Competing theories of the motivations for political violence

Document Sample
Competing theories of the motivations for political violence Powered By Docstoc
					Competing theories of
  the motivations for
    political violence
 Relative Deprivation Theory vs.
        Rational Revolutionaries
I. Introduction: Review, Week 1
l   Analytical case studies

l   Limitations of case studies
    l   Counterfactuals
    l   Value of Generalization
        l   Explaining other cases
        l   Informing policy
I. Introduction: Overview
Turning explanations into a broader theory
    l   Falsifiable/testable
    l   Clearer implications

l   II. Gurr: Relative Deprivation Theory
l   III. Lichbach: Rational Revolutionaries

l   IV. Evaluating competing theories: comparing
    implications
II. Gurr: “Why Men Rebel”:
Relative Deprivation
l   A synthesis of existing explanations,
    generalized to be empirically examined (and,
    if confirmed, applied).

l   1. Discontent is caused by perception of
    relative deprivation.
    l   “relative deprivation is a perceived discrepancy between men’s
        value expectations and their value capabilities.”
    l   Value expectations: what we deserve/should have
    l   Value capabilities: our means/opportunities
II. Relative Deprivation Theory
l   Q: What is the meaning of the term relative in
    “relative deprivation”?

l   2. Discontent is the spur to action (necessary
    condition).
    l   Violence is more likely if:
        l   Discrepancy is large; Discontent is intense
        l   State is perceived to be responsible
        l   Violence is appropriate (justifiable) and effective
II. Relative Deprivation Theory
l   Causes of the perception of RD:
    l   Rising expectations unmet
        l   Practically speaking, gains of other social groups
    l   Unwarranted decline in well-being
        l   Esp. economic decline or a reduction in rights
II. Relative Deprivation Theory
l   4. Importance of the scope of RD: collective
    violence requires collective perceptions of
    RD.

l   5. Insurgent or terrorist organizational
    strength increases violence.
    l   But depends primarily on extent of RD

l   6. State repression in RD theory
II. Understanding RD theory
l   Are the following motivations for political
    violence in Gurr’s theory?
      l   Poverty?
      l   Starvation?
      l   Torture?
      l   Equality before the law?
II. Understanding RD theory
l   More generally, does objective deprivation
    cause RD?

l   Is there any conflict between RD theory and
    l   Scott & Depression Rebellions?
    l   White & Joining the provisional IRA?
    l   Wood & support for the FMLN?
    l   Hinton & Cambodian Genocide?
II. Understanding RD theory
l   Are the following motivations for political
    violence in Gurr’s theory?
      l   Fear or expectations of future problems?
      l   Groups with incompatible goals?
      l   A leader violating a norm (moral/ethical rule)?
III. Lichbach: Rational
Revolutionaries
l   Claim 1: Grievances are neither a necessary
    nor a sufficient condition for political violence.

l   Theory: the logic of collective action.

l   Claim 2: selective incentives are a major
    motivation for participation in political
    violence.
    l   Incentives v. rights
III. Rational Revolutionaries
l   Evidence:
    l   Most common resistance…
    l   Most common type of collective action…
    l   When revolt occurs…
    l   Political awareness of insurgents
IV. Evaluating competing
theories
l   Competing theories typically provide alternative
    explanations of well known events, so how do we
    evaluate them?
        l   Problem of observational equivalence

l   Theoretical flaws
    l   Logical inconsistencies
    l   Incomplete
    l   Lack of precision: all behavior fits (not falsifiable)
l   Conflicting observable implications
l   Assumptions?
IV. Defining rational choice
l   Rational choice or strategic choice theories hold that
    people choose their actions in order to achieve their
    goals, given their beliefs about what strategies are
    effective.
    l   Goals and beliefs are taken as given, but are consistent.


l   RD is not a rational choice theory: aggression is a
    behavioral consequence of the perception RD.
    Aggression can produce counter-productive and
    illogical behavior.
IV. Evaluating RD and RR
l   If grievances motivate political violence, who
    should participate in political violence and
    when should violence occur?

l   If selective incentives motivate political
    violence, who should participate in political
    violence and when should violence occur?
IV. Evaluating RD and RR
l   Do RD theory and RR theory predict that the
    following “types” of people are more likely to
    participate in political violence:
    l   Unemployed
    l   Strong political views
    l   (Consider other groups on your own)
l   Other behaviors that do not fit?
IV. Evaluating RD and RR
l   Do RD theory and the RR theory predict
    political violence when countries have:
    l   Depressions/increasing poverty
    l   Lootable resources
    l   (consider others on your own)
IV. Evaluating RD and RR
l   Logically discriminating conditions:

    l   Absence of organizations providing selective
        incentives, but wide-spread grievances
        l   Gurr à some political violence (or groups emerge)
        l   Lichbach à no political violence
    l   Or, absence of wide-spread grievances, but
        strong organizations providing selective incentives
        l   Gurr à no political violence
        l   Lichbach à political violence
V. Next: a focus on terrorist
organizations
l   How do the next readings fit into this debate?
    l   Crenshaw “adjusts” the focus of
        rationalist/strategic theoretical tradition
    l   Abrams investigates implications of this move

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:7/24/2013
language:English
pages:19