Reducing post-disaster conflict: a cross-cultural test of four hypotheses using archaeological data

ABSTRACT

Four hypotheses concerning the relationship between climate-related disasters and conflict are tested using archaeological data in a controlled cross-cultural comparison. The four hypotheses are (1) Conflict increases following climate-related disasters because local economic conditions deprive polities of tax revenue so that they can no longer suppress conflict; (2) Conflict increases following climate-related disasters because existing social inequalities lead to conflicts over differential access to resources; (3) Conflict increases following climate-related disasters because migration forces population into condensed settlements ripe for conflict; and (4) Conflict increases following climate-related disasters in polities where leaders tightly control access to political authority because leaders may use violence to maintain control over the resources they use to secure support from other elites. Only the fourth hypothesis is supported. It is argued that understanding pre-disaster political strategies is key to understanding post-disaster conflict.

KEYWORDS:

• Resilience
• vulnerability
• conflict
• political economy

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the hard-working students who coded the data used here: Joseph Bazydlo, Megan Davidson, and Kristina Verhasselt. The author also wishes to thank Carol R. Ember, Michele Gelfand, and Eric Jones for their comments and criticisms on earlier drafts of this paper. As always, any flaws or errors the reader might find remain solely my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

Research presented here was conducted as part of the Natural Hazards and Cultural Transformations project funded by the National Science Foundation (Award # SMA-1416651) and supported through the HRAF Advanced Research Center (hrafARC) at Yale University.