The debate within neoclassical economics on the main sources of civil war has crystallised around a simple dichotomy between ‘greed’ and ‘grievance’. This chapter from a book published by the Open University argues that it is questionable whether the ‘greed versus grievance’ debate is useful as a means of understanding violent conflict. These terms are difficult to separate and, moreover, it is unlikely that there can be a clear ‘either/or’ explanation of the causes of war.
Studies on the causes of civil war have traditionally been carried out by political scientists and anthropologists. During the 1990s, however, mainstream economists came to dominate the debate and argued that economic factors were the main source of civil war and that the economic driver of civil war was the opportunity to exercise individual ‘greed’. This argument was in line with neoclassical assumptions that people’s behaviour is governed by rational choices that are made so as to maximise individual ‘utility’. Other economists – known as heterodox economists – challenged the mainstream orthodox neoclassical view and argued that economic grievances, rather than greed, were the driving force behind civil wars.
The entry of economists into the study of civil wars forced serious consideration of the economic motivations of civil war. Nevertheless, there is significant criticism of the neoclassical economic framework for explaining violent conflict:
- Orthodox economists had hoped that their methods would become more objective by employing sophisticated analytical and quantitative techniques to determine the roots of conflict and predict wars. However, rather than being objective, the choice of models and data sets became subjective.
- With no precise way of defining or measuring motives for civil war, orthodox economists were forced to use alternatives that could be measured, known as proxies. However, these proxies were a poor approximation of reality.
- The outcome of the orthodox theories and models did not fit with any detailed observation of reality. Furthermore, the neoclassical economic framework proved unable to predict wars.
The ‘greed versus grievance’ debate within neoclassical economics has helped to popularise the distinction as a way of organising the analysis of and policy responses to violent conflicts. However, the debate itself is based on a distinction that is conceptually misleading and undermines the usefulness of the concept. Caution should, therefore, be exercised to avoid an oversimplification of the primary causes of conflict.
- The concepts of ‘greed’ and ‘grievance’ are more difficult to separate than the debate acknowledges and it is not clear whether there can be a clear ‘either/or’ explanation of the principal motivation for civil conflict.
- The stark distinction between greed and grievance has proven unhelpful. Therefore, the future of this field of study lies in probing the porous borders between these categories.
- Quantitative studies are important but need to be carried out with considerable caution. In particular, there is a need for more interdisciplinary, detailed and historical case studies of the sources of individual wars.
- Interdisciplinary case studies should make use of political economy and economic analysis and should learn from the ideas and questions raised by orthodox economists, however, they should not become trapped by the neoclassical economic framework.
