ethnic and gender hierarchies in the crucible of war...hierarchy, including (but not limited to)...

International Studies Quarterly (2020) 64 710ndash722

Ethnic and Gender Hierarchies in the Crucible of War

KA I T L Y N W E B S T E R

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

PR I S C I L L A TO R R E S

Duke University

CH O N G CH E N

Tsinghua University

AND

KY L E BE A R D S L E Y

Duke University

Recent scholarship shows war can catalyze reforms related to gender power imbalances but what about reforms related toethnic inequalities While war can disrupt the political social and economic institutions at the root of ethnic hierarchymdashjustas it can shake up the institutions at the root of gender hierarchymdashwar is also prone to have either a reinforcing effect or apendulum effect Our project uses data from the Varieties of Democracy project to examine specific manifestations of changesin gender and ethnic civil-liberty equality (1900ndash2015) Interstate war but not intrastate war tends to be followed by gainsin ethnic civil-liberty equality and intrastate war tends to be followed by long-term gains in gender civil-liberty equality Warswith government losses are prone to lead to improvements in civil-liberty equality along both dimensions In consideringoverlapping gender and ethnic hierarchies we find that when wars open up space for gains in gender equality they alsofacilitate gains in equality for excluded ethnic groups

If ethnic and gender power imbalances are deeply embed-ded into a societyrsquos institutional and normative fabric majordisruptions such as war might be required to disrupt equi-libria of political social and economic power However es-tablishing more egalitarian equilibria in the wake of armedconflict is far from automatic Indeed recent studies high-light both the potential for war to reduce gender inequalityand the challenges preventing the consolidation of gender-equality gains in the long run (Tripp 2015 2016 Schroeder2017 Berry 2018 Webster Chen and Beardsley 2019)

We consider how ethnic hierarchies respond to wardifferently than and interactively with gender hierarchies1Although wars can shake up social and political orders toopen up space for movements toward gender and ethnicequality they are also likely to perpetuate a vicious cycle ofethnic exclusion and conflict We consider how intrastatewars in particular can retrench ethnic power inequalitieseither groups in power strengthen existing ethnic powerdifferentials as a response to war in a reinforcing effect ora previous hierarchical ordering is replaced by a new

Kaitlyn Webster is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the Universityof North Carolina at Charlotte

Priscilla Torres is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at Duke UniversityChong Chen is an Assistant Professor of International Relations in the School ofSocial Sciences at Tsinghua University China

Kyle Beardsley is a Professor of Political Science at Duke UniversityAuthors note Authors are listed in reverse alphabetical order with implied

equal authorship1 Gender hierarchy here pertains to a male-dominant power imbalance main-

tained through gendered norms and differential values placed on particulardominant masculinities and subordinate femininities We explore below how thereduction of gender to binary categorization is one means by which gender powerimbalances are recreated (Sjoberg 2014 Hagen 2016 Loken Lake and Cronin-Furman 2018)

reversed hierarchical ordering in a pendulum effect We alsoconsider the overlap of gender and ethnic inequalities andthe potential for gender equality gains to be reached alongwith changes in ethnic (in-)equality

We focus on differential access to civil liberties as oneparticular manifestation of ethnic and gender hierarchiesUsing fixed-effects models with data from 1900 to 2015 wefind that interstate war increases ethnic civil-liberty equalitywhile intrastate war increases gender civil-liberty equalityOutcomes in which the government loses are especially ripefor changes in the social orders We also find that whengender civil-liberty equality has increased ethnic civil-libertyequality also increases following war To the extent that thesehierarchies overlap reductions in one during war enhancereductions in the other Finally an analysis of excludedethnic groups finds that governmental wars not territorialwars tend to increase excluded groupsrsquo access to power

Social Hierarchies in the Shadow of War

We define domestic social hierarchy as the presence of alegitimated power differential held by a group (or groups)over others2 There are many possible dimensions of socialhierarchy including (but not limited to) gender raceethnicity religion class or the intersection of two or moreidentities We focus on two gender and ethnicity discussedin turn below

Although social hierarchy manifests in many ways wefocus on formalized power inequalities specifically groupsrsquodifferential access to de jure civil liberties Domestic con-figurations of social power often become codified into

2 For a discussion of gender hierarchy at the systemic level see Sjoberg (2012)

Webster Kaitlyn et al (2020) Ethnic and Gender Hierarchies in the Crucible of War International Studies Quarterly doi 101093isqsqaa031copy The Author(s) (2020) Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies AssociationAll rights reserved For permissions please e-mail journalspermissionsoupcom

Dow

nloaded from httpsacadem

icoupcomisqarticle6437105857817 by C

enter of Books and information School of Econom

ic amp Managem

ent Tsinghua University user on 07 O

ctober 2020

KA I T L Y N W E B S T E R E T A L 711

lawmdasheg specifying social groupsrsquo access to civil libertiesmdashas one of the bases by which differential social power isexpressed and experienced That is some groups havegreater access to civil liberties because they had greater socialpower at the time the formal rules were legislated Thosegroups are able to subdue challenges to their dominancethrough denying other groups various civil liberties in-cluding political representation freedom of assembly andaccess to economic resources In these ways social poweris mutually constitutive with political power Formal lawsrelated to differential access to civil liberties both reflectand perpetuate social hierarchies

A Key Difference Across Hierarchies Mobilization

To build our argument for how war affects gender andethnic hierarchies we start with the stylized fact that warsare rarely if ever explicitly and exclusively fought alonggender lines ie where subordinate gender groups vio-lently mobilize against a dominant gender group(s) Incontrast wars fought along ethnic lines abound

Although armed conflict is gendered non-dominantgender groups (eg women and men that do not havecharacteristics associated with hegemonic masculinitiesand individuals with gender identities that do not conformto cisgender norms or gender binaries) rarely take up armsagainst the group in power (eg men with characteristicsassociated with hegemonic masculinities) while examplesabound of excluded ethnic groups in armed rebellionThis is not to say that non-dominant gender groups rarelymobilize in peaceful or militant protest against a givengender hierarchy Indeed womenrsquos protest movementshave catalyzed social upheaval and changes in genderpower equality worldwide (Mageza-Barthel 2015 Tripp2015 Marks and Chenoweth 2019)3 Moreover women andother non-dominant gender groups have mobilized alongcross-cutting identity groupings such as religion and class(Crenshaw 1991 Yuval-Davis 2011) for the sake of peace(Berry 2018) or to engage in contentious politics (Murdieand Peksen 2015) Women have also participated in armedconflict in a variety of roles (Goldstein 2001 Thomas andBond 2015 Sjoberg 2016 Karim and Beardsley 2017)When non-dominant gender groups have challenged gen-dered power imbalances or participated as armed actorshowever they have tended to do so without mobilizing asan armed group taking up arms against forces preservingthe gendered status quo4

We note two challenges for non-dominant gender groupsto mobilize to form cohesive armed rebel groups First thecollective action problem is stark within any given countrythe population that does not identify as male and that doesnot have characteristics associated with hegemonic mas-culinities is large and heterogeneous including ethnic ageclass and even gender cleavages Existing work has shownthat women are not unified when considering most politicalobjectives (Reingold 2003) Second societies dominated by

3 For a number of essays on militant feminism see Colvin and Karcher (2018)4 This is not to say that war is not gendered as men and others who bene-

fit from a masculine-dominant order may use war-making as a means to main-tain their hegemony (Barrett 1996 Hudson and Den Boer 2002 Connell andMesserschmidt 2005 Cockburn 2010 Bjarnegaringrd and Melander 2011) Relatedlymilitarization is often tied to the entrenchment of patriarchal norms and otherforms of gender hierarchy (Stiehm 1982 Elshtain 1987 Pateman 1988 Enloe1989 1993 2016 Barrett 1996 Goldstein 2001 Higate 2003 Connell and Messer-schmidt 2005 Wilcox 2009 Moran 2010 Kronsell 2012 MacKenzie and Foster2017) The gendered nature of conflict actualizes itself in many ways (Goldstein2001)

men and various masculinities have been in place for so longand been so successful at maintaining gender hierarchy thatnon-dominant gender groups have been socialized to ignoreviolence as a means to pursue equality (Goldstein 2001)

These challenges to gender-based violent collectiveaction underscore key means by which gender hierarchiesperpetuate through the conflation of gender and sexand through the reduction of both to binary categoriesConceptually gender is different from sex Sex is biolog-ical assigned at birth and diverse including male (XYchromosomes) female (XX chromosomes) and intersexGender pertains to as Sjoberg states ldquosocial characteristicsthat are associated with perceived membership in biologicalsex classesrdquo (Sjoberg 2014 13) This means that gender(and gender identity) is more than a binary of mascu-linefeminine characteristics (or malefemale identities)Rather there are many gendersmdashincluding multiple mas-culinities and femininitiesmdashand types of gender identityIn practice however it is a norm in most societies to re-duce gender and gender identity to binary categorizationswhich itself perpetuates the gender power imbalances atthe root of the norm (Barrett 1996 Sivakumaran 2007Wilcox 2009 Cockburn 2010 Kronsell 2012 Sjoberg 2012Tripp Ferree and Ewig 2013 2014) Indeed key challengesrelated to collective action along gender lines in partialcontrast to collective action along ethnic lines stem fromthe perpetuation of the notion that there is one alternativegroup (female) to the dominant group (male) even thoughsuch a grouping belies tremendous within-group diversity

From the stylized fact that gender rebellions are rarewhile ethnic rebellions are common we argue that warfarehas different implications for changes in gender equal-ity than changes in ethnic equality Subordinate gendergroups are perceived by those inmdashand out ofmdashpower topose little risk of becoming a cohesive fighting force thatwould threaten the dominant grouprsquos physical securitywhereas many subordinate ethnic groups do carry that riskAlthough the potential for non-dominant gender groups todisrupt existing social hierarchies can concern the domi-nant group the level of existential threat to the dominantgroup is lower without the potential for violent rebellionWhen ethnic hierarchies are disrupted former dominant-group members are often killed exiled or persecutedWe are unaware of dominant men facing similar potentialconsequences amidst upheaval to gender hierarchies

The Implications of War Gender Hierarchies

How might these mobilization differences affect the gen-dered outcomes of war We build on the existing work ofTripp (2015) and Webster Chen and Beardsley (2019)to argue that war can contribute to a more equal genderpower balance through social and political transforma-tions During war as combatants fight and casualtiesmount non-dominant gender groups have the opportu-nity to participate in roles that had previously been outof reach including service in the security sector and asrebel combatants (see eg Meintjes Turshen and Pillay2001 Wood 2008 Hughes 2009 Stiehm and Sjoberg 2010Mageza-Barthel 2015 Wood and Thomas 2017 Berry 2018Braithwaite and Ruiz 2018 Thomas and Wood 2018)5For example in El Salvador the FMLN not only explic-itly promised to protect women from sexual violence butalso deliberately recruited them as rebels providing key

5 See Evans (2014) for additional discussion about how times of crisis increasethe desirability for women to be more full societal participants

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020

712 Ethnic and Gender Hierarchies

opportunities for leadership and helping to change gendernorms (Viterna 2013 Wood 2010 2019) Womenrsquos roles inanti-war movements might enable them to move into influ-ential political and social roles (Cockburn 2010 Tripp 2015Wood 2008 2015 Kreft 2019) Moreover the peacemakingand peacebuilding processes can enable international ac-tors to help domestic actors implement reforms addressinginequalities in the rights representation and security ofnon-dominant gender groups (Bush 2011 Anderson andSwiss 2014 Anderson 2015 Huber and Karim 2018)

Whether war leads to openings for gendered reformsdepends on the type of war (inter- or intrastate) whetheror not a regime change occurs and how deeply (if atall) social roles change during war (Webster Chen andBeardsley 2019) Many wars do not lead to openings forgender equality Sexual and gender based violence (SGBV)during war also has potentially countervailing implicationsfor post-war gender hierarchies6 Victims of SGBV facemany significant challenges during and after the war accessto physical and psychological care PTSD ostracism andsocial isolation and even the erasure or denial of theirtrauma (Sivakumaran 2007 Wood 2010 Cohen Green andWood 2013 Dolan 2017 Theidon 2017)7 Even if wars tendto on average lead to gains in gender equality it is thusimportant to not create an illusion that war is expected toproduce net gains for non-dominant gender groups

Additionally an important limitation to lasting reform ex-ists because non-dominant gender groups are not perceivedas existential security threats to the dominant group Whilethe lower chance of violent mobilization makes civil libertiesgains less threatening it also makes backsliding more likelyFor example since non-dominant gender groups havehistorically been unable to form cohesive armed groupsexplicitly challenging gender power imbalances they strug-gle to hold policymakers accountable for following throughon initial efforts This means that gains in gender equalityare likely to be limited to the short term From Rwanda toBosnia to Bangladesh to Peru it has been all too commonfor womenrsquos gains to be temporary (Pankhurst 2003 2012Berry 2015 2017 2018) Political leaders can often paylip service to advocating for greater rights and inclusion ofnon-dominant gender groups but then fail to implementbecause the groups struggle to threaten accountability

The Implications of War Ethnic Hierarchies

Turning to warrsquos relationship with ethnic power imbalancesour first expectation is that intrastate war is unlikely toreduce ethnic hierarchy8 Intrastate conflicts are unlikely tomitigate domestic ethnic hierarchies in the same ways thatwar might mitigate gender hierarchies for several possiblereasons related to the heightened potential for excludedethnic groups to mobilize as armed groups

6 The use of SGBV in this instance is meant to acknowledge that individualsthat fall throughout the gender spectrum can and do perpetrate this form ofviolence (Sjoberg 2016) Additionally regardless of who perpetrates these actionsthey can have implications for gender hierarchy as they are gendered acts in anof themselves

7 For an excellent discussion of the additional challenges imposed by silenceon victims of SGBV see Theidon (2017) For discussion of the potential for SGBVto catalyze womenrsquos mobilization across class gender andor religious lines aswas the case in Liberia in 2003 see Kreft (2019) and Agerberg and Kreft (2020)

8 We are interested in intrastate conflict broadlymdashrather than purely ethnicconflictsmdashbecause even civil conflicts fought over other issues or cleavages havethe potential to activate ethnic identities For example the Guatemalan civil warwas primarily fought over economic inequality and land rights but indigenousidentities became increasingly salient during the conflict Some of our analysesbelow do make an effort to distinguish between ethnic and non-ethnic civil wars

One possibility is for war to produce a reinforcing effectwhere the dominant ethnic group grows because of war Ifthe group(s) in power prevails or otherwise becomes lockedin a stalemate it is likely to refuse to implement ethnic-power reforms or actually further exclude a group thatmobilized in opposition Status quo powers could hesitate tomake concessions and reward treasonous activity Moreoverwar has the potential to exacerbate insecurity and fear Exist-ing work has considered why negotiations are so difficult inethnic conflicts due to mistrust among group members thatanother group will use any power and coercive resourcesagainst them (Posen 1993 Lake and Rothchild 1996 Fearon1998 Snyder and Jervis 1999) Constructivist scholars havealso emphasized how group identity can preclude cooper-ation (Stein 2001 Kaufman 2006) and how the salience ofethnic identity and political violence are mutually constitu-tive (Kaufmann 1996 Wimmer 2002 Brubaker 2004) Theoutbreak of war along ethnic lines reifies the importanceof ethnic identity and reinforces the sense by the status quopowers that there is a real security risk for granting excludedgroups greater access to the statersquos coercive capacities

In addition to issues of mistrust civil war can increaseethnic power disparities Population displacements duringcivil war can be severe for vulnerable excluded groupsand exacerbate economic inequalities (Bisogno and Chong2002) Fragmentation and factionalism during intrastatewars can prevent group consensus on key power-sharingissues and can produce internal competition and infighting(Fjelde and Nilsson 2012 Vogt 2016) Additionally SGBVndash especially when targeted at males of a marginalized eth-nic groupmdashcan be used in war to emasculate an ethnicgroup reinforcing their status as ldquoless thenrdquo and ldquoweakerrdquo(Sivakumaran 2007)

Even if the rebellion succeeds the new dominant groupmight replace the existing ethnic hierarchy with a new oneproducing a pendulum effect New governments often puni-tively repress previous regime supporters to consolidatepower Indeed the fear of the tables being turned when arival group gets power relates to the reinforcing effect abovein which status quo powers fear giving up power over thecoercive apparatus (Petersen 2002 Cederman Gleditschand Buhaug 2013) The expectation is that a change inwhich group(s) has power will lead to repression in theother direction rather than adoption of power equality

The reinforcing and pendulum effects are enhanced byincentives for actors in power to maintain distinct reputa-tions as uncompromising ethnic warriors Existing work hasconsidered the importance of elites in fomenting ethnicgrievances as a means to galvanize a base of support (Kuran1998 de Figueiredo Jr and Weingast 1999 Stein 2001)Elites that ultimately compromise with a rival group thatthey had made out to pose an existential threat would beat risk for abandoning the very cause that elevated themto their leadership positions (Cederman Gleditsch andBuhaug 2013) Winning groups might be especially reluc-tant to compromise on their projection of dominance afterengaging in SGBV or other actions intended to humiliatethe losing ethnic group

Turning to interstate wars we expect that in contrastinterstate wars generally open up the potential for last-ing reforms for greater ethnic equality This is especiallytrue for wars against a state adversary not closely tied tothe major ethnic divisions in a state9 Two mechanismscould contribute to the reforms First when ethnicity is not

9 We would thus not expect reforms to become more likely in interstate warsthat do overlap with the ethnic divisions in a state such as the Russia-Georgia war

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


related to the sides taken in a war then war can disrupt socialand political institutions while reforms pose less of a threatto the dominant grouprsquos security Economic or militaryneeds might drive the government to offer excluded groupmembers previously unavailable opportunities (eg thechance to serve in the military) Second the ldquorally lsquoroundthe flagrdquo effect could explain how interstate conflict in-creases the salience of being a citizen of a state fighting acommon enemy which attenuates the salience of existingethnic cleavages (Sambanis Skaperdas and Wohlforth2015) The national identityrsquos salience could overshadowthe group identityrsquos salience

Lastly as with gender hierarchies we anticipate thatethnic-group mobilization potential also affects the durabil-ity of any post-conflict equality gains though we expect therelationship here to be more mixed On the one hand weexpect ethnic groups to be more able to hold other groupsaccountable for any promised reforms If a status quopower fails to follow through on its promises then thereis a greater risk that the affected groups will pursue theiroutside option and use violence to punish If those in poweranticipate that potential they will have more incentive toimplement the promised reforms This logic is akin to thespiral equilibria described by Fearon and Laitin (1996) asone pattern of interethnic relations in which rival groupsrefrain from violence against one another in part becausethey know full well how costly violent escalation can be

On the other hand commitment problems abound ininterethnic conflicts due to issues of mistrust and changingethnic power balances (Lake and Rothchild 1996 Fearon1998) Additionally many power sharing agreements strug-gle with implementation (Roeder and Rothchild 2005Mukherjee 2006) To get a deterrence effect in the veinof the spiral equilibria from Fearon and Laitin (1996) theethnic groups in question need to be able to resolve theircollective action problems and provide credible threats formobilization When an ethnic group cannot mobilize topunish a violation of a reform commitment backsliding willbe common For example the Zoot Suit Riotsmdashin whichseveral violent confrontations took place between US Navy-men and predominantly Mexican-American youth in LosAngeles from June 3ndash8 1943mdashdemonstrate the potentialfor backsliding Despite a broadening of rights throughthe integration of the military during WWII Mexican-Americans in the US experienced racism and race-relatedviolence In the midst of interstate war mobilization effortsare often necessary for the promotion of rights amongracial and ethnic minorities Both in the past and presentLatinx groups which exhibit substantial heterogeneity havenot effectively mobilized as a cohesive political bloc (Calvoand Rosenstone 1989) much less a viable security threatable to exercise an outside option and hold the dominantgroups accountable for promises of equal rights and accessto power Perhaps the lack of mobilization potential hasreduced the urgency of whites in the US to fully supportreforms addressing ethnic power disparities

The Effects of War Overlapping Outcomes

Norms regarding social power along gender and ethnno-nationalist lines are not formed independently (Collins1998 2017 Yuval-Davis 2004 Wilcox 2009) When consid-ering the potential for war to open up space for movementtoward gender equality one possibility is that when war re-structures the sources of political and social power it allowsfor broader egalitarian reforms to occur The effects of waron gender and ethnic equality might be complementaryJust as non-dominant gender groups might find space for

more accommodation so might ethnic groups that hadbeen excluded in the preexisting order Moreover syner-gies could open up in which movements of non-dominantgender groups advocate not just for their own rights butalso for the rights of other marginalized groups either outof solidarity or to strategically build an alliance The reversecould also holdmdashethnic minority groups might try to builda broader movement as new social and political bargainsbecome possible Hartzell and Hoddie (2020) for examplefind that ethnic power sharing agreements contribute tobroader equality in access to power and distribution of re-sources Complementary gains are particularly likely whena war ends in government lossmdasha political crisis can spurnew configurations of groups that governmental leadersdepend on potentially including both ethnic and gendernon-dominant groups

In contrast we also posit the potential for gains in genderequality to be competitive with the gains for excludedethnic groups During the mobilization and deployment ofarmed forces men tend to be uprooted and non-dominantgender groups can have greater opportunities to serve innew roles (Meintjes Turshen and Pillay 2001 Hughes2009 Stiehm and Sjoberg 2010 Berry 2015 2018 Hughesand Tripp 2015 Mageza-Barthel 2015 Tripp 2015 Wood2008 2015) The uprooted men in these cases might befrom less privileged ethnic groups War could thus empowerindividuals from non-dominant gender groups especiallywhen the newly empowered individuals are from otherwiseprivileged ethnic groups that move into roles vacated bymen from politically powerless ethnic groups This dynamiccould contribute to long term decreases in power access foralready marginalized ethnic groups

Related existing scholarship notes that any gains ingender equality might only be realized for those of the dom-inant ethnic groups Indeed Crenshaw (1989) first coinedthe term ldquointersectionalityrdquo to draw attention to the erasureof black women from frameworks that focus only on sex orrace discrimination individuals who simultaneously belongto multiple disadvantaged groups are often disproportion-ately disadvantaged In the context of our framework thismeans that we must also consider the possibility that gainsfor ethnic-majority individuals from non-dominant gendergroups come at the expense of ethnically marginalizedindividuals also from non-dominant gender groups Thefeminizing of certain peoples across gender class raceethnic etc lines to the point that their subordination andoppression are taken for granted is central to this notion ofintersectionality (Peterson 2010) Berry discusses one man-ifestation of this phenomenonmdashhierarchies of victimhoodin Bosnia and Rwandamdashin which aid and assistance is onlyprovided in post-war contexts to the most severe victimspitting people of certain cleavages and victimhoods againsteach other (Berry 2017) These dynamics can also be ob-served in the context of indigenous womenrsquos roles in state-wide womenrsquos movements (Picq 2014) and differences inimplementation of the Women Peace and Security Agendain the Global North and the Global South (Haastrup andHagen 2019) To illustrate how this broader dynamic ofgains for women in certain groups at the expense of womenin marginalized communities might play out we now turn toan illustrative case Rigoberta Menchuacute and the Guatemalancivil war

Rigoberta Menchuacute

The case of Rigoberta Menchuacute Tum the Guatemalan ac-tivist and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate underscores threepoints relevant to our analysis the greater challenges faced

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


by women of minority ethnic groups differences in mo-bilization ability for ethnic versus gender groups and theopportunity for institutional reform created by a govern-mental loss

Born in 1959 in northeastern Guatemala Menchuacute grewup in a Quicheacute10 peasant family against the backdrop ofGuatemalarsquos civil war (Burgos-Debray 1985) which wasfought (1960ndash1996) in large part due to severe land in-equality and in which indigenous communities suffered thebrunt of state-led violence (United Nations 1999) Menchuacutersquosactivism started early and encompassed (at different times)advocacy for both womenrsquos rights and indigenous rightsAs a young teenager she became involved in social reformactivities through a local arm of the Catholic Church focus-ing initially on womenrsquos rights She grew frustrated with thelack of progressmdashand in particular with the resistance thatmany women had to challenging traditional gender norms(Burgos-Debray 1985)

As her dissatisfaction with a lack of traction grewand as her own family directly experienced the govern-mentrsquos repression her advocacy efforts shifted11 In 1979Rigoberta Menchuacute joined the CUC (Committee of PeasantUnity) to advocate for peasant and indigenous rights Shemade more progress and consequently faced more back-lash from the government She fled Guatemala in 1981 go-ing first to Mexico There she started her international workto bring attention to the Guatemalan governmentrsquos atroc-ities against indigenous communities Her autobiography(as told to anthropologist Elizabeth Burgos-Debray) waspublished in 1983 and attracted significant internationalattention raising awareness of the plight of Guatemalanindigenous groups Throughout the 1980s Menchuacute workedas one of the members of the Guatemalan Committee forPatriotic Unity and was one of the two indigenous membersof the group according to Stiehm (2018) ldquothe issue ofdiversity and multiculturalism was constantly debatedrdquo Sheadvocated in front of the United Nations Most notablyshe helped pass a resolution on Guatemalan human rightswhich placed substantial pressure on the Guatemalangovernment Ultimately she hoped to pass a UniversalDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples andalthough she was unsuccessful her efforts earned her theNobel Peace Prize in 1992 (Stiehm 2018)12

Menchuacutersquos experience highlights the challenges facingwomen of disadvantaged ethnic groups First indigenouswomen had a very different experience during Guatemalarsquoscivil war than did their non-native counterparts many ofwhom were wealthier lived in urban areas and were notas frequently subjected to sexual violence as indigenouswomen13 Second as our argument suggests Menchuacute hadmore success organizing around an indigenous identitythan around a gendered one she was able to networkwith other indigenous activists outside of Guatemala andsuccessfully lobby the United Nations but little concreteprogress was made for womenrsquos rights This success wasalso partly due to the fact that the Guatemalan war was

10 The Quicheacute people are one of twenty-two indigenous groups in Guatemala11 Her father brother and mother were all tortured and killed for their mobi-

lization against the government (Burgos-Debray 1985)12 Menchuacutersquos own experience as an activist was tainted by controversy as an-

thropologists and literary scholars ndash particularly David Stoll ndash questioned thetruthfulness of her autobiography (Stoll 2007) Most literary scholars agree thatalthough Menchuacute might not have personally witnessed all of the events that shenarrated the details were largely correct (Stoll 2007 Smith 2010) As Smith(2010) points out this accusation fits into stereotypes of indigenous peoples asliars

13 Menchuacutersquos autobiography contained many accounts of indigenous womenbeing forced to provide sexual favors for the military

not based on an ethnic cleavage but rather an economic(peasant-landowner) divide that overlapped with indige-nous identities Third the Guatemalan governmentrsquos lossesin the conflict opened up opportunities for reform andmeant that it had a hard time resisting pressure from theinternational community to improve indigenous rights itwas unsuccessful in blocking the UN resolution

Summary of Expectations

In developing expectations for how war affects structures ofsocial power we have distinguished between intrastate warsand interstate wars and among war outcomes Interstateconflicts could open up space for excluded ethnic groupsand potentially excluded gender groups to be invitedinto the fold as the state mobilizes against a commonenemy The pressure for broad openings in access to socialand political power will be greatest when the governmentloses the war and relatedly when regime change occursMeanwhile for intrastate wars when the government inpower prevails there is a high potential for a reinforcingeffect in which the incumbent ethnic powers retrench andconsolidate power When the government loses an intrastateconflict there is a potential for a pendulum effect in whicha new ethnic hierarchical ordering replaces an existing oneRegarding gender power imbalances intrastate conflictsespecially ones that result in regime change provide astrong potential for gains in gender equality Table 1 reviewshow we expect ethnic and gender hierarchies to change (ornot) after conflict depending on the type of conflict andthe outcome of the conflict We do not have strong priorexpectations about whether gains in gender equality willcomplement or compete with gains in ethnic equality

Research Design

Our quantitative study analyzes changes in equal access tocivil liberties along ethnic and gender lines that follow fromperiods of war Our data use a country-year unit of analysisand cover all states in the international system from 1900 to2015

We investigate two dependent variables changes in eth-nic civil-liberty equality and changes in gender civil-libertyequality By focusing on changes in civil-liberty restrictionswhich are measured along both ethnic and gender lines wecan directly compare warrsquos differential impacts on ethnicpower imbalances and gender power imbalances Our de-pendent variable for change in ethnic civil-liberty equalitycomes from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) projectand captures social group equality with respect to civil liber-ties (v2clsocgrp) This variable relates to the question ldquoDoall social groups as distinguished by language ethnicityreligion race region or caste enjoy the same level of civilliberties or are some groups generally in a more favorablepositionrdquo (Coppedge et al 2016) The social-group civilliberties variable aggregates over four components of civillibertiesmdashaccess to justice property rights freedom ofmovement and freedom from forced labormdashand rangesfrom 0 (ldquomembers of some social groups enjoy much fewercivil liberties than the general populationrdquo) to 4 (ldquomembersof all salient social groups enjoy the same level of civillibertiesrdquo)

For change in gender civil-liberty equality we use thegender civil liberties index (v2x_gencl) from the V-DemProject (Coppedge et al 2016) This variable also capturesa range of civil liberties each of which is designed toaddress how the ability to control personal decisions can

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


Table 1 Summary of expectations

Condition Expectation gender hierarchy Expectation ethnic hierarchy

Interstate War Gov Loss Enhanced gains in (short-term) equality Enhanced gains in equalityIntrastate War Gov Loss Enhanced gains in (short-term) equality Pendulum effectInterstate War Gov Prevails Modest gains in equality Modest gains in equalityIntrastate War Gov Prevails Modest gains in equality Reinforcing effect

engender womenrsquos empowerment (Sundstroumlm et al 2017)More specifically it ranges from 0 to 1 and aggregates foursub-measures freedom of domestic movement for women(v2cldmovew) freedom from forced labor for women(v2clslavef) property rights for women (v2clprptyw) andaccess to justice for women (v2clacjstw) V-Dem generatesthese scores by using ldquoassessments from thousands of coun-try experts who provided ordinal ratings for dozens ofindicatorsrdquo (Sundstroumlm et al 2017)14

We are interested in how war might change civil libertiesover time so we use the change in civil-liberty equality fromthe previous to current or future years as our dependentvariable15 Using differences in civil-liberty equality has twoadded benefits it helps control for country-specific tempo-rally fixed factors that influence how egalitarian a countryis overall and it produces stationary dependent variables

We recognize that these measures of the dependent vari-ables raise a few issues16 For one the focus on civil libertiescaptures only one manifestation of social power imbalancesThe lived experiences for non-dominant gender and ethnicgroups might be profoundly different from the civil-libertyprotections that are formalized but not well enforcedAdditionally the gender civil-liberty equality variable treatsgender as binary and thus overlooks the aspects of genderpower imbalances that do not map well to womenrsquos powerWe lose the ability to consider the full spectrum of genderidentities and the privileging of some masculinities andfemininities over others We accept these limitations andstill posit that an analysis of how war correlates with changesin these variables is instructive Improvements in these mea-sures are necessary (though not sufficient) conditions forfully realized gains in gender and ethnic equality For non-dominant gender and ethnic groups to experience realizedgains in social power they must have equal standing in theiraccess to civil liberties Related for gender power imbal-ances to be fully reduced women must have equal accessto civil liberties as men Moreover since state policymakerstend to reduce conceptions of gender power imbalances toequality between women and men and our concern is inhow war leads to state-level changes our measure of changesin gender civil-liberty equality is a reasonable though im-perfect outcome measure relevant to warrsquos impact

Because we are interested in how wars within and betweencountries can influence domestic hierarchies we have twomain independent variables a dummy variable for interstatewar and a dummy variable for intrastate war17 Both comefrom the Correlates of War (Version 41) data (Sarkees

14 Sundstroumlm et al (2017) provides an excellent discussion of the advantagesof this variable over many existing indicators of womenrsquos empowerment

15 For example if we are looking at Syria in 2000 we would use the changefrom 1999 to 2000 A model that uses the same time frame but looks at warrsquosfuture effects in 10 years would take the difference from 1999 to 2010

16 As a scope condition our findings might not apply to other manifestationsof gender and ethnic power imbalances

17 An alternative measure might avoid treating war as a dichotomy and thusaccount for how there are tremendous differences in the levels of violence ex-perienced within the war category as well as within the non-war category A fulltheoretical and empirical treatment of how violence severitymdashand differences in

and Wayman 2010) and are supplemented by UCDPrsquosArmed Conflict data from 2008 to 2015 (Pettersson andWallensteen 2015)

Since a warrsquos outcome as we argue above crucially shapeshow much of the political order is likely to be reconsid-ered we also include dummy variables for whether thegovernment in power has won lost or faced a less clearoutcome in a given year Again the data for most of thetime period comes from the Correlates of War (Version41) data (Sarkees and Wayman 2010) with the data from2008 to 2015 coming from the UCDP Conflict TerminationDataset (Version 2ndash2015) (Kreutz 2010)18 In models withthese outcome variables we also include dummy variablesfor whether a war has just started (the current year isexperiencing war but the previous one did not) and forwhether a war is ongoing (both the current and previousyears experienced war) to be able to compare the differentoutcomes at termination to different baselines (no war newwar and ongoing war)

We include several control variables We control for thelag and change of the electoral democracy index usingthe Polyarchy scores (v2x_polyarchy) from the V-Dem projectbecause more democratic countries might be less conflict-prone more equal and generally responsive (Vogt 2016Cederman Gleditsch and Wucherpfennig 2018)19 Like-wise because economic development (or lack thereof) caninfluence both conflict and levels of equality we control forthe lag and change in economic growth using a variable forlogged energy consumption from the National MaterialsCapabilities Data in the COW project (Singer 1988) Wealso control for the calendar year in order to account foroverall trends towards equality particularly for womenrsquosempowerment

With dependent variables measured in changes we uselinear regression models with fixed effects at the countrylevel The use of fixed effects controls for all time invariantfactors that shape the extent to which some countries havedifferent baseline trajectories in the changes of civil libertiesavailable to women and ethnic minorities We also generatestandard errors that are robust to clustering at the countrylevel to account for additional sources of within-countryautocorrelation

Results and Discussion

The Effects of War

To facilitate the presentation of our results here we presentthe marginal effects for our key variables Tables and

whether the severity is experienced on the battle field amongst non-combatantsor bothmdashshapes both gender and ethnic hierarchies is beyond the scope of thispaper

18 We considered the potential to explicitly model compromise settlements ashaving distinct relationships with changes in social hierarchies but there are toofew cases to study From the Correlates of War data we draw there are only sixcases of compromise outcomes out of 70 intrastate wars and there are only fourcases out of 217 in the interstate wars

19 We also use Polity scores (Marshall and Jaggers 2002) as robustness checks

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus025 000 025 050

Average marginal effects

Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 00 02 04 06


Intrastate War

War and Changes in Ethnic Civilminusliberty Equality When Gender Civilminusliberty Equality Improves

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus006 minus004 minus002 000 002


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

0000 0025 0050


Intrastate War

War and Changes in Gender Civilminusliberty Equality

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War

War and Changes in Ethnic Civilminusliberty Equality

Figure 1 Note Marginal effects are computed via 1000 simulations Rescaled coefficients for all variables are displayed infigure A1 in the appendix

figures with all of the modelsrsquo estimated coefficients are inthe appendix Following Hanmer and Ozan Kalkan (2013)and Webster Chen and Beardsley (2019) we take the pos-terior distribution of the model parameters and run 1000simulations via an observed-value approach to obtain themarginal effects That is for each simulation we only varythe value of the variable of interest (eg our war variable)from its minimum (eg 0) to its maximum (eg 1) whileholding all other covariates at their observed values inthe sample data We then take the average of the estimatedmarginal effects over all cases in the sample This procedureis repeated 1000 times which results in a distribution of the

estimated average effect in the population over these 1000simulations Therefore a positive value in the distributionfor example suggests that war is positively associated withthe increase in civil liberties In doing so we are better ableto represent the uncertainty of the effect of war resultingfrom model mis-specification and estimates (Hanmer andOzan Kalkan 2013)

Figure 1 shows how war correlates with forward changesin the civil liberties of all social groups (top panel) andgender civil-liberty equality (bottom panel) To investigatethe potential for a conditional effect based on overlappingcompetition or complementarity it also considers warrsquos

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


impact on forward changes in ethnic civil-liberty equalitywhen gender civil-liberty equality has increased (middlepanel)

Starting with the top panel of figure 1 we find that mostvalues of the average marginal effects are distributed on theright side of the x = 0 vertical line suggesting interstate wartends to be associated with improvements in civil libertiesfor all ethnic groups in the short and medium terms Theaverage marginal effects for intrastate conflict are smallerand estimated with more uncertainty The results are con-sistent with the expectations that political bargains overethnic-group political rights are more likely in the wake ofinterstate war

Turning to the middle panel which considers the poten-tial for the effect of war on ethnic civil-liberty equality tobe conditioned by whether the gender civil-liberty equalityimproved we observe that both interstate and intrastate wartend to be followed by gains in ethnic-group equality whenthere have been gains in gender equality When consideringthe overlap of social power inequalities for non-dominantgender and ethnic groups it appears that there is acomplementary relationship

We do not however see much evidence for the expecta-tion that interstate conflict is followed by gains in gendercivil-liberty equality We see more evidence that intrastateconflict does especially in the medium to long run Thefinding from the existing work that war leads to medium-term de facto improvements in womenrsquos empowermentthat may not endure resonates with our findings here thatthe impact of war on womenrsquos de jure improvements inempowerment is limited20 The relationship between warand changes in the equitable access to civil liberties acrossboth gender and ethnic lines is more fully explored whenwe consider the war outcomes

War Outcomes and Changes in Civil Liberties

In models that take into account different war outcomesrsquoeffects on civil liberties (presented in figures A2ndashA5 in theappendix) we observe that periods in which a war ends ingovernment loss are most strongly related to improvementsin civil liberties for both excluded ethnic groups and non-dominant gender groups The other outcome types havemore ambiguous relationships with changes in ethnic andgender civil liberties ldquoDrawsrdquomdashwhich include stalematescompromises and turns toward ongoing but less violentconflictmdashmight even have an effect in which restrictions onthe civil liberties of some ethnic groups are retrenched

The findings comport well with the expectation thatmajor social change can only come about when the existingpower structures face an existential threat or indeed are re-placed When governments lose a war regime change oftenco-occurs or at least becomes more likely whether throughregular or irregular means If a regime does survive a lossit might consider major reforms to establish new sourcesof political support New political and social bargains thusbecome possible as new regimes and new constitutionstake root For example the Qing dynasty of China startedimplementing a range of political economic and militaryreforms immediately following its defeat in the invasion

20 See Webster Chen and Beardsley (2019) for a fuller discussion about dif-ferences in how interstate and intrastate conflict affect womenrsquos empowermentOur results here that intrastate conflict has a stronger positive relationship withchanges in gender civil liberties is consistent with the existing work and resonateswith the findings below that changes in gender power imbalances are starkerwhen there is a full shakeup of the social order as during intrastate conflict andgovernment losses

by the ldquoEight-Nation Alliancerdquo in 1900 This period of theso-called New Policies Reform (1901ndash1912) rapidly trans-formed Confucian China into a modern state (Esherick2012) even sweeping out gendered social practices suchas womenrsquos footbinding that had lasted for more than onethousand years (Mackie 1996) Notably the direction andmagnitudes of the marginal effects related to the impactof government losses are consistent for all periods Thechanges in ethnic and gender empowerment followinggovernmental loss do not appear to attenuate The bargainsstruck in the wake of government losses appear to establishenduring reforms in the structuring of civil liberties

To further assess our expectations in table 1 surroundingwar outcomes figure 2 separates intrastate and interstatewars in considering the relationships between the gov-ernment loss outcomes and changes in civil liberties forexcluded ethnic groups and women We observe that bothinterstate losses and intrastate losses lead to positive gains ingender civil-liberty equalitymdashwith intrastate losses having aneven stronger association than interstate losses For changesin ethnic civil-liberty equality interstate losses have a positiveand significant association but not intrastate losses

One implication from these findings is consistent withour theoretical expectation that trust issues in the wake ofcivil war are starker for ethnic reforms than gender reformsIntrastate conflicts affect the political and social powerof non-dominant gender groups and ethnic minoritiesdifferently When governments lose an intrastate conflictthe victors do not necessarily rush to implement egalitarianethnic reforms but rather assert the power of a new groupThe new group might not trust the willingness of the formergroup(s) in power to abide by legitimate participation in thepolitical process and may also face pressures from within totake punitive action against groups associated with repres-sion We see some evidence of a pendulum effect in which warlosses do not translate to more rights for all people groups

The observed relationship between war losses andchanges in civil liberties raises the potential for regimechange to be an intermediate variable between war andopenings for reforms toward ethnic equality Indeed inanalyses not shown wars increase the likelihood of irregularregime change as defined by the Archigos data (GoemansGleditsch and Chiozza 2009) Figure 3 takes the modelfrom the top panel of figure 1 and adds a dummy variablefor whether irregular regime change has occurred Theresults indicate that the occurrences of both interstate andintrastate war have similar relationships with changes in eth-nic civil-liberty equality even with the potential intermediatevariable included But it is also striking that irregular regimechange is associated with positive increases in greater civilliberties for all ethnic groups Regime change appears tohave an independent ability to open up the possibility ofethnic equality as new constitutions are adopted and oldorders are replaced War need not be the vehicle by whichsuch regime change occurs on the path to reform

As a robustness check we also consider the potentialfor variation in SGBV to be either a confounding variableor a conditioning variable (Agerberg and Kreft 2020) Weuse the December 2019 version of the Sexual Violencein Armed Conflict dataset (Cohen and Nordarings 2014) andadd a binary measure of sexual violence during war intoour country-year data for the period from 1989 to 2015Using the same models we had for figure 1 we do notfind that the marginal effect of warmdashboth in terms of thedirection and the magnitudemdashin the presence of sexualviolence is different from the marginal effect of war in theabsence of sexual violence as shown in figure A8 in the

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04


Recent Interstate War Losses and Changes in Ethnic Civilminusliberty Equality

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8


Recent Intrastate War Losses and Changes in Ethnic Civilminusliberty Equality

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050


Recent Interstate War Losses and Changes in Gender Civilminusliberty Equality

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010


Recent Intrastate War Losses and Changes in Gender Civilminusliberty Equality

Figure 2 Note Rescaled coefficients for all variables are displayed in figure A9 in the appendix Marginal effects are computedvia 1000 simulations

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War

War Regime Change and Changes in Ethnic Civilminusliberty Equality


appendix This analysis of the role of SGBVmdashthough lim-ited to the post-Cold War periodmdashfurther lends credenceto our main argument regarding the impact of war on civilliberties

Extension Group-Level Analyses

The analyses thus far have used a country-year unit ofanalysis with aggregate measures of changes in ethnic civil-liberty equality Moreover we have lumped all intrastate

wars together and have not distinguished between conflictsover government and conflicts over territory nor have wedistinguished between the occurrence of any conflict withina country and a group-specific conflict We now use a moredisaggregated approach to consider changes in the politicalpower held by discrete ethnic groups as periods of warcome and go

We use the Ethnic Power Relations (EPR) Data (2018Version) to define ethnic groups worldwide and to measuretheir access to political power (Vogt et al 2015) The data

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005


Territorial War and Change in Group Status Ranking

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020


Governmental War and Change in Group Status Ranking

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010


Grouprsquos Territorial War and Change in Group Status Ranking

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06


Grouprsquos Governmental War and Change in Group Status Ranking

Figure 4 Note Rescaled Coefficients for all variables are summarized in table A1 in the appendix Marginal effects arecomputed via 1000 simulations

cover the period from 1946 to 201721 The outcome ofinterest measures whether groups that were excluded frompolitical power in the previous year experience a change intheir status ranking as an excluded group in the year underobservation The EPR dataset measures groupsrsquo access tostate power at the national level with an ordinal scale of1ndash7 which comprises the categories of monopoly (ldquo7rdquo)dominance (ldquo6rdquo) senior partner (ldquo5rdquo) junior partner (ldquo4rdquo)self-exclusion (ldquo3rdquo) powerless (ldquo2rdquo) and discrimination(ldquo1rdquo)

To assess the differential impacts that territorial and gov-ernment wars have on changes in ethnic groupsrsquo access topower we use dummy variables for whether a war over terri-tory or a war over government occurred within a country ina given year from the UCDP Conflict Termination Dataset(Version 2-2015) (Kreutz 2010) These variables are notmutually exclusive because some conflicts exhibit character-istics of both territorial and governmental wars To distin-guish between groups that participated in a war and groupsthat merely reside in a country that experienced war we usedummy variables from the ACD2EPR Dataset (2018 version)for whether a group was directly involved as a warring partyin a given year Consequently we measure civil wars at thecountry level with the UCDP data while we measure specificgroups involved in ethnic wars at the group level with theACD2EPR Data22 We also control for whether the countryis democratic (ie polity score greater than or equal to six)and the population size of the countrymdashtwo variables likelyto shape the potential for exclusion and the propensityfor warmdashas well as the calendar year Finally we controlfor whether the country holds presidentialexecutive

21 Due to other data constraints our final analysis covers 1946ndash2012 Remov-ing variables to extend the analysis to 2017 produces results consistent with thosepresented Data originate from the GROWUP platform (Girardin et al 2015)

22 By definition UCDP intrastate conflicts are not necessarily ethnic wars un-less rebel organizations express their political aims (at least partly) in the name ofan ethnic group and a significant number of members of the group participatedin civil conflicts (Cederman Weidmann and Gleditsch 2011)

andor legislativeparliamentary elections in a given yearBy controlling for national elections we are assessing therelationship between war and changes in group power thatis separate from the electoral process Data on electionsare from the National Election Across Democracy andAutocracy Dataset (NELDA) (Hyde and Marinov 2012)

Because of the grouped nature of the datamdashethnicgroups within countriesmdashwe use multilevel varying-intercept models with standard errors clustered at thecountry level (Gelman and Hill 2007) Since all the observa-tions are of groups that had been excluded in the previousperiod and the dependent variable is measured as thechange in an ordinal scale that measures a grouprsquos statusranking a positive coefficient means that there is a move-ment away from a lower ranking to a higher ranking in termsof power access at the national level Again we use 1000simulations based on the posterior distributions of modelparameters to compute marginal effects for the dummyvariables of each war type which are depicted in figure 4

The results in figure 4 indicate that governmental warsbut not territorial conflicts are associated with reductionsin the exclusion of a group Major challenges to the cen-tral government have the greatest potential to restructurenation-wide social and political power orders leading toreal changes in political power for ethnic out-groups Atthe same time governmental conflicts are often less clearlyabout ethnicity per se such that interethnic bargaining po-tentially faces less formidable challenges than in territorialconflicts Moreover the results in panel (d) further suggestthat although a grouprsquos status ranking can downgradeimmediately amidst a governmental war in which the groupitself is involved as a warring party its status ranking canbe significantly improved in the medium and long termThese findings contrast with Cederman Gleditsch andWucherpfennig (2018) who do not find strong evidenceat the country-year level that political instabilitymdashmeasuredas post-conflict periods and ongoing civil warmdashincreasesthe probability of inclusive shifts The findings however

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


resonate with the findings of Koos (2016) who finds thatarmed rebellion does increase the potential for marginal-ized ethnic groups to overcome deprivation23

The results thus comport well with the expectation thatwars with a salient ethnic dimension which are predomi-nantly territorial conflicts are at greatest risk for stokingmistrust and fear along ethnic lines When the fighting fallsstrongly along ethnic lines status quo ethnic powers arereluctant to concede political power to excluded groups Areinforcing effect works to prevent meaningful reforms tothe ethnic power balance as the status quo powers dig intheir heels24

As a robustness check we again use fixed-effects OLSregression with standard errors clustered at the countrylevel The results are shown in figure A7 in the appendixand are largely consistent with figure 4

Conclusion

The empirical findings confirm that war has different effectson social hierarchies depending on the type of hierarchytype of war and the type of outcome of war Consistent withthe understanding of war as a source of societal shakeup thatallows for a renegotiation of social norms and institutionswe see that reforms related to gender and ethnic inequalityappear to be mutually complementary and supportive

Although this study has found that war can open upthe potential for excluded ethnic groups to gain greateraccess to civil liberties it does not follow that war is anefficient vehicle in the pursuit of equality One importantimplication of this study is that regime change even inthe absence of war can similarly enhance the rights ofexcluded ethnic groups General efforts to promote thecauses of democracy and to support non-violent protestsagainst repressive regimes can and do similarly catalyze im-provements in ethnic inequality (Chenoweth and Stephan2011) This study does not change the reality that war is hellto all of those affected especially to marginalized genderand ethnic groups even if they experience on-average civilliberties gains in the wake of war

Another important implication follows from the findingthat improvements in a polityrsquos ethnic inclusiveness cancomplement improvements in a polityrsquos gender inclu-siveness and vice versa A growing literature stresses howimportant gender mainstreaming can be during peaceprocesses (Bush 2011 Anderson and Swiss 2014 Anderson2015 Huber and Karim 2018 Webster Chen and Beardsley2019) As gender is mainstreamed during peace processesthe causes of excluded ethnic groups can also be main-streamed so that crucial opportunities for reform canbe seized while social political and economic institutionsare being reimagined renegotiated and rebuilt in the wakeof war The case of Rigoberta Menchuacute is also instructivein pointing to the potential for traction related to genderequality when activists have gained traction related to ethnicequality

Further work would do well to explore the additionalmanifestations of changes in gender and ethnic powerimbalances that are not well captured by our civil libertiesmeasures Importantly this study only captures on-averagechanges after war which will poorly capture the livedexperiences of many individuals living through times of

23 Our findings differ from Koos (2016) in not restricting the outcome vari-able to be a dichotomous indicator of movement from exclusion to inclusion

24 The positive marginal effects for governmental conflict do not imply a typeof pendulum effect because the coefficients would have to be much larger foraverage groups to jump all the way from excluded to dominant

upheaval Their narratives are instructive to provide a fullrepresentation of how war affects changes in social power

Further work might also consider how warfare affectssocial hierarchies at the systemic level (Sjoberg 2012)Colonialism especially had a profound impact on thestructuring of gender and ethnic power imbalances acrossthe globe (Schmidt 1991 Vogt 2018) and understandingthe relationship between war and the rise and decline ofcolonialism would add to our understanding of the socialimplications of war

Supplementary Information

Supplemental information is available at the InternationalStudies Quarterly data archive

FundingThis project received generous funding from a researchgrant by the Folke Bernadotteakademin

AcknowledgmentsFor insightful comments we thank Alex Braithwaite DaraCohen Ismene Gizelis Caroline Hartzell Marsha HenryLaura Huber Carlo Koos Jana Krause Milli Lake Sum-mer Lindsey Zoe Marks Hilary Matfess Emily RoseMitchell Emily Myers Robert Nagel Sabrina Karim An-gela Muvumba-Sellstroumlm Catriona Standfield Jun KogaSudduth Alissar Tannous David Tier Zhipeng WangNina Wilen Chuang Zu two anonymous reviewers andthe editorial team at ISQ Earlier versions of this pa-per were presented at the Annual Meeting of theConflict Research Society Birmingham 2018 the An-nual Meeting of the International Studies AssociationToronto 2019 the Annual Meeting of the AmericanPolitical Science Association Washington DC 2019 andthe Folke Bernadotte Academy and Peace Research Institute(Oslo) Research Workshop ldquoTwenty in 2020 UNSCR Res-olution 1325 and Women Peace and Securityrdquo New York2020

References

AGERBERG MATTIAS AND ANNE-KATHRIN KREFT 2020 ldquoGendered Conflict Gen-dered Outcomes The Politicization of Sexual Violence and QuotaAdoptionrdquo Journal of Conflict Resolution 64 (2ndash3) 290ndash317

ANDERSON MIRIAM J 2015 Windows of Opportunity How Women Seize Peace Ne-gotiations for Political Change Oxford Oxford University Press

ANDERSON MIRIAM J AND LIAM SWISS 2014 ldquoPeace Accords and the Adoptionof Electoral Quotas for Women in the Developing World 1990ndash2006rdquoPolitics amp Gender 10 (1) 33ndash61

BARRETT FRANK J 1996 ldquoThe Organizational Construction of HegemonicMasculinity The Case of the US Navyrdquo Gender Work amp Organization3 (3) 129ndash42

BERRY MARIE E 2015 ldquoWhen ldquoBright Futuresrdquo Fade Paradoxes of WomenrsquosEmpowerment in Rwandardquo Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society41 (1) 1ndash27

mdashmdashmdash 2017 ldquoBarriers to Womenrsquos Progress After Atrocity Evidence fromRwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovinardquo Gender amp Society 31 (6) 830ndash53

mdashmdashmdash 2018 War Women and Power From Violence to Mobilization in Rwandaand Bosnia-Herzegovina Cambridge Cambridge University Press

BISOGNO MARCELO AND ALBERTO CHONG 2002 ldquoPoverty and Inequality inBosnia and Herzegovina After the Civil Warrdquo World Development 30 (1)61ndash75

BJARNEGAringRD ELIN AND ERIK MELANDER 2011 ldquoDisentangling Gender Peaceand Democratization The Negative Effects of Militarized MasculinityrdquoJournal of Gender Studies 20 (2) 139ndash54

BRAITHWAITE ALEX AND LUNA B RUIZ 2018 ldquoFemale Combatants Forced Re-cruitment and Civil Conflict Outcomesrdquo Research amp Politics 5 (2) 1ndash7

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


BRUBAKER ROGERS 2004 Ethnicity without Groups Cambridge HarvardUniversity Press

BURGOS-DEBRAY ELISABETH 1985 Me llamo Rigoberta Menchuacute y asiacute me nacioacute laconciencia vol 3 Siglo XXI

BUSH SARAH SUNN 2011 ldquoInternational Politics and The Spread of Quotasfor Women in Legislaturesrdquo International Organization 65 (1) 103ndash37

CALVO MARIA ANTONIA AND STEVEN J ROSENSTONE 1989 Hispanic PoliticalParticipation Southwest Voter Research Institute

CEDERMAN LARS-ERIK KRISTIAN SKREDE GLEDITSCH AND HALVARD BUHAUG 2013Inequality Grievances and Civil War Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

CEDERMAN LARS-ERIK KRISTIAN SKREDE GLEDITSCH AND JULIAN WUCHERPFENNIG2018 ldquoThe Diffusion of Inclusion An Open-Polity Model of EthnicPower Sharingrdquo Comparative Political Studies 51 (10) 1279ndash313

CEDERMAN LARS-ERIK NILS B WEIDMANN AND KRISTIAN SKREDE GLEDITSCH 2011ldquoHorizontal Inequalities and Ethnonationalist Civil War A GlobalComparisonrdquo American Political Science Review 105 (03) 478ndash95

CHENOWETH ERICA AND MARIA J STEPHAN 2011 Why Civil Resistance WorksThe Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict New York Columbia UniversityPress

COCKBURN CYNTHIA 2010 ldquoGender Relations as Causal in Militarization andWar A Feminist Standpointrdquo International Feminist Journal of Politics 12(2) 139ndash57

COHEN DARA KAY AMELIA HOOVER GREEN AND ELISABETH JEAN WOOD 2013Wartime Sexual Violence Misconceptions Implications and Ways ForwardUnited States Institute of Peace

COHEN DARA KAY AND RAGNHILD NORDAringS 2014 ldquoSexual Violence in ArmedConflict Introducing the SVAC Dataset 1989ndash2009rdquo Journal of PeaceResearch 51 (3) 418ndash28

COLLINS PATRICIA HILL 1998 ldquoItrsquos All in the Family Intersections of GenderRace and Nationrdquo Hypatia 13 (3) 62ndash82

mdashmdashmdash 2017 ldquoOn Violence Intersectionality and Transversal PoliticsrdquoEthnic and Racial Studies 40 (9) 1460ndash73

COLVIN SARAH AND KATHARINA KARCHER 2018 Gender Emancipation and Politi-cal Violence Rethinking the Legacy of 1968 London Routledge

CONNELL ROBERT W AND JAMES W MESSERSCHMIDT 2005 ldquoHegemonicMasculinity Rethinking the Conceptrdquo Gender amp Society 19 (6)829ndash59

COPPEDGE MICHAEL et al 2016 ldquoVarieties of Democracy Codebook v6Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Projectrdquo Accessed May 6 2019httpswwwv-demnetfiles42Codebookv6pdf

CRENSHAW KIMBERLE 1989 ldquoDemarginalizing The Intersection of Race andSex A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine Femi-nist Theory and Antiracist Politicsrdquo In Feminist Legal Theory edited byKaren Maschke 57ndash80 London Routledge

mdashmdashmdash 1991 ldquoMapping The Margins Intersectionality Identity Politics andViolence Against Women Of Colorrdquo Stanford Law Review 43 (6) 1241ndash99

DE FIGUEIREDO RUI J P JR AND BARRY R WEINGAST 1999 ldquoThe Rationalityof Fear Political Opportunism and Ethnic Conflictrdquo In Civil Wars In-security and Intervention edited by Barbara F Walter and Jack Snyder261ndash302 New York Columbia University Press

DOLAN CHRIS 2017 ldquoVictims Who Are Menrdquo In The Oxford Handbook ofGender and Conflict edited by Fionnuala Niacute Aolaacutein Naomi Cahn DinaFrancesca Haynes and Nahla Valji 1ndash20 Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

ELSHTAIN JEAN BETHKE 1987 Women and War Chicago University of ChicagoPress

ENLOE CYNTHIA 1989 Bananas Beaches and Bases Making Feminist Sense ofInternational Politics Berkeley University of California Press

mdashmdashmdash 1993 The Morning After Sexual Politics at the End of The Cold WarBerkeley University of California Press

mdashmdashmdash 2016 Globalization and Militarism Feminists Make the Link LanhamMD Rowman amp Littlefield

ESHERICK JOSEPH W 2012 ldquoReconsidering 1911 Lessons of a Sudden Revolu-tionrdquo Journal of Modern Chinese History 6 (1) 1ndash14

EVANS ALICE 2014 ldquoWomen Can Do What Men Can Dorsquo The Causes andConsequences of Growing Flexibility in Gender Divisions of Labour inKitwe Zambiardquo Journal of Southern African Studies 40 (5) 981ndash98

FEARON JAMES 1998 ldquoCommitment Problems and the Spread of Ethnic Con-flictrdquo In The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict Fear Diffusion andEscalation edited by David A Lake and Donald Rothchild 107ndash26Princeton NJ Princeton University Press

FEARON JAMES D AND DAVID D LAITIN 1996 ldquoExplaining Interethnic Cooper-ationrdquo American Political Science Review 90 (4) 715ndash35

FJELDE HANNE AND DESIREacuteE NILSSON 2012 ldquoRebels Against Rebels ExplainingViolence Between Rebel Groupsrdquo Journal of Conflict Resolution 56 (4)604ndash28

GELMAN ANDREW AND JENNIFER HILL 2007 Data Analysis Using Regression andMultilevelHierarchical Models Cambridge Cambridge University Press

GIRARDIN LUC PHILIPP HUNZIKER LARS-ERIK CEDERMAN NILS-CHRISTIAN

BORMANN AND MANUEL VOGT 2015 GROWUPmdashGeographical Research onWar Unified Platform ETH Zurich Cambridge Accessed May 6 2019httpgrowupethzch

GOEMANS HENK E KRISTIAN SKREDE GLEDITSCH AND GIACOMO CHIOZZA 2009ldquoIntroducing Archigos A Dataset of Political Leadersrdquo Journal of PeaceResearch 46 (2) 269ndash83

GOLDSTEIN JOSHUA S 2001 War and Gender How Gender Shapes the War Systemand Vice Versa Cambridge Cambridge University Press

HAASTRUP TONI AND JAMIE J HAGEN 2019 ldquoUntangling Whiteness amp Taking RaceSeriously An Intersectional Reading of WPS Practicerdquo In New Directions forWomen Peace and Security edited by Soumita Basu Paul Kirby and LauraJ Shepherd Bristol University Press

HAGEN JAMIE J 2016 ldquoQueering Women Peace and Securityrdquo InternationalAffairs 92 (2) 313ndash32

HANMER MICHAEL J AND KEREM OZAN KALKAN 2013 ldquoBehind the Curve Clar-ifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities andMarginal Effects From Limited Dependent Variable Modelsrdquo AmericanJournal of Political Science 57 (1) 263ndash77

HARTZELL CAROLINE A AND MATTHEW HODDIE 2020 Power Sharing and Democ-racy in Post-Civil War States The Art of the Possible Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

HIGATE PAUL 2003 Military Masculinities Identity and the State Westport CTPraeger Publishers

HUBER LAURA AND SABRINA KARIM 2018 ldquoThe Internationalization of SecuritySector Gender Reforms in Post-Conflict Countriesrdquo Conflict Manage-ment and Peace Science 35 (3) 263ndash79

HUDSON VALERIE M AND ANDREA DEN BOER 2002 ldquoA Surplus of Men a Deficitof Peace Security and Sex Ratios in Asiarsquos Largest Statesrdquo InternationalSecurity 26 (4) 5ndash38

HUGHES MELANIE M 2009 ldquoArmed Conflict International Linkages andWomenrsquos Parliamentary Representation in Developing Nationsrdquo SocialProblems 56 (1) 174ndash204

HUGHES MELANIE M AND AILI MARI TRIPP 2015 ldquoCivil War and Trajectoriesof Change in Womenrsquos Political Representation in Africa 1985ndash2010rdquoSocial Forces 93 (4) 1513ndash40

HYDE SUSAN D AND NIKOLAY MARINOV 2012 ldquoWhich Elections Can Be LostrdquoPolitical Analysis 20 (2) 191ndash210

KARIM SABRINA AND KYLE BEARDSLEY 2017 Equal Opportunity PeacekeepingWomen Peace and Security in Post-Conflict States Oxford OxfordUniversity Press

KAUFMAN STUART J 2006 ldquoSymbolic Politics or Rational Choice Testing The-ories of Extreme Ethnic Violencerdquo International Security 30 (4) 45ndash86

KAUFMANN CHAIM 1996 ldquoPossible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic CivilWarsrdquo International Security 20 (4) 136ndash75

KOOS CARLO 2016 ldquoDoes Violence Pay The Effect of Ethnic Rebellionon Overcoming Political Deprivationrdquo Conflict Management and PeaceScience 33 (1) 3ndash24

KREFT ANNE-KATHRIN 2019 ldquoResponding to Sexual Violence WomenrsquosMobilization in Warrdquo Journal of Peace Research 56 (2) 220ndash33

KREUTZ JOAKIM 2010 ldquoHow and When Armed Conflicts End Introducingthe UCDP Conflict Termination Datasetrdquo Journal of Peace Research 47(2) 243ndash50

KRONSELL ANNICA 2012 Gender Sex and the Postnational Defense Militarism AndPeacekeeping Oxford Oxford University Press

KURAN TIMUR 1998 ldquoEthnic Dissimilation and Its International DiffusionrdquoIn The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict Fear Diffusion and Escala-tion edited by David A Lake and Donald Rothchild 35ndash60 PrincetonNJ Princeton University Press

LAKE DAVID A AND DONALD ROTHCHILD 1996 ldquoContaining Fear The Originsand Management of Ethnic Conflictrdquo International Security 21 (2) 41ndash75

LOKEN MEREDITH MILLI LAKE AND KATE CRONIN-FURMAN 2018 ldquoDeployingJustice Strategic Accountability for Wartime Sexual Violencerdquo Inter-national Studies Quarterly 62 (4) 751ndash64

MACKENZIE MEGAN AND ALANA FOSTER 2017 ldquoMasculinity Nostalgia How Warand Occupation Inspire a Yearning for Gender Orderrdquo Security Dialogue48 (3) 206ndash23

MACKIE GERRY 1996 ldquoEnding Footbinding and Infibulation A ConventionAccountrdquo American Sociological Review 61 (6) 999ndash1017

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


MAGEZA-BARTHEL RIRHANDU 2015 Mobilizing Transnational Gender Politics inPost-genocide Rwanda Farnham UK Ashgate Publishing

MARKS ZOEJ AND ERICA CHENOWETH 2019 ldquoEmpowerment or Backlash HowWomenrsquos Participation in Mass Uprisings Provides A Rising TiderdquoPaper presented at the International Studies Association International Con-ference Accra Ghana August 3 2019

MARSHALL MONTY G AND KEITH JAGGERS 2002 ldquoPolity IV Project PoliticalRegime Characteristics and Transitions 1800ndash2002rdquo Accessed May 62019 httpwwwsystemicpeace orgpolitypolity4htm

MEINTJES SHEILA MEREDETH TURSHEN AND ANU PILLAY 2001 The AftermathWomen in Post-Conflict Transformation London Zed Books

MORAN MARY H 2010 ldquoGender Militarism and Peace-building Projectsof the Postconflict Momentrdquo Annual Review of Anthropology 39261ndash74

MUKHERJEE BUMBA 2006 ldquoWhy Political Power-Sharing Agreements Lead toEnduring Peaceful Resolution of Some Civil Wars But Not OthersrdquoInternational Studies Quarterly 50 (2) 479ndash504

MURDIE AMANDA AND DURSUN PEKSEN 2015 ldquoWomen and Contentious Pol-itics A Global Event-Data Approach to Understanding WomenrsquosProtestrdquo Political Research Quarterly 68 (1) 180ndash92

PANKHURST DONNA 2003 ldquoThe lsquoSex Warrsquo and Other Wars Towards A Femi-nist Approach to Peace Buildingrdquo Development in Practice 13 (2-3) 154ndash77

mdashmdashmdash 2012 Gendered Peace Womenrsquos Struggles for Post-War Justice and Recon-ciliation London Routledge

PATEMAN CAROLE 1988 Sexual Contract Wiley Online LibraryPETERSEN ROGER D 2002 Understanding Ethnic Violence Fear Hatred and

Resentment in Twentieth-Century Eastern Europe Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

PETERSON V SPIKE 2010 ldquoGendered Identities Ideologies and Practices inthe Context of War and Militarismrdquo In Gender War and Militarism Fem-inist Perspectives edited by Laura Sjoberg and Sandra Via 17ndash29 SantaBarbara CA Praeger Security International

PETTERSSON THEREacuteSE AND PETER WALLENSTEEN 2015 ldquoArmed Conflicts 1946ndash2014rdquo Journal of Peace Research 52 (4) 536ndash50

PICQ MANUELA L 2014 ldquoSelf-Determination as Anti-Extractivism How In-digenous Resistance Challenges World Politicsrdquo In Restoring IndigenousSelf-Determination Theoretical and Practical Approaches edited by MarcWoons 26ndash33 Bristol UK E-International Relations

POSEN BARRY R 1993 ldquoThe Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflictrdquo Survival35 (1) 27ndash47

REINGOLD BETH 2003 Representing Women Sex Gender and Legislative Behaviorin Arizona and California Chapel Hill NC University of North CarolinaPress

ROEDER PHILIP G AND DONALD S ROTHCHILD 2005 Sustainable Peace Powerand Democracy after Civil Wars Ithaca Cornell University Press

SAMBANIS NICHOLAS STERGIOS SKAPERDAS AND WILLIAM C WOHLFORTH 2015ldquoNation-Building Through Warrdquo American Political Science Review 109(2) 279ndash96

SARKEES MEREDITH REID AND FRANK WHELON WAYMAN 2010 Resort To WarA Data Guide To Inter-State Extra-State Intra-State and Non-State Wars1816ndash2007 Washington DC CQ Press

SCHMIDT ELIZABETH 1991 ldquoPatriarchy Capitalism and the Colonial State inZimbabwerdquo Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16 (4) 732ndash56

SCHROEDER THERESA 2017 ldquoWhen Security Dominates the Agenda TheInfluence of Ongoing Security Threats on Female RepresentationrdquoJournal of Conflict Resolution 61 (3) 564ndash89

SINGER J DAVID 1988 ldquoReconstructing the Correlates of War Dataset onMaterial Capabilities of States 1816ndash1985rdquo International Interactions 14(2) 115ndash32

SIVAKUMARAN SANDESH 2007 ldquoSexual Violence Against Men in Armed Con-flictrdquo European Journal of International Law 18 (2) 253ndash76

SJOBERG LAURA 2012 ldquoGender Structure and War What Waltz CouldnrsquotSeerdquo International Theory 4 (1) 1ndash38

mdashmdashmdash 2014 Gender War and Conflict Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp Sonsmdashmdashmdash 2016 Women as Wartime Rapists Beyond Sensation and Stereotyping New

York New York University PressSMITH KATHRYN M 2010 ldquoFemale Voice and Feminist Text Testimonio as

A Form of Resistance in Latin Americardquo Florida Atlantic ComparativeStudies Journal 12 (1) 21ndash37

SNYDER JACK AND ROBERT JERVIS 1999 ldquoCivil War and The Security DilemmardquoIn Civil Wars Insecurity and Intervention edited by Barbara F Walterand Jack Snyder 15ndash37 New York Columbia University Press

STEIN JANICE GROSS 2001 ldquoImage Identity and The Resolution of ViolentConflictrdquo In Turbulent Peace The Challenges of Managing International

Conflict edited by Chester A Crocker Fen Osler Hampson and PamelaAall 189ndash208 Washington DC United States Institute of Peace Press

STIEHM JUDITH HICKS 1982 ldquoThe Protected the Protector the DefenderrdquoWomenrsquos Studies International Forum 5 (3ndash4) 367ndash76

mdashmdashmdash 2018 Champions for peace Women Winners of the Nobel Peace PrizeLanham MD Rowman amp Littlefield

STIEHM JUDITH HICKS AND LAURA SJOBERG 2010 ldquoTheses on the Military Se-curity War and Womenrdquo In Gender and International Security FeministPerspectives edited by Laura Sjoberg 17ndash23 London Routledge

STOLL DAVID 2007 Rigoberta Menchu and the Story of All Poor GuatemalansBoulder CO Westview Press

SUNDSTROumlM AKSEL PAMELA PAXTON YI-TING WANG AND STAFFAN I LINDBERG2017 ldquoWomenrsquos Political Empowerment A New Global Index 1900ndash2012rdquo World Development 94 321ndash35

THEIDON KIMBERLY 2017 ldquoFeminist and Human Rights Struggles in PeruDecolonizing Transitional Justice by Pascha Bueno-Hansenrdquo HumanRights Quarterly 39 (3) 769ndash74

THOMAS JAKANA L AND KANISHA D BOND 2015 ldquoWomenrsquos Participation in Vi-olent Political Organizationsrdquo American Political Science Review 109 (3)488ndash506

THOMAS JAKANA L AND REED M WOOD 2018 ldquoThe Social Origins of FemaleCombatantsrdquo Conflict Management and Peace Science 35 (3) 215ndash32

TRIPP AILI MARI 2015 Women and Power in Post-Conflict Africa CambridgeCambridge University Press

mdashmdashmdash 2016 ldquoWomenrsquos Movements and Constitution Making after CivilUnrest and Conflict in Africa The Cases of Kenya and Somaliardquo Politicsamp Gender 12 (1) 78ndash106

TRIPP AILI MARI MYRA MARX FERREE AND CHRISTINA EWIG 2013 Gender Violenceand Human Security Critical Feminist Perspectives New York New YorkUniversity Press

UNITED NATIONS 1999 Guatemala Memory of Silence Report of the Commission forHistorical Clarification Conclusions and Recommendations Accessed May 62019 httpshrdagorgpublicationsguatemala-memory-of-silence-report-of-the-commission-for-historical-clarification-conclusions-and-recommendations

VITERNA JOCELYN 2013 Women in War The Micro-Processes of Mobilization in ElSalvador Oxford Oxford University Press

VOGT MANUEL 2016 ldquoA New Dawn Indigenous Movements and EthnicInclusion in Latin Americardquo International Studies Quarterly 60 (4) 790ndash801

mdashmdashmdash 2018 ldquoEthnic Stratification and The Equilibrium of Inequality Eth-nic Conflict in Postcolonial Statesrdquo International Organization 72 (1)105ndash37

VOGT MANUEL NILS-CHRISTIAN BORMANN SERAINA RUumlEGGER LARS-ERIK CEDER-MAN PHILIPP HUNZIKER AND LUC GIRARDIN 2015 ldquoIntegrating Data onEthnicity Geography and Conflict The Ethnic Power Relations DataSet Familyrdquo Journal of Conflict Resolution 59 (7) 1327ndash42

WEBSTER KAITLYN CHONG CHEN AND KYLE BEARDSLEY 2019 ldquoConflict Peaceand the Evolution of Womenrsquos Empowermentrdquo International Organiza-tion 73 (2) 255ndash89

WILCOX LAUREN 2009 ldquoGendering the Cult of the Offensiverdquo Security Studies18 (2) 214ndash40

WIMMER ANDREAS 2002 Nationalist Exclusion and Ethnic Conflict Shadows ofModernity Cambridge Cambridge University Press

WOOD ELISABETH JEAN 2008 ldquoThe Social Processes of Civil War The WartimeTransformation of Social Networksrdquo Annual Review of Political Science11 539ndash61

mdashmdashmdash 2010 ldquoSexual Violence During War Leveraging Variation TowardsChangerdquo In Collective Crimes and International Criminal Justice An Inter-disciplinary Approach edited by Alette Smeulers and Elies van Sliedregt297ndash324 Antwerp Intersentia

mdashmdashmdash 2015 ldquoSocial Mobilization and Violence in Civil War and Their So-cial Legaciesrdquo In The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements edited byDonatella Della Porta and Mario Diani 452ndash66 Oxford Oxford Uni-versity Press

WOOD REED M 2019 Female Fighters Why Rebel Groups Recruit Women for WarColumbia University Press

WOOD REED M AND JAKANA L THOMAS 2017 ldquoWomen on The FrontlineRebel Group Ideology and Womenrsquos Participation in Violent Rebel-lionrdquo Journal of Peace Research 54 (1) 31ndash46

YUVAL-DAVIS NIRA 2004 ldquoGender and Nationrdquo In Women Ethnicity andNationalism edited by Robert E Miller and Rick Wilford 30ndash40 Lon-don Routledge

mdashmdashmdash 2011 The Politics of Belonging Intersectional Contestations Beverly HillsSage

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


lawmdasheg specifying social groupsrsquo access to civil libertiesmdashas one of the bases by which differential social power isexpressed and experienced That is some groups havegreater access to civil liberties because they had greater socialpower at the time the formal rules were legislated Thosegroups are able to subdue challenges to their dominancethrough denying other groups various civil liberties in-cluding political representation freedom of assembly andaccess to economic resources In these ways social poweris mutually constitutive with political power Formal lawsrelated to differential access to civil liberties both reflectand perpetuate social hierarchies

A Key Difference Across Hierarchies Mobilization

To build our argument for how war affects gender andethnic hierarchies we start with the stylized fact that warsare rarely if ever explicitly and exclusively fought alonggender lines ie where subordinate gender groups vio-lently mobilize against a dominant gender group(s) Incontrast wars fought along ethnic lines abound

Although armed conflict is gendered non-dominantgender groups (eg women and men that do not havecharacteristics associated with hegemonic masculinitiesand individuals with gender identities that do not conformto cisgender norms or gender binaries) rarely take up armsagainst the group in power (eg men with characteristicsassociated with hegemonic masculinities) while examplesabound of excluded ethnic groups in armed rebellionThis is not to say that non-dominant gender groups rarelymobilize in peaceful or militant protest against a givengender hierarchy Indeed womenrsquos protest movementshave catalyzed social upheaval and changes in genderpower equality worldwide (Mageza-Barthel 2015 Tripp2015 Marks and Chenoweth 2019)3 Moreover women andother non-dominant gender groups have mobilized alongcross-cutting identity groupings such as religion and class(Crenshaw 1991 Yuval-Davis 2011) for the sake of peace(Berry 2018) or to engage in contentious politics (Murdieand Peksen 2015) Women have also participated in armedconflict in a variety of roles (Goldstein 2001 Thomas andBond 2015 Sjoberg 2016 Karim and Beardsley 2017)When non-dominant gender groups have challenged gen-dered power imbalances or participated as armed actorshowever they have tended to do so without mobilizing asan armed group taking up arms against forces preservingthe gendered status quo4

We note two challenges for non-dominant gender groupsto mobilize to form cohesive armed rebel groups First thecollective action problem is stark within any given countrythe population that does not identify as male and that doesnot have characteristics associated with hegemonic mas-culinities is large and heterogeneous including ethnic ageclass and even gender cleavages Existing work has shownthat women are not unified when considering most politicalobjectives (Reingold 2003) Second societies dominated by

3 For a number of essays on militant feminism see Colvin and Karcher (2018)4 This is not to say that war is not gendered as men and others who bene-

fit from a masculine-dominant order may use war-making as a means to main-tain their hegemony (Barrett 1996 Hudson and Den Boer 2002 Connell andMesserschmidt 2005 Cockburn 2010 Bjarnegaringrd and Melander 2011) Relatedlymilitarization is often tied to the entrenchment of patriarchal norms and otherforms of gender hierarchy (Stiehm 1982 Elshtain 1987 Pateman 1988 Enloe1989 1993 2016 Barrett 1996 Goldstein 2001 Higate 2003 Connell and Messer-schmidt 2005 Wilcox 2009 Moran 2010 Kronsell 2012 MacKenzie and Foster2017) The gendered nature of conflict actualizes itself in many ways (Goldstein2001)

men and various masculinities have been in place for so longand been so successful at maintaining gender hierarchy thatnon-dominant gender groups have been socialized to ignoreviolence as a means to pursue equality (Goldstein 2001)

These challenges to gender-based violent collectiveaction underscore key means by which gender hierarchiesperpetuate through the conflation of gender and sexand through the reduction of both to binary categoriesConceptually gender is different from sex Sex is biolog-ical assigned at birth and diverse including male (XYchromosomes) female (XX chromosomes) and intersexGender pertains to as Sjoberg states ldquosocial characteristicsthat are associated with perceived membership in biologicalsex classesrdquo (Sjoberg 2014 13) This means that gender(and gender identity) is more than a binary of mascu-linefeminine characteristics (or malefemale identities)Rather there are many gendersmdashincluding multiple mas-culinities and femininitiesmdashand types of gender identityIn practice however it is a norm in most societies to re-duce gender and gender identity to binary categorizationswhich itself perpetuates the gender power imbalances atthe root of the norm (Barrett 1996 Sivakumaran 2007Wilcox 2009 Cockburn 2010 Kronsell 2012 Sjoberg 2012Tripp Ferree and Ewig 2013 2014) Indeed key challengesrelated to collective action along gender lines in partialcontrast to collective action along ethnic lines stem fromthe perpetuation of the notion that there is one alternativegroup (female) to the dominant group (male) even thoughsuch a grouping belies tremendous within-group diversity

From the stylized fact that gender rebellions are rarewhile ethnic rebellions are common we argue that warfarehas different implications for changes in gender equal-ity than changes in ethnic equality Subordinate gendergroups are perceived by those inmdashand out ofmdashpower topose little risk of becoming a cohesive fighting force thatwould threaten the dominant grouprsquos physical securitywhereas many subordinate ethnic groups do carry that riskAlthough the potential for non-dominant gender groups todisrupt existing social hierarchies can concern the domi-nant group the level of existential threat to the dominantgroup is lower without the potential for violent rebellionWhen ethnic hierarchies are disrupted former dominant-group members are often killed exiled or persecutedWe are unaware of dominant men facing similar potentialconsequences amidst upheaval to gender hierarchies

The Implications of War Gender Hierarchies

How might these mobilization differences affect the gen-dered outcomes of war We build on the existing work ofTripp (2015) and Webster Chen and Beardsley (2019)to argue that war can contribute to a more equal genderpower balance through social and political transforma-tions During war as combatants fight and casualtiesmount non-dominant gender groups have the opportu-nity to participate in roles that had previously been outof reach including service in the security sector and asrebel combatants (see eg Meintjes Turshen and Pillay2001 Wood 2008 Hughes 2009 Stiehm and Sjoberg 2010Mageza-Barthel 2015 Wood and Thomas 2017 Berry 2018Braithwaite and Ruiz 2018 Thomas and Wood 2018)5For example in El Salvador the FMLN not only explic-itly promised to protect women from sexual violence butalso deliberately recruited them as rebels providing key

5 See Evans (2014) for additional discussion about how times of crisis increasethe desirability for women to be more full societal participants

Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020
















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020












Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020













Research Design




Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


















The Effects of War





Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus025 000 025 050


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 00 02 04 06


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current



Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

0000 0025 0050


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War






Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010




10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War








Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020
















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020












Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020













Research Design




Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


















The Effects of War





Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus025 000 025 050


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 00 02 04 06


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current



Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

0000 0025 0050


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War






Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010




10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War








Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020












Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020













Research Design




Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


















The Effects of War





Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus025 000 025 050


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 00 02 04 06


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current



Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

0000 0025 0050


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War






Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010




10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War








Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020













Research Design




Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


















The Effects of War





Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus025 000 025 050


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 00 02 04 06


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current



Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

0000 0025 0050


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War






Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010




10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War








Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


















The Effects of War





Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus025 000 025 050


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 00 02 04 06


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current



Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

0000 0025 0050


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War






Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010




10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War








Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus025 000 025 050


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 00 02 04 06


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current



Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

0000 0025 0050


Intrastate War


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02 minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War






Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010




10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War








Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020















Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010




10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War








Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

0 00 2 04



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0 04 0 0 04 8



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus0025 0000 0025 0050



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus005 000 005 010




10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 01 02


Regime Change

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus02minus01 00 01 02 03


Interstate War

10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04


Intrastate War








Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

minus005 000 005



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

000 005 010 015 020



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

minus010 minus005 000 005 010



10minusyear

5minusyear

4minusyear

3minusyear

2minusyear

1minusyear

Current

00 02 04 06











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020





Conclusion













References











Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020


























































Dow




ic amp Managem


ctober 2020

ethnic and gender hierarchies in the crucible of war...hierarchy, including (but not limited to)...

Documents