GLOBALIZATION AND INTERNAL CONFLICT Hvard Hegre (

GLOBALIZATIONANDINTERNALCONFLICT**HåvardHegre(TheWorldBank)RanveigGissinger(NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology)NilsPetterGleditsch(PRIOandNTNU)AbstractThepaperoutlinesandcomparestwomodelsofhowglobalizationislikelytoaffecttheriskofcivilwar–aliberalmodelandstructuralistmodel.Overall,wefindconsiderablymoresupportforthelib-eralmodelthanforthestructuralist,anti-globalistmodel.Tradedoesappeartohaveacapacityforin-creasinginternalpeace–notdirectly,butviatrade’sbeneficialeffectsongrowthandincreasedpoliti-calstability.Overall,wefindeconomicopennesstobeassociatedwithhighergrowth.Ourresultsgivenosupporttotheideathatglobalizationreducesgrowth,notevenforpoorcountries.Wefoundsomeevidencethattradeincreasesincomeinequality.However,incontrasttherobustlinkestablishedbe-tweenincomeinequalityandviolentcrime,wedonotfindanyrelationshipbetweeninequalityandcivilwar.Insum,thebeneficialeffectoftradeandforeigninvestmentoutweighswhateverviolencemaybegeneratedbyincreasedinequality.Wefindthateconomicopennessisassociatedwithgreaterstabilityofpoliticalsystems.Thiseffectisparticularlystrongfordemocracies,butalsopositiveforinconsistentregimesandautocracies.Finally,inouranalysisofthefactorsincreasingthelikelihoodofcivilwars,wefindnodirectimpactofeconomicopenness.However,countrieswithahighincomepercapitaandastablepoliticalsystemhaveconsiderablylowerriskofcivilwarthanthosewithout.Hence,sincewefindeconomicopennesstoincreaseaverageincomeandpoliticalstability,wedofindanindirectconflict-reducingeffectofglobalization.*ThepaperwillappearasachapterinGeraldSchneider,KatherineBarbieri&NilsPetterGleditsch,ed.,2002,GlobalizationandConflict.Boulder,CO:Rowman&Littlefield.ThetheoreticalpartofthischapterborrowsheavilyfromGissingerandGleditsch(1999).Theempiricalanalysisisnew.AnearlierversionwaspresentedtotheWorldBankConferenceonTheEconomicsandPoliticsofCivilWar:LaunchingtheCase-StudyProject,SoriaMoriaconferencecenter,Oslo,11–12June2001.Wearegratefulforcommentsfromtheparticipantsofthatmeeting,andfromIndradeSoysa,GunnarEskeland,ErikGartzke,JohnRanda,andErichWeede.Wealsoac-knowledgetheassistanceofNaimaMouhleb,HåvardStrand,andLarsWilhelmsen.Thefindingsandconclu-sionsexpressedinthechapterareentirelythatoftheauthors,anddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsoftheWorldBank.IntroductionTrade,foreigninvestment,andotherformsofeconomicinterdependencehavegrownthroughoutthepost-WorldWarIIperiod,alongwithastrongerglobalpoliticalconsciousnessandincreasedregionalcooperation.AftertheendoftheColdWar,notonlyhavethesephenomenaaccelerated,butthelackofanyopposingworldsystemhasalsogiventhemanear-universalcharacter.Inaculturalsense,too,theworldisbecomingasinglearena.Englishisspreadingrapidlyasaglobalmeansofcommunica-tionforscience,commerce,andthetransmissionofnews.Newinformationtechnologyhasdrasticallyreducedthecostsoftheworldwidedisseminationofknowledgeandopinion.‘Globalization’isem-ployedasanumbrellatermfortheseeconomic,political,andculturalprocesses.Weuseithereasavalue-neutralterm,incontrasttowordslikedependencyorintegration,whichformanypeoplecarrynegativeorpositiveconnotations.Weusethetermglobalizationmainlyinthesenseofanincreasinglyopeneconomy.Duringtheperiodofemergingglobalization,economicgrowthhasgenerallycontinuedinthein-dustrialandpost-industrialcountries,whileanumberofnewlyindustrializedcountrieshavetakenoff.Atthepoliticallevel,the‘ThirdWave’hasbroughtdemocraticgovernmenttoagreaterpartoftheworldthaninanypreviousperiod.Manyseriousenvironmentalproblemsinhighlydevelopedcoun-triesarebeingtackledwithstrategiescombiningnationalactionandinternationalcollaboration.OntheotherhandtheformerSovietUnion,partsofAfrica,andwar-tornnationselsewhereareindeclineeconomically,andthemostsuccessfuleconomiesinAsiahaveshownclearsignsofeconomicstrain.Domesticeconomicinequalityisincreasinginmostpartsoftheworld.Politically,manynewdemocracieshaveapoorhumanrightsrecord,andtheirpoliticalsystemsappeartobeweaklyrootedincivilsociety.Environmentaldeclinecontinuesinmany,perhapsmost,third-worldcountries.Eveninthehighlydevelopedworldnewenvironmentalproblemssuchasglobalwarmingemergeasseriousthreatstohumanwelfare.Variousauthorshavelinkedallofthesephenomena,positiveaswellasnegative,toeffectsofglobalization.Indeed,globalizationisemergingasakeyformulaembodyingmostofthemodernworld’sills–oritspromises.Inthischapter,weconcentrateontheimplicationsofglobalizationforinternalarmedconflict.Thisisatopicthathasbeenstudiedlessintensivelythanthesocialandeco-nomicconsequences,evenlessthantheimplicationsofglobalizationforinterstateconflict.1Butthedisagreementsregardingtheconsequencesofglobalizationforinternalarmedconflictareassharpasinanyothersuchdebates.Economicdevelopmentwillbeanimportantinterveningvariableintheanalysis,butwearealsoconcernedwithpoliticaldevelopment,notablydemocratization.Thedebateonglobalizationhasmovedwaybeyondtheacademicarena,togovernmentandtocivilsociety.AstheviolentdemonstrationsinSeattle,Prague,Quebec,Gothenburg,andGenovaindicate,anti-globalizationforcesaregalvanizedintoactiononthestreets.MovementssuchasA