introduciton or opportunity Collier (2000) proposes that contemporary



However, it is worth to mention that greed theory is an
outcome of quantitative statistical analysis. Therefore, is considers a high
amount of economic factors-either it analyses motive or opportunity

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


Collier (2000) proposes that
contemporary arguments and finding in the causation of civil wars are founded
in a combination of “greed and grievance”. Yet, these different models suggest
different paths in explaining motivations behind the combatants in civil
warfare. On the one hand, the greed model argues that the rebellion functions
on the performance of a cost benefit analysis and therefore, the civil
conflicts are driven by a vision for a brighter future. On the other hand, the
grievance model explains that civil wars are predominately motivated by social
factors such as religion, ethnicity and identity or inequality. Regan and Norton (2005) note that the grievance dimension
is scholarly more accepted because it considered deprivation within the social,
political and economic structures as driving force of the calls for a change.

In contrast, greed explanation suggests that civil rebellion is a direct
consequence of a self-interest actions that are driven by a hunger for a
material gain in terms of primary commodities, such oil, precious stones or raw
materials (Gurr, 2000). Indeed, it is difficult
to draw a complex conclusions while considering only the one side of the
argument, therefore the following exploration into the theories of ‘greed’ and
‘grievance’ provides more comprehensive reasoning.


The greed model behind initiation of civil war is promoted
by empirical research on the causations of civil warfare. Collier and Hoeffel (2004) explore that the rebellion
roots in the greedy nature of a rebel groups that construct the uprising
against the governance. To put it differently, greed is about the opportunities
which revolt provides. The opportunities can be divided into three categories:
funding, recruitment and location. The most significant sources of rebel
finance are the captured natural resources, international support from foreign
governments which consider the official system illegitimate or the private
enterprises which assign the region strategic importance. Recruitment consider
the opportunity to gain the followers by promising personal gain from joining
the rebellion which seems as an exclusive opportunity within the region with a
high unemployment rate, poor education and non-optimistic future perspectives.

Lastly, geographical
terrain of a region plays a vital role in sheltering and accommodating the
rebellion centres due to hardly accessible terrain, such as mountains or jungles,
create a layer of protection from exposing the main hubs of rebels.  Therefore, greed refers to the ‘economic
opportunity’ to initiate the fight and for this reasons, it must be
differentiated from social and political grievance.




In contrast to the theory of greed, the core assumption of
grievance is identity and group formation. Individual’s identity plays a
crucial role in determination of an individual’s motive which is structured around
the position of the group a person represents within the social structures
(Akerlof and Kranton, 2000). Therefore, a man might evolve the motive from
normative forms of behaviour characterised by his identity yet, this motive
might be regarded as the radical or devious by the other groups. Consequently,
such an individual might be challenged with suppression from dominant political
or social groups. There are three mains areas that help to construct a
grievance theory: relative deprivation, polarisation and horizontal inequality.

Relative deprivation

Ted Gurr (1970) defined
relative deprivation as a distinction between what the individual think he
deserves and what he believes he could get. To put it differently, it is a
disparity between ambitions and accomplishments. To illustrate, accomplishments
in education might fuel ambitions of the younger generation but they disappear in
frustration from unemployment which can produce in a large-scale social unrest.

Indeed, there are multiple factors to consider, such as ethnical and regional
boundaries, societal classes and proportion of minorities. For instance, Maluku
is a province of Eastern Indonesia that experienced violence in so called
“Maluku Wars”. It was more an intensified violence between neighbouring
religious group of Christians and Muslims rather than an individually motivated
act of rebellion (Goss, 2000:9-10). The
Christians were originally privileged and the process equalization left
Christian to feel deprived against the growing political and economic influence
of Muslim group. As a consequence, Indonesia occurred in the bloodiest
religious unrest in its history. The revolt was a consequence of relative
deprivation of the Christian group in their expectations to remain their
traditional privileged status quo and the Muslim group accomplishment to
achieve equalization.


A similarly to relative deprivation, Esteban and Ray (1994) analyse an occurrence of polarisation, which
can be observed when two groups features a significant inter-group
heterogeneity in combination with intra-group homogeneity. Therefore, economic
polarisation can be presented in traditionally homogenous societies and in
contrast, ethnic polarisation can be presented in economically more equal
societies. However, Østby (2008:144) notes that
in general, economic inequality is not satisfactory cause of violent conflict
but instead, a hybrid model that combines both types of polarisation. Esteban
and Ray (1994) primarily identifies the structure of tensions. As a result,
they provide an explanation that polarisation is an outcome related to the
tension that group of individuals feel from one another, such a tension is
powered by the feeling of within-group identity. Moreover, the authors
highlight the fact that ethnic polarisation involves only few ethnicities
within a region. If a regional society consists of a large number of
identities, then it is more accurate to use term ethnic fractionalisation. As a
consequence, it is polarisation that initiates the violent conflict rather than
societal fractionalisation either in ethnic or economic structures (Reynal-Querol, 2005).  

Horizontal inequalities

Lastly, the concept of horizontal inequalities is deeply
interconnected with previously discussed concepts of relative deprivation and
polarisation. Stewart (2010) discovers
power imbalances between groups and therefore, a presence of horizontal
inequalities amongst the culturally and ethnically different groups. Stewart and Brown (2007) defines
horizontal inequality as an asymmetrical access of different societal groups to
social, political and economic resources. As a consequence, the grievance can
be predicted when significant differences in access to resources between heterogeneous
groups prevail in the society. Steward and Brown (2007:222) note that “the horizontal
inequality explanation of conflict is based on the view that when cultural
differences coincide with economic and political differences between groups,
this can cause deep-rooted resentment that may lead to violent struggles.” In other
words, an absence of framework which can accommodate the societal diversity in
social, political and economic aspects might be a cause of violence between the
dominant and dominated groups of individuals. Continuously, it is rational to
assume that when horizontal inequalities prevail between the diverse groups
then the society experiences polarisation which creates a great motive for mobilisation
between superior and inferior population (Stewart, 2010). As a result,
mobilisation has a power to fuel antagonism between the social groups that may
lead into a number of destructive confrontations. The existence of significant
inequalities in society most of the time relates to poverty which contradicts
with the concept of the human security and