IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pepspp/v23y2017i4p7n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict Fragmentation Index

Author

Listed:
  • Arı Barış

    (University of Essex, Department of Government, Colchester, UK)

  • Gizelis Theodora-Ismene

    (University of Essex, Department of Government and Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Oslo, Norway)

Abstract

It is widely accepted that fragmentation influences conflict processes in a profound way. Multi-party conflicts with several fronts are notoriously hard to resolve. However, there is no easily computable measure to approximate conflict fragmentation. In this article, we introduce the conflict fragmentation index (CFI), which is computed by adapting the Herfindahl–Hirschman index. The CFI considers the relative prominence of each dyadic-level conflict-fronts nested in the entire civil war. The relative prominence is approximated by using available information on conflict casualties. The CFI is time-variant and highly sensitive to battlefield dynamics. The flexibility of CFI can bring several advantages. Most notably, it is possible to calculate monthly or even daily measures of conflict fragmentation by taking state-based (government vs. NSA) as well as non-state based (NSA vs. NSA) conflicts into account. Overall, the CFI provides a theoretically-informed and easy to compute measure to approximate conflict fragmentation.

Suggested Citation

  • Arı Barış & Gizelis Theodora-Ismene, 2017. "Conflict Fragmentation Index," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 23(4), pages 1-7, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:23:y:2017:i:4:p:7:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/peps-2017-0029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2017-0029
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/peps-2017-0029?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David E. Cunningham, 2006. "Veto Players and Civil War Duration," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 875-892, October.
    2. Findley, Michael & Rudloff, Peter, 2012. "Combatant Fragmentation and the Dynamics of Civil Wars," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 879-901, October.
    3. Hultman, Lisa & Kathman, Jacob & Shannon, Megan, 2014. "Beyond Keeping Peace: United Nations Effectiveness in the Midst of Fighting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(4), pages 737-753, November.
    4. Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham, 2013. "Actor Fragmentation and Civil War Bargaining: How Internal Divisions Generate Civil Conflict," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 659-672, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Victor Asal & Brian J. Phillips, 2018. "What explains ethnic organizational violence? Evidence from Eastern Europe and Russia," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 111-131, March.
    2. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2017. "Dangerous bargains with the devil? Incorporating new approaches in peace science for the study of war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 98-116, January.
    3. Dominic Rohner, 2018. "Success Factors for Peace Treaties: A Review of Theory and Evidence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 18.08, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    4. Jori Breslawski & Brandon Ives, 2019. "Killing for God? Factional Violence on the Transnational Stage," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(3), pages 617-643, March.
    5. Hanne Fjelde & Desirée Nilsson, 2018. "The rise of rebel contenders," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 55(5), pages 551-565, September.
    6. Emily Kalah Gade & Michael Gabbay & Mohammed M. Hafez & Zane Kelly, 2019. "Networks of Cooperation: Rebel Alliances in Fragmented Civil Wars," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(9), pages 2071-2097, October.
    7. Rob Williams, 2022. "Turning the lights on to keep them in the fold: How governments preempt secession attempts," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(4), pages 422-446, July.
    8. Katherine Sawyer & Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham & William Reed, 2017. "The Role of External Support in Civil War Termination," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(6), pages 1174-1202, July.
    9. Pearce Edwards, 2021. "The politics of nonviolent mobilization: Campaigns, competition, and social movement resources," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(5), pages 945-961, September.
    10. Casey Crisman-Cox, 2022. "Democracy, reputation for resolve, and civil conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 382-394, May.
    11. Matthew Fuhrmann & Jaroslav Tir, 2009. "Territorial Dimensions of Enduring Internal Rivalries," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(4), pages 307-329, September.
    12. Nicholas Sambanis & Micha Germann & Andreas Schädel, 2018. "SDM: A New Data Set on Self-determination Movements with an Application to the Reputational Theory of Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(3), pages 656-686, March.
    13. Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos & Chad Kiewiet de Jonge & Carlos Meléndez & David Nickerson & Javier Osorio, 2020. "Carrots and sticks: Experimental evidence of vote-buying and voter intimidation in Guatemala," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(1), pages 46-61, January.
    14. Kazuhiro Obayashi, 2014. "Information, rebel organization and civil war escalation: The case of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 21-40, March.
    15. Chelsea Estancona & Lindsay Reid, 2022. "Pro-government militias and civil war termination," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(3), pages 291-310, May.
    16. Dimico, Arcangelo, 2013. "The Evolution of Conflict and Effectiveness of Aid," MPRA Paper 47050, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. M Christian Lehmann, 2023. "Foreign interests and state repression: Theory and evidence from the Armenian genocide," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(2), pages 307-321, March.
    18. Dorussen Han, 2015. "Security Perception after the Completion of UN Peacekeeping in Timor-Leste," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(4), pages 453-458, December.
    19. Eric S Mosinger, 2018. "Brothers or others in arms? Civilian constituencies and rebel fragmentation in civil war," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 55(1), pages 62-77, January.
    20. Burton Lucy & Johnson Shane D. & Braithwaite Alex, 2017. "Potential uses of Numerical Simulation for the Modelling of Civil Conflict," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 23(1), pages 1-39, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:23:y:2017:i:4:p:7:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.