What Drives Armed Conflict? A Comparative Look at socioeconomic and ethnic Risk Factors.

Why do some countries fall into violent conflict while others remain peaceful?

This question has long fascinated researchers, policymakers, and the public alike. In our recent studies, we took two different perspectives to shed light on the drivers of armed conflict: one focused on socioeconomic factors such as poverty and unemployment, the other on the role of ethnic diversity and fragmentation.

1.Socioeconomic Determinants: Poverty, Unemployment and GDP per Capita.

Our first analysis, based on global data from 1960 to 2024, examined how unemployment and poverty influence the likelihood of armed conflict. The results were striking:

• Poverty is a robust and significant predictor of conflict.
  Countries with higher poverty rates are much more likely to experience violent conflict, both in the same year and in subsequent years. The effect remains strong even when controlling for other variables.

• Unemployment, on the other hand, plays only a minor role.
  Contrary to popular belief, high unemployment rates do not independently increase the risk of conflict. The data suggest that the destabilizing effect of unemployment is often absorbed by other factors—especially poverty itself.

• GDP per capita acts as a protective factor.

  Higher GDP per capita is associated with a lower risk of armed conflict. Wealthier societies tend to have stronger institutions, better social safety nets, and more resources to address grievances before they escalate into violence.

Takeaway:
Efforts to reduce poverty are not just humanitarian—they are also crucial for peace and stability.

2.Ethnic Diversity and the Escalation of Conflict.

The second study turned the spotlight on ethnic diversity and fragmentation. Here, the findings were nuanced:

• Ethnic fragmentation can increase the risk of conflict escalation,
  especially when combined with political exclusion or economic inequality between groups.

• However, diversity alone is not always a trigger.
  In some contexts, ethnically diverse societies remain peaceful, particularly when inclusive institutions and fair resource distribution are in place.

• The most dangerous mix:
  When ethnic divisions overlap with economic or political grievances, the likelihood of conflict escalation rises sharply.

Takeaway:
It’s not diversity itself, but the combination of exclusion, inequality, and weak institutions that turns difference into danger.

3. What Does This Mean for Policy and Prevention?

Our comparative analysis highlights a crucial insight:
There is no single cause of conflict.
Instead, it is the interplay of socioeconomic hardship and social fragmentation—especially when combined with exclusion and injustice—that creates fertile ground for violence.

For policymakers and peacebuilders, this means:

• Invest in poverty reduction and social safety nets.

• Promote inclusive governance and equal opportunities for all groups.

• Address grievances before they become fault lines for violence.

Conclusion:
Understanding the roots of conflict is the first step toward building lasting peace. By tackling both poverty and exclusion, societies can make themselves more resilient against the forces that drive people to violence.