The 2024 CPAC will explore the consequences of political violence and efforts for reconciliation. The invited speakers are Ana Arjona (Northwestern), Mike Findley (UT Austin), Aidan Milliff (Florida State), Gareth Nellis (UC San Diego), Alyssa Prorok (UIUC), Emily Ritter (Vanderbilt), and Megan Turnbull (UGA).
This event will be held in person at the Department of Political Science, Seigle 248.
The graduate student organizers for this year’s CPAC are Taylor Damaan and Dahjin Kim.
You can view the conference program from this link.
Ana Arjona (Northwestern)
Title:
The Violent Bias in Civil War
Abstract:
The study of civil war often focuses, for obvious reasons, on violence. Yet, civil war is about much more than violence. Although different bodies of work have advanced our understanding of several non-violent aspects of this type of conflict, scholars often equate civil war and violence. We argue that this conceptual bias is problematic and hinders our understanding of the conduct and legacies of civil war. In particular, the focus on violence leads to (i) theoretical bias, when scholars overlook other aspects of war that could shape the outcome of interest; and (ii) empirical bias, when scholars assume, mistakenly, that when they measure violence they are measuring civil war. We illustrate our claims by discussing the violent bias of a few influential studies of the Colombian conflict, a case that has been investigated by many political scientists and economists. We also rely on original data on individuals and communities in conflict zones. We conclude with ideas on how to move this research program forward.
Mike Findley (UT Austin)
Title:
Can Digital Aid Deliver During Humanitarian Crises?
Abstract:
Can digital payments systems help reduce extreme hunger? Humanitarian needs are at their highest since 1945, aid budgets are falling behind, and hunger is concentrating in fragile states where repression and aid diversion are concerns. We evaluated digital payments to extremely poor female-headed households in Afghanistan, which led to substantial improvements in food security and mental well-being. Despite beneficiaries’ limited tech literacy, 99.75% used the payments, and stringent checks revealed no evidence of diversion. Before seeing results, policymakers and experts are uncertain and skeptical about digital aid, indicating a knowledge gap. Delivery costs are under 7 cents per dollar, which is 10 cents per dollar less than the World Food Programme’s global figure for cash-based transfers. These savings can help reduce hunger without additional resources.
Aidan Milliff (Florida State)
Title:
Incidental Perceptions Shape Strategies for Responding to Violence: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-field Experiment in Kenya
Abstract:
What shapes people’s behavior during violence? Understanding how civilians make decisions in dangerous times helps explain a range of political phenomena, because individual choices shape events ranging from refugee crises, mass riots, and civilian resilience during political conflicts to international security puzzles like combat motivation, and the dynamics of deterrence and escalation in interstate crises. Using a large lab-in-the-field experiment in Kenya, I show that individually-varying, manipulable “appraisals”, perceptions of violent situations, shape individuals’ strategy preferences. Participants primed to feel more in control are 7 percentage points more likely to respond to violence by approaching threat sources (either to attack it or bargain with it). Participants primed to feel more certainty are up to 32 percentage points more likely to respond to violence with conservative, less disruptive strategies (like hiding from danger, bargaining, or ignoring threats). Exploratory analyses suggest that treatments work by changing participants’ assumptions about relative power and uncertainty in violence scenarios. This study contributes to research on decision-making about violence by showing that perceptions shape decision-making, but also that important perceptions can be manipulated and are not simply derived from personality traits, socioeconomic milieu, or situation-specific information.
Gareth Nellis (UC San Diego)
Title:
Creating Cohesive Communities: A Youth Camp Experiment in India
Abstract:
Non-family-based institutions for socializing young people may play a vital role in creating close-knit, inclusive communities. We study the potential for youth camps—integrating rituals, sports, and civics training—to strengthen intergroup cohesion. We randomly assigned 412 Hindu and Muslim adolescent boys, from West Bengal, India, either to two-week camps or to a pure control arm. To isolate mechanisms, we cross-randomized collective rituals (such as singing the national anthem, wearing uniforms, chanting support during matches, and dancing synchronously), and the intensity of intergroup contact. We find that camps reduce ingroup bias, increase willingness to interact with outgroup members, and enhance psychological well-being. Different camp elements account for these positive effects. However, against expectations, rituals boosted well-being for the Hindu majority group but had no impact on intergroup relations, while intergroup contact backfired, particularly for the majority. Our findings demonstrate that inclusive youth camps may be a powerful tool for bridging deep social divides. But we also highlight the challenges in crafting optimal integrative camps that benefit all groups.
Alyssa Prorok (UIUC)
Title:
Varieties of Recurrence: Rethinking the Return to Violence after Civil Conflict
Abstract:
Research in political science, economics, and related fields has long recognized that civil wars frequently recur. Considerable debate remains, however, regarding the causes of civil conflict recurrence, the mechanisms underlying recurrence, and just how common recurrence is. This paper argues that these debates remain unresolved in large part because there is considerable ambiguity in how scholars conceptualize and measure civil conflict recurrence. Existing measures at the country, conflict, or dyad-level produce starkly different pictures of the frequency and timing of conflict recurrence, hampering the accumulation of knowledge on recurrence’s causes. Further, no existing measure is clearly “better” than others, leaving researchers without clear guidance on how to proceed. In this paper, I argue for a comprehensive rethinking of the way in which we conceptualize and measure civil conflict recurrence. I build a novel dataset of conflict recurrence that identifies linkages from one dyadic conflict episode to another via theoretically informed connections, resulting in a novel typology of recurrence types. I then re-test central arguments in the civil conflict recurrence literature, specifying and assessing more precise theoretical mechanisms that drive different types of conflict recurrence.
Emily Ritter (Vanderbilt)
Title:
Backlash
Abstract:
In this article, we highlight the varied and conflicting ways that scholars conceptualize backlash mobilization in response to repression, drawing meta-lessons from empirical and theoretical research in political science to develop a clarifying formal model as to how repression can cause backlash mobilization. We present the results of a review of published political science articles from 2000-2023 to understand the varied findings and mechanisms considered in this area. The results of that review inform the assumptions of a formal model to examine how each of three posited mechanisms—anger, logistical efficiency, and learning—explain when and how repression can cause mobilization that would not otherwise occur. The model reveals where these mechanisms yield conflicting predictions and also how they may co-occur, highlighting that the empirical observation of backlash mobilization cannot necessarily distinguish the mechanism causing the outcome.
Megan Turnbull (UGA)
Title:
Democracy Dismissed: When Leaders and Citizens Choose Election Violence
Abstract:
In democratic settings, election violence is often jointly produced: it relies on elite incentives and abilities to deploy violence, but equally, on the willingness of ordinary actors to participate. Yet many studies overlook this elite-citizen interaction, effectively black boxing the conditions and processes through which elites mobilize people to fight. This paper introduces and advances the concept of the joint production of election violence. A theory of joint production considers the process through which elites and ordinary citizens come together to produce violence, asking how, when, and for whom election-related violence becomes thinkable and feasible. The concept also complicates the assumption that supporters are ready and willing to use violence, and instead, specifies how elites coordinate with ordinary actors, including the narratives and appeals that are used to legitimize violence, as well as the infrastructural support that makes violence feasible. Using the U.S and Nigeria as illustrative case studies, alongside cross-national data on the incidence of jointly produced violence, this paper aims to provide a framework that can help facilitate more systematic analyses of elite-citizen interactions in the context of electoral violence, especially in democratic regimes.