It is common to assume that the differences among people are what cause them to go to war. A new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, however, has a different theory. In “War and Relatedness,” authors Enrico Spolaore and Romain Wacziarg hypothesize that genetic similarities contribute to a history of repeated interactions among populations leading to increased opportunity for conflict. As they state:
In a nutshell, from a long-term world-wide perspective, issues of war and peace are (unhappy) family matters.
Using a simple model of individual preferences over common issues, the authors derive several equilibrium; the most important being that the likelihood for violent conflict is increasing in the number of common interests between parties. This assertions is critical for their primary finding that genetic similarities lead to more conflict, as they further develop their model to show that the number of common interests between parties in increasing in the genetic similarities between groups.
Using the Cavalli-Sforza genetic distance data and the Correlates of War for empirical analysis the author show that their theory is supported by the data, and is robust to several control variables, such as geographic distance, democracy and trade. The research is fairly straightforward, and I recommend perusing it if you are interested in the causes of conflict. The work offers a very interesting alternative to the common ethno-linguistic fractionalization theories about about conflict, in fact pointing to a completely contradictory explanation.
In that vein, it is unfortunate that the authors have not accounted for some of the explanatory variables put forth in literature that also attempts to dispel the claims of ethno-linguistic fractionalization theory. Specifically, the effect of terrain on the propensity for insurgency and civil war made by Fearon and Laitin. It would have been interesting to note how the propensity of conflict between genetically similar groups changes when they are separated by a mountain or river. Another major question for this research is how to handle the interstate conflicts involving the United States, given the diverse genetic background of our population and our propensity to start conflict. From the perspective of this research it may be that because Americans have such a diverse genetic history, we therefore share common interests with many more populations increasing the probability of conflict. This theory, however, seems unlikely given America’s historical reluctance to engage in wars with genetically similar populations (WWI & II), and our current conflicts with population we share considerable less genetic history (Iraq and Afghanistan).
Finally, while this research examines how genetic history can effect interstate conflict, the findings may be more consequential for the study of insurgency and low-intensity conflict. Consider the history of conflict in both Iraq and Afghanistan and how common interests among tribes have lead to the ongoing violence. In many ways, the COIN forces in these countries are bystanders to this history, attempting to fit a model of control around these problems that does not account for this history and its consequences. Military leadership would be wise to consider the model of shared interests proposed in this research, and imagine how overlap of interests and divergence in preference among tribes causes conflict as a means to prevent it.
Photo: NYTimes.com
Automatically Generated Related posts:
Interesting working paper. I read it and thought it was a cool use of genetic research to substitute for the overused ELF index. However, I think they may have a problem in their causal story. They argue that genetic similarity may lead to populations going to war. However they fail to convince me that this is the mechanism through which gene similarity (and hence preferences) affects the probability of conflict. An alternate explanation may be that war leads to genetically similar populations. Rape, intermarriage, and comingling of groups are common among populations that go to war and are conquered. Just look at the prolific gene pool of Ghengis Khan ( http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/25/genghis-khan-descendants-lead_achieve07_cz_cz_0301khan.html ). Genetic similarity then may be just picking up a history of past grievances/war and may not be measuring similarity of preferences (i.e. they have their causal story backwards). Cool paper nonetheless.
[Reply]
[...] original post here: Zero Intelligence Agents » Interstate Conflict and Genetic … This entry is filed under Conflict. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS [...]
Thomas said: “… (i.e. they have their causal story backwards).”
Drew said, “hypothesize that genetic similarities contribute to a history of repeated interactions among populations leading to increased opportunity for conflict.”
They have it right. War is not between fathers, as Thomas would lead us to believe, the combatants are brothers as the report suggests, at least I image in the tribal areas. Fathers have to make sure their sons go strong out into the world, not weak. Brothers find out who is weaker by talking to their sisters or brothers.
The one who is weaker has less force. Force multiplied by distance (distance between tribes, etc.) multiplied by the area of tribes per second (power), equals: the one able to produce the most power (in units of: area of weakest tribe per second). At the genetic scale you just need more area of genetic material than your neighboring tribe. Then again, you negotiate from a position of strength not weakness, which is probably the real reason for war.
The Shia in Iraq must be the weakest genetically, or else they would want to end the war, quickly, to continue their progress, genetically. It doesn’t appear to me that they are, because all I have ever read about is that the Iraqi government is not in on these COIN projects. Our troops use the ISF for these persistent, constant presences, but I have not read where the Iraqi government has bought into it yet. In fact the opposite has been true, unless I miss-interpreted what I read, the Iraqi government did not fund the program in any way. They probably don’t fund them because it would give the people that the persistent, constant presence is affecting an advantage genetically.
On the other hand the Sunnis also look weak, because the bombing continues, which doesn’t appear to be the case if the stronger (as if) Shia where running things. Besides, who would want to give your son’s brother an advantage like Neanderthal (Paragraph 20 & 21) man did, it is a good way to get your ass fried? Then again, I suppose it’s usually between brothers, anyway.
“Between 1945 and 1999, about 3.33 million battle deaths occurred in the 25 interstate wars that killed at least 1000 and had at least 100 dead on each side. These wars involved just 25 states that suffered casualties of at least 1000, and had a median duration of not quite 3 months. By contrast, in the same period there were roughly 122 civil wars that killed at least 1000. A conservative estimate of the total dead as a direct result of these conflicts is 16.2 million, five times the interstate toll.”
Via: http://www.yale.edu/irspeakers/Fearon.pdf
[Reply]
[...] at ZIA, because I thought it made a point about war that I thought could use some more discussion. Genetics [...]
[...] “Genetic similarity then may be just picking up a history of past grievances/war and may not b… [...]
This was on the first page of google when I typed in “Interstate Conflict” without the scare quotes. Long time reader, just thought you’d like to know you’re moving on up.
[Reply]
Drew Conway Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Oh no, this means smarter people need to be producing more!
[Reply]