Greed versus grievance

The phrase "greed versus grievance" or "greed and grievance" refer to the two baseline arguments put forward by scholars of armed conflict on the causes of civil war, though the argument has been extended to other forms of war.

"Greed" is shorthand for the argument that combatants in armed conflicts are motivated by a desire to better their situation, and perform an informal cost-benefit analysis in examining if the rewards of joining a rebellion are greater than not joining. "Grievance" stands for the argument that people rebel over issues of identity, e.g. ethnicity, religion, social class, etc., rather than over economics. In practice, even proponents of strong versions of these arguments admit that the opposing argument has some influence in the development of a conflict.

The strong case for the "greed" argument was made by Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler in a study they performed for the World Bank at the turn of the millennium. Since then, the Collier-Hoeffler Model has been the focus of much of the greed-grievance debate.

Probably the most coherent rebuttal of Collier's work comes from David Keen, articulated in his book 'Complex Emergencies'.

External links