Governance, Development and Conflict: Volume 18

In the past three decades there has been spectacular development in the area of Peace Studies and Peace Science. Peace Studies that takes a more descriptive and case-oriented approach is becoming more quantitative. Peace Science has a theoretical and mathematical orientation. However, in those fields, governance of the political, social, and economic organizations has not been given adequate emphasis. Peace depends on the nature of political and administrative structure of a country. It is often said that democratic countries do not fight. Ethnic crisis and civil war in Africa and elsewhere are very much related to lack of institutions, leadership, decentralization of decision making, gender discrimination, abuse of human justice, and so on.

When violent conflicts erupt, there is almost always a fairly obvious proximal cause – a border has been crossed, an edict has been issued, a critical asset has been seized, and a political leader has been assassinated or has refused to yield to a powerful rival. Yet beneath this obvious cause, there are deeper, less obvious issues, underlying causes that have led to the buildup of discontent and the subsequent explosion of violence. It is certainly important to develop mechanisms and processes for short-circuiting the proximal causes of violent conflict. But in the long run, it is even more important to understand and address the underlying reasons that determine whether or not the conflicts that inevitably arise in a species as contentious as ours erupt into violence. For that allows us to develop ways of changing the context surrounding conflicts to create a world in which the eruptions of mass organized violence that we call war become more and more rare.

Capitalist peace theory asserts that economic freedom or capitalism, contract-intensity, trade, foreign investment, financial openness, or the avoidance of state property ownership promote peace. But the capitalist peace also includes the democratic peace. If democracy itself is an effect of economic freedom or the prosperity generated by it, then the democratic peace is no more than a mere component of the capitalist peace. Then capitalism and economic interdependence promote peace by two or even three routes, directly and indirectly, through democracy and, possibly, by common memberships in intergovernmental organizations, too. Admittedly, this argument relies on compiling lots of diverse pieces of evidence, some of which are still debated in the scientific community. The idea that capitalism might be more important as well as more beneficial for peace than democracy rests on two reasons. First, without capitalism or the prosperity it promotes, democracy might no longer be viable. Under capitalism, nations may enjoy prosperity and peace together. Better still, poor nations benefit from the existence of more advanced ones that are sources of technology, models for emulation, and markets for labor-intensive products. Second, democratic peace theory has invited the dangerous idea that one might or even should promote democracy by war. The consequences of the financial crisis of 2008 and the political responses to it, however, threaten to undermine globalization. That is why the capitalist peace faces an uncertain future at a time when we need it. The rapid economic rise of Asia, in particular of China and somewhat later probably of India to great power status, is likely to undermine the global pecking order and to imply some power transitions. In the past, power transitions have been related to increased risks of war. That is why we need a capitalist peace between China and the West.

This chapter aims to investigate the driving forces in the creation of knowledge and in the process of innovation and the relevance of the governance model with respect to the free market model or the government model in the regulation of the knowledge and innovation networks.

According to a cognitive approach, a conflict is the result of a closer spatial distance between two actors or firms, leading to a contact stimulus and a reciprocal stimulus, which is perceived as a threat for the respective security or identity. This occurs when the two considered parties are characterised by a too large cognitive distance or a too different mindset or culture, which hinders collaboration.

This chapter highlights that the fragmentation of a modern knowledge economy and the pervasive conflicts between various interest groups, conflicts of interests in the roles of the same actors, bottlenecks, rents and income and power disparity in society require a new form of regulation, that is, multi-level governance and new instruments in innovation policies.

The governance or partnership model is based on the principles of negotiation, exchange and consensus, which are different from the principle of authority as in the planning model and from the principle of competition and survival of the fittest as in the free market model. Governance is an approach to the industrial policy that is more suitable to steer or manage a modern capitalist system and the knowledge and innovation networks that characterise this system.

Several developing economies witnessed a large number of systemic financial and currency crises since the 1980s that resulted in severe economic, social, and political problems. The devastating impact of the 1982 and 1994–1995 Mexican crises, the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis, the 1998 Russian crisis, and the ongoing financial crisis of 2008–2009 suggests that maintaining financial sector stability through reduction in vulnerability is highly crucial. The world is now witnessing an unprecedented systemic financial crisis originated from the USA in September 2008 together with a deep worldwide economic recession, particularly in developed countries of Europe and North America. This calls for devising and using on a regular basis an appropriate and effective monitoring and policy formulation system for detecting and addressing vulnerabilities leading to crisis. This chapter proposes a macroprudential/financial soundness monitoring, analysis, and remedial policy formulation system that can be used by most developing countries with or without crisis experience as well as with limited data. It also discusses a process for identifying and compiling a set of leading macroprudential/financial soundness indicators. An empirical illustration using Philippines data is presented. There is an urgent need for increased coordination, collaboration, and partnership among central banks, banking and financial market supervision agencies, and ministries of finance, economic, and planning for proper macroprudential monitoring. A high-level national financial stability committee under the auspices of the head of the state as well as a ‘‘regional financial stability board’’ needs to be established to complement and support the activities of an “international stability board.”

This study attempts to formulate a conceptual and operational model that encapsulates the highlights of scientific sustainability research and that identifies the critical success factors of sustainable development from the perspective of different stakeholder groups. It seeks to identify viable consensus pathways in sustainable development strategies that are marked by conflicts among different stakeholders. To do so, this study focuses on three case studies that are part of the EU project SMILE, its way of sustainability thinking, and its stakeholders to encapsulate different sustainability approaches and different needs for sustainable development. To identify critical success/failure factors in the search for sustainable development at the interface of economic, environmental, and social factors, we use interview results, first, to compose case study–specific pentagon models. These models offer a systematic framework for sustainability and, in general, distinguish between five key forces, that is, software (e.g., knowledge), hardware (e.g., research facilities), finware (e.g., financial support), ecoware (e.g., environmental amenities), and orgware (e.g., institutional support systems). In a second step, we use both the questionnaire results and a multi-criteria spider approach to quantify the relative importance of the pentagon factors for each stakeholder group. This way we are able to develop stakeholder-specific pentagon models. Although there are many applications of the basic pentagon model in the sustainability literature, our attempt can be seen as the first one that combines cases at different time and spatial scales to generalize the interfaces between scientific research and policy arenas.

Purpose – The main aim of this chapter is to analyze Spanish internal and external territorial conflicts, mostly associated with the border effect between two continents with different economic and cultural systems. We assess the impact that the emergence of the new economy, represented by new technologies, R&D, privatizations, and foreign direct investment, has had in South-Spain, particularly in Andalusia, throughout the period 1995–2010. Special attention has been paid to the dynamics of convergence–divergence processes in terms of per capita income with respect to its neighboring different economic and cultural areas: Europe and the Maghreb.

Methodology – For the aforementioned purposes, we suggest applying the game theory approach to solve domestic secessionist conflicts, and the method followed by Mankiw, Romer, and Weil (1992) to address economic conflicts by means of promoting convergence with Europe. We propose economic competition between cities as a way to deal with external territorial conflicts concerning neighboring countries.

Findings – The main results obtained from econometric applications indicate that privatization processes, foreign direct investment, research and investment, and investment in new technologies allow for the real convergence of Spain and Southern Spain with European economies.

Research limitations – This chapter does not address smaller conflicts.

Social implications – Conflicts resolutions promote peace in both continental borders.

Originality – This chapter analyzes the most relevant domestic and external Spanish conflicts. The most important domestic conflicts are the linguistic and cultural conflicts in bilingual regions. The major external Spanish conflicts analyzed herein are both territorial conflicts between Spain and Morocco and Muslim immigration.

Social psychology has focused on two major explanations for political mass killing: obedience-authoritarianism and conformity although competition and in-group-out-group distinctions also have drawn substantial attention. However, the ability of any of the social sciences to account for the phenomena has been limited. Another perspective is developed, which examines (a) support for international law governing restraint in conflict and (b) views of respondents towards attackers and victims in actual historical incidents. A national probability sample of 1,504 Russian adults was interviewed in early 1999 and shortly afterwards a sample of 579 students at the Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH) in Moscow. Respondents were presented with statements, from international law governing restraints in armed conflict. In addition, a short description of a historical incident was presented. Each respondent was asked to (a) assign a penalty if any to each of three organizational levels of the attackers and (b) evaluate the attributes and motives of the attackers and the victims. The international law section indicated weak to moderate support for many of the principles. Results for the historical events included (1) relatively high penalties for at least one level of the attacking hierarchy, (2) lower penalties for attackers in which the home country was the initiator, (3) higher penalties for the commanders than for lower levels, and (4) a similar factor structure in each sample for the victim–attacker assessments and high predictability from victim–attacker evaluations to assigned penalty. This chapter focuses on the psychological dimensions for evaluating political mass killing.

The elimination of economic impediments and dismantling of trade restrictions have increasingly become a common feature in the economic integration across nations in the world. Many countries in several regions in the world have increased their intra-flows of goods and also inputs. The Arab region has experienced an increase in their labour flows, in particular during the period of oil boom. Consequently, the remittances among the Arab countries registered a steady increase; especially remittances from the Arab Gulf countries (Gulf cooperation council region). Using the panel data fixed effects estimation, the study investigates the relationship between remittances and economic integration in the Arab region covering the period 1983–2003. Despite the rising tide in intra-Arab labour flows, we argue, the harmonisation of economic policies and the removal of further obstacles to intra-labour flows are necessary to give a further fillip to economic integration in the Arab world. Moreover, our work shows that a reduction of the gap between per capita gross domestic products of the Arab countries is important for enhancing Arab economic integration.

In this chapter, I explain the key trends in defense spending and arms procurement in the Middle East and test whether those trends were subject to Louis F. Richardson's action-reaction model. I assessed the “guns-versus-butter” trade-off and the future prospects for peace in the region in light of these trends. I explained the danger of transferring weapons knowledge and technology to non-state actors in the Middle East. I investigate the trend in defense spending based on Richardson's action-reaction model by considering rival pairs in each subregion: Algeria–Morocco in North Africa; Egypt–Israel, Jordan–Israel, and Syria–Israel in the frontline states; United Arab Emirates–Iran in the Arab–Persian Gulf; and Pakistan–India in the Indian subcontinent. I used ordinary least squares (OLS) method in testing those dyads. I used military expenditure data from the SIPRI Yearbook: World Armament and Disarmament published annually by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. I conclude the study with policy implications and recommendations for achieving permanent peace in the region.

Pakistan's present war against extremists has many folds and sheds. The country's initial participation in the Afghan War in 1979 later gave birth to different extremist trends in the country. State patronage of the extremist Wahabi Islamists during the Afghan jihad opened another conflict in Pakistan, and things became more complicated. The combination of external and internal factors gave birth to the worst kind of conflict, which now has not only become dangerous for the country's own existence but also a major threat for global peace. The Afghan jihad initially started as a war against Soviet occupation and later became the hub of global jihad-war against infidels.

This chapter analyzes how external factors promoted internal contradictions in Pakistan due to which the country became not only an exporter of jihadis for the world but also the worst kind of sectarian conflicts, including. Shia–Sunni, Deobandi–Wahabi clashes, entered into in the past two decades. Such a strong link exists with Pakistan's official support to global jihad. Draft sectarian groups now head to head with their opponents have killed thousands of members of rival sectors, have strong support from external sympathizers, and have spread in the country. The well planned terrorist activities of these groups reflect the fact that support to these groups in the past is now leading to a severe crisis in Pakistan. The nexuses of these indigenous extremists like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen with external terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan of Tahir Yuldasher Chechen Guerilla War has led to several bloody clashes in the country and outside.

This chapter examines the role of political recycling – the practice of repeated utilization of former high-level politicians in government – in forestalling or, at least, minimizing conflicts among political players. Drawing upon observations from recent political experiences of Japan, the chapter first demonstrates that political recycling in Japan is deeply embedded in the society's cultural practices rather than in the system of liberal democracy, which its leaders espouse. Political recycling in Japan, in fact, exhibits features that are antithetical to liberal democracy. The dynamic relationship between political recycling and conflict prevention in Japan are then analyzed as well as the implications of the analysis for places in Africa where political conflict has been rampant.

The peace process in the shape of confidence-building measures (CBMs) is recognizable as “arrangements designed to enhance … assurance of mind and belief in the trust-worthiness of states … confidence is the product of much broader patterns of relations than those which relate to military strategy. In fact the latter have to be woven into a complex texture of economic, cultural, technical and social relationships” (Hoist, 1983; Indian Express (New Delhi), December 19, 2003.). This suggests military and non-military initiatives undertaken by antagonistic states to reduce tensions and enhance mutual confidence. This chapter examines and evaluates various CBMs, military as well as non-military, that were initiated between India and Pakistan. The chapter also addresses and delineates definition and conceptual notion as well as some of the pertinent aspects of ongoing peace process including Track-II diplomacy and nuclear risk reduction measures being undertaken by India and Pakistan.

The conflict in Angola saw some of its most intense periods after the end of the Cold War, missing a favorable period of conflict resolution in this transition. This chapter analyzes the reasons that were behind the failure to reach a successful peace process at this specific time when Namibia worked out a peaceful solution but Angola failed with the Gbadolite initiative. The analysis uses a “ripeness” model focusing on agency and processes over the 1989 Gbadolite Accords and its immediate context of the 1988 New York Accords and the aftermath of the 1991 Bicesse Accords. It is proposed that there was a lack of “ripeness” in Angola. On one hand, a resolution of the Angola conflict was not essential to finding a regional solution for Southern Africa, and on the other hand, both parties, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), lacked the conditions to effectively engage in a political solution. Namely, the parties were monolithic, the military process had not reached a point of hurting stalemate, and the incentive structures in terms of oil and diamond wealth in the country hindered both party predispositions. It concludes that finding a point of “ripeness” might take time; it is an agency envisioned process and as such can be possible within virtual new solutions that accommodate old power concerns.

This chapter intends to explore once more the vexing question of the relationship between environment and conflict and the role certain emotions like fear play in it. Given the fact that the empirical evidence about this relation is ambiguous, it suggests that the link between the two issues only makes sense and works whenever institutional factors such as the clear definition and enforcement of property rights are absent or weak within or across societies. The empirical cases of Rwanda and Nepal are used to illustrate this relationship. After a discussion of the data problems that the case raises, simulations of the conflict and the genocide of 1994 in Rwanda and of the Maoist uprising in Nepal are proposed. The simulation model accounts quite well for the conflict and genocide evolution in Rwanda and for the casualties of the uprising in Nepal.

Seifudein Adem is research associate professor of Political Science in Binghamton University, New York, NY, USA, and President-Emeritus of the New York State African Studies Association. Before coming to the United States, Dr. Adem taught Political Science in the University of Tsukuba (Japan) and Addis Ababa University (Ethiopia). Seifudein Adem is the author of, among other books, Japan: A Model and a Partner (Brill, 2006).