This Article Full Text (PDF) Dataset References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (10) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lacina, B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Explaining the Severity of Civil Wars

Political Science Department, Stanford University

The burgeoning literature on civil conflicts seldom considers why some civil wars are so much deadlier than others. This article investigates that question using a new data set of the number of combat deaths in internal conflicts from 1946 to 2002. The first section presents descriptive statistics on battle deaths by era, conflict type, and region. The article then tests state strength, regime type, and cultural characteristics as predictors of the number of combat deaths in civil war. The determinants of conflict severity seem to be quite different from those for conflict onset. Democracy, rather than economic development or state military strength, is most strongly correlated with fewer deaths; wars have also been less deadly on average since the end of the cold war. Religious heterogeneity does not explain the military severity of internal violence, and surprisingly, ethnic homogeneity may be related to more deadly conflicts.

Key Words: civil war • battle deaths • democracy • state strength • ethnic violence

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 50, No. 2, 276-289 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002705284828


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Melander, M. Oberg, and J. Hall Are 'New Wars' More Atrocious? Battle Severity, Civilians Killed and Forced Migration Before and After the End of the Cold War European Journal of International Relations, September 1, 2009; 15(3): 505 - 536. [Abstract] [PDF]

				I. Sanchez-Cuenca Revolutionary Dreams and Terrorist Violence in the Developed World: Explaining Country Variation Journal of Peace Research, September 1, 2009; 46(5): 687 - 706. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Fjelde and I. De Soysa Coercion, Co-optation, or Cooperation?: State Capacity and the Risk of Civil War, 1961--2004 Conflict Management and Peace Science, February 1, 2009; 26(1): 5 - 25. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Lujala Deadly Combat over Natural Resources: Gems, Petroleum, Drugs, and the Severity of Armed Civil Conflict Journal of Conflict Resolution, February 1, 2009; 53(1): 50 - 71. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Edward Flores and I. Nooruddin Democracy under the Gun Understanding Postconflict Economic Recovery Journal of Conflict Resolution, February 1, 2009; 53(1): 3 - 29. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Hegre Gravitating toward War: Preponderance May Pacify, but Power Kills Journal of Conflict Resolution, August 1, 2008; 52(4): 566 - 589. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Lambach and D. Gamberger Temporal Analysis of Political Instability through Descriptive Subgroup Discovery Conflict Management and Peace Science, February 1, 2008; 25(1): 19 - 32. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Clauset, M. Young, and K. S. Gleditsch On the Frequency of Severe Terrorist Events Journal of Conflict Resolution, February 1, 2007; 51(1): 58 - 87. [Abstract] [PDF]