State-building, war and violence : evidence from Latin America

In European history, war has played a major role in state‐building and the state monopoly on violence. But war is a very specific form of organized political violence, and it is decreasing on a global scale. Other patterns of armed violence now dominate, ones that seem to undermine state‐building, thus preventing the replication of European experiences. As a consequence, the main focus of the current state‐building debate is on fragility and a lack of violence control inside these states. Evidence from Latin American history shows that the specific patterns of the termination of both war and violence are more important than the specific patterns of their organization. Hence these patterns can be conceptualized as a critical juncture for state‐building. While military victories in war, the subordination of competing armed actors and the prosecution of perpetrators are conducive for state‐building, negotiated settlements, coexistence, and impunity produce instability due to competing patterns of authority, legitimacy, and social cohesion

Conflict Prevention Through Natural Resource Management? A Comparative Study

Natural resources are often held responsible for intrastate conflicts. As a consequence, both national and international measures to avoid the detrimental impact of resource endowments have increasingly been discussed and implemented in resource-rich countries. These measures include stabilization funds, subregional development programs, revenue-sharing regimes, and transparency initiatives. However, comparative empirical studies of the actual impact of these measures, particularly regarding their contribution to conflict prevention, are scarce. This paper contributes to the filling of this gap: combining a medium-N sample of oildependent countries and three in-depth case studies (Algeria, Nigeria, and Venezuela), we evaluate different instruments of resource management and their effects on conflict risk factors. On the one hand, the findings do not show any systematic connection between the countermeasures and a reduction in resource-related risks; on the other, the paper highlights common causal factors for the lack of implementation of resource-related countermeasures.Natürliche Ressourcen gelten als häufige Ursache für innerstaatliche Konflikte. Seit einigen Jahren werden daher Gegenmaßnahmen zur Vermeidung des 'Ressourcenfluchs' verstärkt diskutiert und teilweise bereits umgesetzt. Zu diesen Maßnahmen zählen Stabilisierungsfonds, regionale Entwicklungsprogramme, feste Verteilungsmechanismen für Ressourcenerlöse sowie nationale und internationale Antikorruptions- und Transparenzinitiativen. Bislang liegen jedoch wenige vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Wirkung dieser Maßnahmen hinsichtlich einer Konfliktvermeidung oder -verringerung vor. Mit diesem Arbeitspapier soll dazu beigetragen werden, diese Lücke zu schließen. Anhand von 31 Erdölexporteuren und von drei Fallstudien (Algerien, Nigeria und Venezuela) wird untersucht, welche Gegenmaßnahmen in rohstoffabhängigen Ländern bisher umgesetzt wurden und inwieweit dies einen Einfluss auf ressourcenbezogene Konfliktrisiken hatte. Zwar ist mittels empirischer Analyse kein systematisch positiver Zusammenhang zwischen Gegenmaßnahmen und einer Verminderung dieser Konfliktrisiken festzustellen, jedoch werden gemeinsame Erklärungsfaktoren für eine mangelhafte Implementierung der Gegenmaßnahmen herausgearbeitet