Peace in cities, peace through cities? Theorising and exploring geographies of peace in violently contested cities

This special issue explores geographies of peace in violently con-tested cities – cities where the socio-political order is contested by actors who use violence and repression to either challenge or reinforce the prevailing distribution of power and political, economic, and social control. The articles within the special issue theorise and explore where, when, how, and why urban conflicts manifest themselves in the context of contested cities. Together, they also uncover strategies and mechanisms that can break dynamics of violence and repression, lead to urban coexistence, and generate peaceful relations in cities, grounding their analyses in rich case studies of different violently contested cities. The special issue thereby advances the research front on violently contested cities by studying their previously underexplored constructive potential. Bringing together different disciplinary perspectives, the special issue speaks to broader issues of conflicted and conflict- driven urbanisation, political violence in cities, and wider processes of urban change

Peace and Politics : Promoting durable solutions to communal conflicts

The report summarizes the findings of the author's PhD dissertation Central Politics and Local Peacemaking (2017), with a particular emphasis on policy relevant omplications. The report is available for download at www.eba.se.</p

The Political Conditions for Local Peacemaking : A Comparative Study of Communal Conflict Resolution in Kenya

How does government bias affect prospects for peace agreements in communal conflicts? Government bias has been shown to have a strong impact on the incidence and dynamics of localized ethnic conflict, but the way that it affects conflict resolution remains underexplored. I argue that government bias makes the conflict parties less likely to overcome the commitment problem, because they cannot trust the government’s willingness to guarantee or uphold any agreement they reach. Consequently, bias reduces the chances that the parties are able to reach a peace agreement. A systematic comparison of four cases in Kenya provides support for this argument. I also distinguish between bias related to strategic interest and bias related to relationships, and find that the former is more durable, whereas the latter is more likely to be influenced by political turnover, thereby opening up possibilities for peacemaking

Cities and armed conflict : A systematic urban-rural coding of UCDP conflict events data

This data article provides a descriptive overview of the Cities and Armed Conflict Events (CACE) dataset and the data collection methods. The dataset provides a systematic coding of armed conflict events taking place in cities and outside cities across the globe. It constitutes an extension of the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) Georeferenced Events Dataset (GED) version 18.1 and covers 1989–2017. To identify which events of armed conflict took place in cities, the data was manually matched to to data from the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). The dataset enables systematic analysis of urban-rural patterns in armed conflict, as illustrated by Elfversson &amp; Höglund [1]. While existing methods for analysing such patterns frequently rely on matching conflict data to spatial grids combined with population density, the data presented here with higher validity captures whether violent events take place in cities

Central Politics and Local Peacemaking : The Conditions for Peace after Communal Conflict

Under what conditions can peace be established after violent communal conflict? This question has received limited research attention to date, despite the fact that communal conflicts kill thousands of people each year and often severely disrupt local livelihoods. This dissertation analyzes how political dynamics affect prospects for peace after communal conflict. It does so by studying the role of the central government, local state and non-state actors, and the interactions between these actors and the communal groups that are engaged in armed conflict. A particular focus is on the role of political bias, in the sense that central government actors have ties to one side in the conflict or strategic interests in the conflict issue. The central claim is that political bias shapes government strategies in the face of conflict, and influences the conflict parties’ strategic calculations and ability to overcome mistrust and engage in conflict resolution. To assess these arguments, the dissertation strategically employs different research methods to develop and test theoretical arguments in four individual essays. Two of the essays rely on novel data to undertake the first cross-national large-N studies of government intervention in communal conflict and how it affects the risk of conflict recurrence. Essay I finds that conflicts that are located in an economically important area, revolve around land and authority, or involve groups with ethnic ties to central rulers are more likely to prompt military intervention by the government. Essay II finds that ethnic ties, in turn, condition the impact that government intervention has on the risk of conflict recurrence. The other two essays are based on systematic analysis of qualitative sources, including unique and extensive interview material collected during several field trips to Kenya. Essay III finds that government bias makes it more difficult for the conflict parties to resolve their conflict through peace agreements. Essay IV finds that by engaging in governance roles otherwise associated with the state, non-state actors can become successful local peacemakers. Taken together, the essays make important contributions by developing, assessing and refining theories concerning the prospects for communal conflict resolution

Providing security or protecting interests? : Government interventions in violent communal conflicts in Africa

What factors drive governments’ decisions to intervene in local conflicts within their borders? Communal conflict – that is, organized violence between non-state groups that are mobilized along a shared communal identity – kills thousands each year and severely impacts local livelihoods, at times threatening to spread and affect entire regions. Given the state’s assumed monopoly over the legitimate use of force, we should expect the concerned governments to be critical actors of the overall effort to restore peace in cases of local communal conflict, but empirical evidence indicates that central states tend to only intervene in some cases but not in others. This phenomenon has so far been understudied and the variations in states’ efforts to manage these conflicts remain unexplained. This article presents the first quantitative study of state intervention in communal conflicts. Building on existing scholarly work, I argue that state intervention is explained by a combination of strategic interests and state capacity, and that interests related to ethnic constituencies and land control play an important part in explaining governments’ strategies. These propositions find support in a statistical analysis covering sub-Saharan Africa from 1989 to 2010

Urban growth, resilience, and violence

Cities undergoing rapid growth are at risk of outbreaks of violence as competition over scarce resources and space intensifies. In this context, it is critical to identify conditions that make cities and their inhabitants resilient to violence. We review research findings about the general relationship between urban growth and the violence-proneness of cities, as well as insights about the factors that underpin violence–resilience in three different areas: 1) urban governance and planning, 2) security institutions, and 3) the everyday practices of urban dwellers. We argue that in order to understand cities’ resilience to violence, we need to account for both the mechanisms linking urban growth to violence, and the possible conflict resolution and mitigation mechanisms present in cities