TY - JOUR
T1 - Security Consolidation in the Aftermath of Civil War
T2 - Explaining the Fates of Victorious Militias
AU - Bolte, Brandon
AU - Joo, Minnie M.
AU - Mukherjee, Bumba
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Ore Koren for helpful guidance and insights at the early stage of this project. We would also like to thank Nguyen Huynh, Neema Esfandi, and Annabelle Bardenheier for their excellent research assistance. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The authors are grateful for generous funding and support from the College of the Liberal Arts at Penn State University.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2021.
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - Policymakers and peacebuilding research often focus on rebel groups when studying demobilization and integration processes, but post-war governments must also manage the non-state militias that helped them gain or maintain power. Why do some post-war governments disintegrate their militia allies, while others integrate them into the military? We argue that when a salient ethnic difference exists between the (new) ruling elite and an allied militia, a process of mutual uncertainty in the post-war period will incentivize governments to disintegrate the group. However, governments will be most likely to integrate their militias when the military has sufficient coercive capabilities but few organizational hindrances to re-organizing. Using new data on the post-war fates of victorious militias across all civil conflicts from 1989 to 2014, we find robust support for these claims. The results suggest that a government’s optimal militia management strategy is shaped by both social and organizational constraints during the post-war period.
AB - Policymakers and peacebuilding research often focus on rebel groups when studying demobilization and integration processes, but post-war governments must also manage the non-state militias that helped them gain or maintain power. Why do some post-war governments disintegrate their militia allies, while others integrate them into the military? We argue that when a salient ethnic difference exists between the (new) ruling elite and an allied militia, a process of mutual uncertainty in the post-war period will incentivize governments to disintegrate the group. However, governments will be most likely to integrate their militias when the military has sufficient coercive capabilities but few organizational hindrances to re-organizing. Using new data on the post-war fates of victorious militias across all civil conflicts from 1989 to 2014, we find robust support for these claims. The results suggest that a government’s optimal militia management strategy is shaped by both social and organizational constraints during the post-war period.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102550734&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85102550734&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0022002721995528
DO - 10.1177/0022002721995528
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85102550734
SN - 0022-0027
VL - 65
SP - 1459
EP - 1488
JO - Journal of Conflict Resolution
JF - Journal of Conflict Resolution
IS - 9
ER -