Civil War Onset and the 'Third Debate': a Positivist versus Post-Positivist Approach
According to Yosef Lapid (1989: 236), International Relations, by the end of the 1980’s was “in the midst of a third discipline-defining debate”, between positivism and post-positivism. Scholars studying the phenomenon of civil war and its causes seem to have been largely exempt from this debate. There are two discernible reasons for this. First, the study of civil war has long been marginalized by the dominant theoretical paradigm of Realism within security studies, which does not concern itself with war, within the intrastate system. This is surprising, since from the start of the millennium, intrastate conflict has been far more prevalent than interstate conflict. Second, within the academic field of civil war onset, which this paper focuses on specifically, the theoretical approach is primarily positivist. Most literature on the subject of civil war, focuses around the so called ‘greed-grievance debate, and though the latter does usually focus on identity, it remains essentially positivist. This however, does not mean that the ‘Third Debate’ does not apply to the academic field of civil war onset as this paper will show.
This paper analyses two journal articles, one positivist: Greed and Grievance in Civil War (2004) by Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler, and one post-positivist: The Construction of Grievance: Natural Resources and Identity in a Separatist Conflict (2007) by Edward Aspinall. Using these articles, this paper will compare and evaluate their research approaches, their worth and effectiveness in addressing the subject and research question and their contribution to knowledge. Finally this paper will give some recommendations as to future areas of inquiry.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH APPROACHES
IR THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND PARALLELS
ONTOLOGY, EPISTEMOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY
AGENCY AND STRUCTURE
MISSING VARIABLES, EFFECTIVENESS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
ONE METHODOLOGY’S WEAKNESS IS ANOTHER METHODOLOGY’S STRENGTH
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to compare and evaluate two distinct research approaches within the study of civil war onset—a positivist econometric model and a post-positivist constructivist case study—to determine their effectiveness, contribution to knowledge, and policy implications.
- The divergence between positivist and post-positivist methodologies in civil war research.
- Application of IR theoretical assumptions, including neo-realism versus social constructivism.
- The agent-structure problem and its relevance to understanding rebel organizations.
- Evaluation of "greed" versus "grievance" as explanatory variables in conflict.
- Policy implications for conflict prevention and the necessity of methodological cooperation.
Excerpt from the Book
Agency and Structure
Within the study of International Relations the levels of analysis and agent-structure problems are two closely related, albeit separate, problems. Since both articles analysed in this paper are completely unconcerned with the interstate system, the levels of analysis problem is not very relevant, hence this sub-section will focus solely on agency and structure. Wendt (1992: 181-182) argues that the neo-realist approach to systemic causation is similar to that of micro-economists in that it draws on behaviouralism. The key actors, states, are constricted to act a certain way as a result of a competitive, self-help system which rewards and punishes those actors that relatively choose to either engage or refrain from power politics. The system does not form states’ identities or preferences, instead they are presumed to be pre-determined as ‘self-interested’. Wendt draws an parallel between economist theory which is relevant to the Collier and Hoeffler article, namely that “preferences are exogenously given and behaviour is shaped by incentives in the environment” (ibid 1992: 182), which he refers to as ‘situational determinism’. Thus the systemic causal powers of anarchy are in fact a function of the predetermination of states’ identities and interests as rational egoists (ibid: 182).
With regards to the C&H thesis I argue that the international system neo-realists focus on parallels the intrastate system. Similarly, instead of the state being the key actor the focus is on “identifiable rebel organizations” (Collier & Hoeffler 2004: 565). Although anarchy is not a characteristic of the intrastate system (except maybe in failed states), many parallels can be drawn with regards to ‘situational determinism’. Similarly to neo-realism, it is evident from the C&H thesis that the identity and interests of the agent are pre-determined as self-interested. The interests of individuals to choose appropriation over production (choose to rebel) is determined by the incentives and constraints that the intrastate system presents.
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: Establishes the context of the 'Third Debate' in International Relations and introduces the two articles under analysis by Collier & Hoeffler and Aspinall.
RESEARCH APPROACHES: Compares the theoretical foundations, methodologies, and agent-structure assumptions of the selected positivist and post-positivist papers.
MISSING VARIABLES, EFFECTIVENESS, CONTRIBUTIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH: Evaluates the limitations of each study, proposes how they might complement one another, and discusses their practical relevance to policy.
Keywords
Civil War, Third Debate, Positivism, Post-positivism, Constructivism, Neorealism, Greed and Grievance, Agency and Structure, Natural Resources, Conflict Prevention, Methodology, Epistemology, Identity, Aceh, Rational Choice.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper examines the methodological divide in civil war research by comparing a positivist study (Collier & Hoeffler) with a post-positivist study (Aspinall) to assess their analytical value.
What are the central themes discussed in the analysis?
Key themes include the comparison of IR theoretical assumptions, the role of natural resources in conflict, the social construction of identity, and the agent-structure problem.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to evaluate how different methodological approaches address the causes of civil war and to determine which approach contributes more effectively to policy formation and knowledge.
Which scientific methods are primarily analyzed?
The paper evaluates quantitative, econometric logit regression analysis versus qualitative, constructivist case study methods.
What does the main body of the text cover?
It provides an in-depth critique of the ontological, epistemological, and structural assumptions used in the two articles, and discusses the implications of their missing variables.
Which keywords define this research?
Prominent keywords include Civil War, Positivism, Constructivism, Greed, Grievance, and Methodological Cooperation.
How does the paper relate to the 'Third Debate' in IR?
It uses the 'Third Debate'—the conflict between positivism and post-positivism—as a framework to show that the study of civil war should not remain exempt from this essential disciplinary discourse.
What is the significance of the Aceh case study in this analysis?
The Aceh case is used to demonstrate how Aspinall’s post-positivist approach offers different insights into the role of natural resources compared to the broader, quantitative approach used by Collier & Hoeffler.
Why does the author argue for a combination of methodologies?
The author concludes that while quantitative models are useful for uncovering broad patterns, qualitative case studies are necessary for understanding the specific regional contexts that drive conflict.
What is the final recommendation of the author?
The author advocates for closer cooperation between academics using different methodologies, as integrating insights from both paradigms can lead to more effective policy outcomes for conflict prevention.
- Citation du texte
- Bachelor International Relations (Hons) Ralph Myers (Auteur), 2010, Civil War Onset and the 'Third Debate', Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/159122
