore it seems that the weak explanatory power of ethnic heterogeneity on the incidence of civil wars found by several recent studies is due to the use of an index of fractionalization instead of an index of polarization.”
- Also stated in: § 7 Conclusions · p. 24 · hedged
“Therefore it seems that the weak explanatory power of ethnic heterogeneity on the incidence of civil wars found by several recent studies is due to the use of an index of fractionalization instead of an index of polarization.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 7 Conclusions · p. 24 · hedged
In the paper
“Collier and Hoe› er (1998) note coordination cost would be at their lowest when the population is polarized between an ethnic group identi ed with the government and a second, similarly sized ethnic group, identi ed with the rebels.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Collier and Hoeffler (1998)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However they also nd that an increase in ethnic polarization has an indirect negative e/ect on growth because it increases the incidence of civil wars and public consumption and reduces the rate of investment.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Montalvo and Reynal-Querol (2005) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that the measure of ethnic heterogeneity appropriate to capture potential con ict should be a polarization measure.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore it is unlikely that ethnic fractionalization a/ects economic development through an increase in the probability of con icts.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The previous section has shown that the relevance of ethnic polarization in the explanation of civil wars is robust to the presence of other indicators of ethnic heterogeneity like fractionalization, dominance or the product of the size of the largest group by the proportion of primary exports.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as we argued before, since ethnic fractionalization is not statistically signi cant it seems clear that its presence increases the standard error of the ethnic polarization estimated coe¢ cient.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The index of ethnic fractionalization is not able to capture this idea appropriately.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems that the relative weakness of the coe¢ cient of this variable in tables 1 and 2 is due to the de nition of civil war used (intermediate and high intensity types following PRIO).”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It seems clear that ethnic polarization has a robust and powerful explanatory power on civil wars in the presence of other indices of fractionalization and polarization”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the statistical relevance of religious polarization depends on the particular speci cation”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“In recent years many authors have found empirical evidence that ethnic fractionalization has a negative e/ect on growth.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Easterly and Levine 1997 source
- Supportedcites Alesina et al. 2003 source
The Introduction says the paper broadly confirms earlier findings of a negative effect of ethnic fragmentation on growth. Section 3 reports an inverse relationship between ethnic fractionalization and per-capita growth, while noting that the association vanishes after controlling for potential mediating variables. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites La Porta et al. 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the fractionalization index the size of each group has no e/ect on the weight of the probabilities of two individuals belonging to di/erent groups whereas in the Q index these probabilities are weighted by the relative size of each group.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless we should notice that only in 3,6% of the countries the number of groups is equal to two.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Column 3 checks the relative strength of the index of ethnic polarization versus fractionalization and shows that the coe¢ cient on ethnic fractionalization is not signi cantly di/erent from zero while the one on polarization is positive and signi cant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It shows a similar pattern: for low levels of religious fractionalization the correlation with polarization is positive. However for intermediate and high levels of religious fractionalization the correlation is zero.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Q index is precisely the index DP (1 , 4) 13 .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This implies a very high degree of polarization (0.96), and a low level of fractionalization (0.52).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Imagine now that we increase the size of one group by epsilon and decrease the size of another group by the same amount. Now the proportional contribution of the largest group in the index of fractionalization is smaller than its relative size, c i < π i , and the reverse happens for the smallest group.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is easy to show that the discrete Gini index (DG) calculated using a discrete metric is simply the index of fractionalization”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the index of polarization the result is the opposite: the proportional contribution of the largest group in the index of polarization is larger than its relative size, ˜ c i > π i , and the reverse happens to the smallest group.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We showed in the previous section that the index of fractionalization can be interpreted as a Gini index with a discrete metric (belong/do not belong to the group) instead of an Euclidean income distance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However for the medium range the correlation is zero and for high levels of fractionalization the correlation with polarization is negative.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Column 6 shows the basic logit regressions using both religious fractionalization and religious polarization. The coe¢ cient of the index of religious fractionalization (RELFRAC) is marginally insigni cant while the index of religious polarization (RELPOL) is statistically signi cant.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both cases the degree of religious fractionalization is low.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Q index captures the idea of a large majority versus a large minority as the worst possible situation since the index in this case is close to the maximum.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The Q index can be interpreted as the polarization measure of Esteban and Ray (1994) with a discrete metric.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Esteban and Ray (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Columns 1 and 2 show that ethnic polarization is statistically signi cant in the presence of regional dummies 31 , with and without the inclusion of ethnic fractionalization”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| RELPOL | | | | | 0.73 (1.00) | 3.90 (1.97) | 0.44 (0.65) | 3.29 (1.59) |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| ETHPOL | | 2.37 (2.97) | 2.28 (2.23) | | | | 2.27 (2.84) | 2.09 (2.03) |”
- Also stated in: § References · p. 32 · plain
“| ETHPOL | 2.31 (2.76) | 1.95 (1.97) | 2.33 (2.16) | 2.05 (2.41) | 2.31 (2.23) | 2.32 (2.74) | 2.11 (2.02) | 2.35 (2.12) | 2.13 (2.48) |”
- Also stated in: § References · p. 34 · plain
“| ETHPOL | 3.35 (2.46) | 3.42 (2.48) | 3.26 (2.37) | 3.53 (2.44) | 2.95 (2.15) | 3.27 (2.26) |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § References · p. 32 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| ETHFRAC | 1.19 (1.89) | | 0.17 (0.19) | | | | | 0.04 (0.05) |”
- Also stated in: § References · p. 32 · plain
“| ETHFRAC | -0.52 (0.65) | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.57 (0.62) | -0.06 (0.09) | 0.18 (0.20) | -0.73 (0.92) | -0.14 (0.15) | 0.57 (0.63) | -0.17 (0.23) |”
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § References · p. 32 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“opposite to what happens with the coe¢ cient of the index of fractionalization calculated using the same source (estimated coe¢ cient=1.27 and z=1.67).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When ethnic dominance is included with the Q index, column 3, its coe¢ cient is not signi cant while ethnic polarization continues being a signi cant explanatory variable on the probability of civil wars.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| RELFRAC | | | | 0.37 (0.36) | | -4.97 (1.65) | | -4.45 (1.39) |”
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Collier (2001) also emphasizes that the relationship between ethnic diversity and the risk of violent con icts is not monotonic. Highly heterogeneous societies have even a lower probability of civil wars than homogeneous societies. The highest risk is associated with the middle range of ethnic diversity. 8”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Collier (2001) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Horowitz (1985), which is the seminal reference on the issue of ethnic groups in con ict, argues that the relationship between ethnic diversity and civil wars is not monotonic: there is less violence in highly homogeneous and highly heterogeneous societies, and more con icts in societies where a large ethnic minority faces an ethnic majority.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Horowitz (1985)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Finally Fearon and Laitin (2003) indicate that a large population implies di¢ culties in controlling what goes on at the local level and increases the number of potential rebels that can be recruited by the insurgents.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fearon and Laitin (2003) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However their theoretical arguments, as they recognize explicitly, are based on polarized societies 4 not on highly fractionalized cases.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Easterly and Levine (1997) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fearon and Laitin (2003) and Collier and Hoe› er (2002) nd that neither ethnic fractionalization nor religious fractionalization have any statistically signi cant e/ect on the probability of civil wars.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fearon and Laitin (2003) source
- Not matchedcites Collier and Hoeffler (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Collier and Hoe› er (2002) consider that the size of the population is an additional proxy for the bene ts of a rebellion since it measures potential labor income taxation.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Collier and Hoeffler (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Collier and Hoe› er (2002) point out that the existence of natural resources provide an opportunity for rebellion since these resources can be used to nance the war and increases the payo/ if victory is achieved.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Collier and Hoeffler (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However the di/erence between ethnic polarization and fractionalization is both theoretical and actual.”
- Also stated in: § 7 Conclusions · p. 24 · boosted
“In this paper we have shown that the di/erence between ethnic polarization and fractionalization is both theoretical and actual.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 7 Conclusions · p. 24 · boosted
In the paper
“Notice also that Fearon (2003) points out that the index of fractionalization, being not sensitive to discontinuities, cannot capture important di/erences in ethnic structures. In particular the idea of majority rule is not well re ected by the index of fractionalization.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fearon (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argued before that a high number of di/erent groups increases the coordination problems and, therefore, given a level of polarization, the probability of civil wars may be smaller.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absolute z-statistics in parenthesis are calculated using standard errors adjusted for clustering.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In addition Montalvo and Reynal-Querol (2005) con rm that ethnolinguistic fractionalization has a direct negative e/ect on growth, probably due to its impact on the transmission of ideas.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Montalvo and Reynal-Querol (2005) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Civil wars are traumatic events that damage economic development.
“There is no doubt that civil wars are traumatic events that damage economic development.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 4.2 Are empirical polarization and fractionalization very di/erent? · p. 11
“Figure 3 shows the relationship between the index of ethnic fractionalization and ethnic polarization constructed using the data of Alesina et al. (2003).”
§ 4.2 Are empirical polarization and fractionalization very di/erent? · p. 14
“Figure 3: Ethnic fractionalization versus polarization. Source: Atlas Nadorov Mira.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 4.2 Are empirical polarization and fractionalization very di/erent? · p. 11
“Figure 4 shows ethnic fractionalization and polarization calculated using the data from the Atlas Nadorov Mira, the third basic source of data on ethnic diversity.”
§ 4.2 Are empirical polarization and fractionalization very di/erent? · p. 15
“Figure 4: Ethnic fractionalization versus polarization. Source: Alesina et al. (2003).”
Citations
Cites
Mauro, P. (1995) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2946696 · Cited by 8,820
Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War
FEARON, J. D., & LAITIN, D. D. (2003) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055403000534 · Cited by 7,366
(2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.7.i · Cited by 7,275
Greed and grievance in civil war
Collier, P. D. (2004) · Oxford Economic Papers · doi:10.1093/oep/gpf064 · Cited by 6,295
La Porta, R. (1999) · Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization · doi:10.1093/jleo/15.1.222 · Cited by 5,699
Africa's Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions
Easterly, W., & Levine, R. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355300555466 · Cited by 5,649 · cited 4×
“The index of ethnic 4 Easterly and Levine, 1997, pp. 1205, 1232, and 1241. fractionalization has a simple interpretation as the probability that two randomly selected individuals from a given country will not belong to the same ethnic group.5 Many authors have found, however, that even though…”
BackgroundInfluentialKuper, L., & Horowitz, D. L. (1986) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2069338 · Cited by 4,891
Mauro, P. (1995) · doi:10.1007/s12117-997-1097-9 · Cited by 4,683
Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S., & Wacziarg, R. (2003) · Journal of Economic Growth · doi:10.1023/a:1024471506938 · Cited by 3,432
On economic causes of civil war
Collier, P. D. (1998) · Oxford Economic Papers · doi:10.1093/oep/50.4.563 · Cited by 2,523 · cited 3×
“This result is consistent with Fearon and Laitin (2003) and Collier and Hoeffler (1998).”
BackgroundResult
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Barrett, David B., ed., World Christian encyclopedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
- Paxton John, New York: Macmillan, 1983, 1985
- Wolfson Michael C, 1994, American Economic Review, 84
Cited by
Sorted by citations
US Food Aid and Civil Conflict
Nunn, N., & Qian, N. (2014) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.104.6.1630 · Cited by 2,104
Ethnic Politics and Armed Conflict: A Configurational Analysis of a New Global Data Set
Wimmer, A., Cederman, L., & Min, B. (2009) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240907400208 · Cited by 1,059
McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764218759576 · Cited by 1,023
Inequality, Grievances, and Civil War
Cederman, L.-E., Gleditsch, K. S., & Buhaug, H. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139084161 · Cited by 978
Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis
Cederman, L.-E., Wimmer, A., & Min, B. (2010) · World Politics · doi:10.1017/s0043887109990219 · Cited by 1,346
Metadata
- Authors
- Montalvo, J. G., & Reynal-Querol, M.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
- The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433.
- ORCID
- Montalvo, José G
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2005-06-01
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 796-816
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1975264861
- Semantic Scholar
- d34e25710e0f59c77127215c237c4e3a5a19820b
- Cited by
- 1,386
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 89 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 79 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 61
- FWCI
- 145.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Development › Culture, Economy, and Development Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Natural Resources and Economic Development
- Keywords
- ethnic fractionalization, ethnic conflict, civil war, ethnic distance, ethnic diversity, economic growth, political instability, corruption, investment, ethnic classification
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-13, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-13 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
