 |
Fear and Loathing: Authoritarian Politics and Ethnic Conflict
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
Fear and Loathing:
Authoritarian Politics and Ethnic Conflict
Paper presented for presentation of the Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1-4,
2005.
Nearly half the world’s states are governed by authoritarian regimes and in 1995 there were over 70 ethnic groups in conflict in such polities. This paper aims to develop a theoretical foundation and statistical relationship between Barbara Geddes’ different authoritarian regimes, and ethnic group conflict or rebellion. We hypothesize that the structure and nature of these regimes will affect levels of communal conflict and ethnic group rebellion: single party regimes should be least vulnerable; military regimes are most likely a ‘mixed bag’; and ‘personalist’ leaders should be most susceptible. Our multivariate regressions at state and group levels, using additional variables from Minorities At Risk dataset, indicate military regimes are the most likely to experience ethnic conflict. Our hypotheses and theory are largely incorrect. To take this research further, we need to clarify why military regimes in particular are more prone to ethnic conflict. Some exploratory case study work and incorporating more variables, like repression and of group concentration, might improve the explanatory power.
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fear and Loathing:
Authoritarian Politics and Ethnic Conflict
Paper presented for presentation of the Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1-4,
2005.
Nearly half the world’s states are governed by authoritarian regimes and in 1995 there
were over 70 ethnic groups in conflict in such polities. This paper aims to develop a
theoretical foundation and statistical relationship between Barbara Geddes’ different
authoritarian regimes, and ethnic group conflict or rebellion. We hypothesize that the
structure and nature of these regimes will affect levels of communal conflict and ethnic
group rebellion: single party regimes should be least vulnerable; military regimes are
most likely a ‘mixed bag’; and ‘personalist’ leaders should be most susceptible. Our
multivariate regressions at state and group levels, using additional variables from
Minorities At Risk dataset, indicate military regimes are the most likely to experience
ethnic conflict. Our hypotheses and theory are largely incorrect. To take this research
further, we need to clarify why military regimes in particular are more prone to ethnic
conflict. Some exploratory case study work and incorporating more variables, like
repression and of group concentration, might improve the explanatory power.
|
|
 Convention | | Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 13 
