Conditions for Peace and Conflict

• Date: 01 June 2015
• Published date: 01 June 2015
• Author: Judith M. Bretthauer
• DOI: 10.1177/0022002713516841
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Conditions for Peace

and Conflict: Applying a

Fuzzy-Set Qualitative

Comparative Analysis to

Cases of Resource Scarcity

Judith M. Bretthauer

1

Abstract

Thisstudy applies fuzzy-set QualitativeComparativeAnalysis (fsQCA) to thedebate on

linksbetween resourcescarcity and armed conflict.Previous studieson this relationship

have reachedcontradictory results.This study aims to solve this contradictionby argu-

ing that social,economic, and political conditionsplay an important role in determining

whether armed conflict erupts over resource scarcity. I test three theoretic hypoth-

eses, focusingon weak states, economicsituations of households,and human ingenuity.

I compare fifteen resource scarce cases with conflict to sixteen cases without armed

conflict.My analysis supports thehypothesis that the economicsituation of households

and the levels of human ingenuity matter. In particular, the impact of high dependence

on agricultureand low levelsof tertiary education on thelink between resource scarcity

and conflictis discussed. While employingan fsQCA proves a valuablestep in account-

ing for contradictoryresults, limits of the methods are apparent as well.

Keywords

resource scarcity, armed conflict, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA),

environmental change

1

Department of Political Science and Public Administration, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The

Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Judith M.Bretthauer, Department of PoliticalScience and Public Administration, VU UniversityAmsterdam,

De Boelelaan 1081, Amsterdam 1081 HV, Netherlands.

Email: j.m.bretthauer@vu.nl

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2015, Vol. 59(4) 593-616

ªThe Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022002713516841

jcr.sagepub.com

Since its inception in the late 1980s, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA; Ragin

1987) has been applied to a growing number of social science fields. While there are

some application in the field of conflict studies (e.g., Pinfari 2011; Van der Maat

2011), it has not yet become a common method. This article explores the usefulness

of QCA as a method by applying it to the issue of resource scarcity and its impact on

armed conflict.

While the idea that climate change and resource scarcity can lead to conflict has

become a widespread assumption in the media and policy circles, the picture drawn

by academic research is more blurry. There are strong theoretic arguments advan-

cing the link between resource scarcity and armed conflict, and this link is supported

by a number of empirical studies. However, empirical evidence rejecting this link

also exists. The aim of this study is to explain these contradictory results by focusing

on the economic, political, and social conditions within these countries. I argue that

the causal mechanisms that most empirical studies focus on only take place under

very specific conditions.

Resource Scarcity and Armed Conflict

The debate on the links between resource scarcity and armed conflict was shaped in

the 1990s by the research group around Thomas Homer-Dixon (1999) at the Univer-

sity of Toronto and the Environmental Change and Security Project at the Swiss

Peace Foundation (Ba¨chler 1998). Both research groups focused on exploring the

causal mechanisms between resource scarcity and armed conflict through in-depth

case studies. Their key argument has been put like this: ‘‘so great are the stresses

generated by too many people making too many demands on their natural-

resource stocks and their institutional support systems, that the pressures often create

first-rate breeding grounds for conflict’’ (Myers 1987, 16). Much focus of resource

scarcity theorists has been on the causal mechanisms that link resource scarcity to

armed conflict. The proposed strong link between resource scarcity and armed

conflict has drawn much criticism from political ecologists, neoclassical economists

and from a cornucopian perspective.

Political ecologists reject the strong causal link drawn by resource scarcity theor-

ists and argue that links between the environment and violent conflict are manifold

and complex and that taking economic and social structures and the local context

into account is paramount (e.g., Peluso and Watts 2001). In particular, the political

and social nature of the land (such as the entitlements to land, its distribution, and the

actors involved) play an important role in mediating human–nature interrelations.

The neo-Malthusian view of resource scarcity theorists is therefore criticized as

overly deterministic.

Neoclassical and Cornucopian scholars argue that conflicts over resources can be

prevented by overcoming scarcity.The basic neoclassical argumentstates that market

mechanisms mitigate scarcity through prices and substitution (Lomborg 2001, 148).

594 Journal of Conflict Resolution 59(4)