When a country is mired in poverty, violent revolution is the most emotionally appealing remedy. So cinematic. Since the powers that be almost never agree, any call for violent revolution is, in practice, a call for civil war. But how well does the “remedy” of civil war actually work? So far, the very best treatment I’ve found is contained within Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion:
Civil war is development in reverse. It damages both the country itself and its neighbors. Let’s start with the country itself. Civil war tends to reduce growth by around 2.3% per year, so the typical seven-year war leaves a country around 15 percent poorer than it would have been…
Both economic losses and disease are highly persistent: they do not stop once the fighting stops. Most of the costs of civil war, perhaps as much as half, accrue after the war is over. Of course, sometimes the rebellion is worth it, with rebel victories ushering in an age of social justice, but this does not happen often. Usually the political legacy is about as bad as the economic legacy – a deterioration in political rights. A rebellion is an extremely unreliable way of bringing about positive change. Rebel leaders who claim to have launched a civil war for the good of their country are usually deceiving themselves, others, or both.
Furthermore, civil war breeds civil war:
Civil wars are highly persistent. The average international war, which is nasty enough, lasts about six months. You can do a lot of damage in six months. But the average civil war lasts more than ten times as long, even longer if you start off poor…
Having looked at why civil wars started and how long they lasted, we then looked at what happened when they were over. As previously noted, the end of a war often is not the end of the conflict; once over, a conflict is alarmingly likely to restart. Furthermore, the experience of having been through a civil war roughly doubles the risk of another conflict. Only around half of the countries in which a conflict has ended manage to make it through a decade without relapsing into war.
Along the way, Collier also heaps amusing scorn on the Third World’s indigenous war-mongers and their credulous First World apologists:
Our work has proved controversial. In part this is because the people attracted to the academic study of conflict tend to be politically engaged and are sympathetic to the acute grievances enunciated by various rebel movements, who often adopt extreme measures to oppose governments that may indeed be unsavory. To such academics, the whole idea of investigating statistically whether there is a relationship between objective measures of grievance and a propensity to rebel is taken to be more or less an insult, since they know there is one.
And:
[T]he rebel groups generate a discourse of grievance that feeds these concerns, in effect inviting fellow travelers to imagine themselves wearing bandoliers on the barricades. Unfortunately, you simply can’t trust the rebel discourse of concern for social justice; what else do you expect them to say?
A calm look at the data shows that this skepticism is well-justified:
Genuine grievances should be addressed whether or not they provoke rebellion, yet all too often they are not redressed. But the sad reality seems to be that grievances are pretty common. Rebels usually have something to complain about, and if they don’t they make it up. All too often the really disadvantaged are in no position to rebel; they just suffer quietly.
Peace lacks the romance of war, just as appeasement lacks the romance of rebellion. Yet if you really want desperate countries to escape poverty, you should hew to the path of peace. If appeasement is the price of peace, you should probably pay it. Civil war is a viable – though high-risk – strategy for power-hungry leaders. For countries, however, it is a path to wretched ruin.
READER COMMENTS
Mark Z
May 29 2019 at 7:01pm
Collier’s conclusion seems to me almost obvious. Think of the places where revolutionaries (and their western cheerleaders) succeeded in cultivating military resistance in Latin America. Looking at the list of countries, it’s hard not to notice a trend: countries where there was rebellion (sometimes successful rebellion, e.g. Nicaragua) against the much maligned American-allied governments usually run by wealthy elites tend to be poorer, more violent, and more authoritarian today. Countries that took the other path – including even those that went along with American-supported, overtly plutocratic governments instead of going to war with them – tend to be among the wealthier and more democratic countries of Latin America. Even if we accepted Chomsky’s ridiculous characterization of the 20th century conflicts in Latin America, we’d still reach the conclusion that military revolt against bad regimes is usually counterproductive even for the purported goals of the revolutionaries.
The same is clearly true of Palestine. Right or wrong, encouraging or enabling violent resistance against Israel is gravely irresponsible at best. It accomplishes nothing but perhaps some ephemeral catharsis (and I’d probably say much the same thing regarding most Israeli strikes on the West Bank or Gaza). I am not remotely a pacifist, but it would simply be the most pragmatic option to adopt a Gandhiesque approach. Fighting had proven to be futile at best.
Mark
May 30 2019 at 12:24am
Yes, war is on average very bad for poor countries, often even worse than authoritarianism. This should be a lesson not only for third-world warmongers, but also first-world interventionists.
Matthias Görgens
May 30 2019 at 6:38am
Why does this remind me of the American founding fathers? (See also the econtalk episode about Presidential Greatness.)
Philo
May 30 2019 at 12:03pm
And it reminds us of the leaders of the Confederacy. But it takes two to tango. It’s too bad the Confederates seceded; by the same token, when they did it’s too bad the rest of the country didn’t let them go.
Comments are closed.