We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

Unequal we fight : between- and within-group inequality and ethnic civil war.

Kuhn, Patrick M. and Weidmann, Nils B. (2015) 'Unequal we fight : between- and within-group inequality and ethnic civil war.', Political science research and methods., 3 (03). pp. 543-568.


When and why ethnic groups rebel remains a central puzzle in the civil war literature. In this paper, we examine how different types of inequalities affect both an ethnic group’s willingness and opportunity to fight. We argue that political and economic inter-group inequalities motivate ethnic groups to initiate a fight against the state, and that intra-group economic inequality lowers their elite’s costs of providing the necessary material and/or purposive incentives to overcome collective action problems inherent to rebel recruitment. We therefore predict that internally unequal ethnic groups excluded from power and/or significantly richer or poorer relative to the country’s average are most likely to engage in a civil war. To assess our claim empirically, we develop a new global measure of economic inequality by combining high-resolution satellite images of light emissions, spatial population data, and geocoded ethnic settlement areas. After validating our measure at the country- and group level, we include it in a standard statistical model of civil war onset and find considerable support for our theoretical prediction: greater economic inequality within an ethnic group significantly increases the risk of conflict, especially if political or economic inequalities between groups provide a motive.

Item Type:Article
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:© Copyright The European Political Science Association 2015. This paper has been published in a revised form, subsequent to editorial input by Cambridge University Press in 'Political Science Research and Methods' (3(03): pp 543-568)
Date accepted:20 February 2015
Date deposited:11 May 2015
Date of first online publication:10 April 2015
Date first made open access:No date available

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar