Does the legacy of precolonial statehood affect contemporary levels of civil conflict outside Europe? I argue that places with higher levels of precolonial state development were more likely to end up as weak modern-day states because precolonial state structures and authority structures established by European colonizers came to exist in parallel. This created opportunities and motivation for civil conflict still present in many countries today. I illustrate the argument in the cases of India, Burma, and Ethiopia and test it statistically in a global sample covering 109 countries outside Europe. The results strongly support the theory. Countries with higher levels of state development 3500 BCE–1500 CE have weaker state monopolies on violence and markedly higher levels of intrastate armed conflict in modern times (1946–2018). The findings remain robust across numerous alternative specifications, including using the timing of the Neolithic Revolution as an instrument.
AcemogluD.JohnsonS.RobinsonJ. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369
2.
AcemogluD.JohnsonS.RobinsonJ. A. (2002). Reversal of fortune: Geography and institutions in the making of the modern world income distribution. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(4), 1231–1294. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302320935025
AuerR. A. (2013). Geography, institutions, and the making of comparative development. Journal of Economic Growth, 18(2), 179–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-013-9087-z
5.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
6.
BartusevičiusH.SkaaningS. E. (2018). Revisiting democratic civil peace: Electoral regimes and civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 55(5), 625–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318765607
7.
BeachD.PedersenR. B. (2016). Causal case study methods: Foundations and guidelines for comparing, matching and tracing. University of Michigan Press.
8.
BeasleyW. G. (1972). The meiji restoration. Stanford University Press.
9.
BesleyT.Reynal-QuerolM. (2014). The legacy of historical conflict: Evidence from Africa. American Political Science Review, 108(2), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000161
10.
BockstetteV.ChandaA.PuttermanL. (2002). States and markets: The advantage of an early start. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(4), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020827801137
11.
BoltJ.InklaarR.de JongH.van ZandenJ. L. (2018). Rebasing ‘Maddison’: New income comparisons and the shape of long-run economic development. Maddison Project Working paper 10.
12.
BorcanO.OlssonO.PuttermanL. (2018). State history and economic development: Evidence from six millennia. Journal of Economic Growth, 23(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-017-9152-0
13.
BreenR.KarlsonK. B.HolmA. (2013). Total, direct, and indirect effects in logit and probit models. Sociological Methods and Research, 42(2), 164–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113494572
14.
BroichT.AdamS.ThomssonK. (2015). Precolonial centralisation, foreign aid and modern state capacity in Africa.
15.
BuhaugH.CedermanL.-E.GleditschK. S. (2014). Square pegs in round holes: Inequalities, grievances, and civil war. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12068
16.
CappelenC.SorensJ. (2018). Pre-colonial centralisation, traditional indirect rule, and state capacity in Africa. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 56(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2017.1404666
17.
CedermanL.-E.HugS.SchädelA.WucherpfennigJ. (2015). Territorial autonomy in the shadow of conflict: Too little, too late?American Political Science Review, 109(2), 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055415000118
CedermanL.-E.WeidmannN. B.GleditschK. S. (2011). Horizontal inequalities and ethnonationalist civil war: A global comparison. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 478–495. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000207
20.
CharneyM. W. (2009). A history of modern Burma. Cambridge University Press.
21.
ChloubaV.SmithD. S.WagnerS. (2022). Early statehood and support for autocratic rule in Africa. Comparative Political Studies, 55(4), 688–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211036031
22.
CingolaniL. (2013). The state of state capacity: A review of concepts, evidence and measures. UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series 2013– 053, 1–58.
CullenL. M. (2003). A history of Japan, 1582-1941: Internal and external worlds. Cambridge University Press.
28.
DinceccoM.FenskeJ.OnoratoM. G. (2019). Is Africa different? Historical conflict and state development. Economic History of Developing Regions, 34(2), 209–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/20780389.2019.1586528
29.
ErtanA.FiszbeinM.PuttermanL. (2016). Who was colonized and when? A cross-country analysis of determinants. European Economic Review, 83, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.10.012
30.
FearonJ. D.LaitinD. (2014). Does contemporary armed conflict have “deep historical roots”?Social Science Research Network. SSRN Scholarly Paperhttps://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1922249 (Accessed 5 April 2018).
FerroM. (1997). Colonization: A global history. Routledge.
33.
FjeldeH.De SoysaI. (2009). Coercion, Co-optation, or cooperation?: State capacity and the risk of civil war, 1961--2004. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 26(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894208097664
34.
FoaR. S. (2017). Persistence or reversal of fortune? Early state inheritance and the legacies of colonial rule. Politics and Society, 45(2), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329217704431
35.
GleditschN. P.WallensteenP.ErikssonM.SollenbergM.StrandH. (2002). Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new Dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39(5), 615–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343302039005007
36.
HanmerM. J.Ozan KalkanK. (2013). Behind the curve: Clarifying the best approach to calculating predicted probabilities and marginal effects from limited dependent variable models. American Journal of Political Science, 57(1), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00602.x
37.
HansonJ. K.SigmanR. (2021). Leviathan’s latent dimensions: Measuring state capacity for comparative political research. The Journal of Politics, 83(4), 1495–1510. https://doi.org/10.1086/715066
HaririJ. G. (2015). A contribution to the understanding of middle eastern and muslim exceptionalism. The Journal of Politics, 77(2), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/680727
40.
HegreH. (2001). Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political change, and civil war, 1816–1992. American Political Science Review, 95(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401000119
41.
HegreH.SambanisN. (2006). Sensitivity analysis of empirical results on civil war onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(4), 508–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002706289303
42.
HerbstJ. (2014). States and power in Africa: Comparative lessons in authority and control (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
43.
HorowitzD. L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. University of California Press.
44.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000414
45.
ImaiK.KeeleL.YamamotoT. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1214/10-sts321
46.
ItoG. (2020). Why does ethnic partition foster violence? Unpacking the deep historical roots of civil conflicts. Journal of Peace Research, 58(5), 986–1003. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320957377
47.
IyerL. (2010). Direct versus indirect colonial rule in India: Long-term consequences. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(4), 693–713. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00023
48.
JonesZ. M.LupuY. (2018). Is there more violence in the middle?American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12373
49.
KleibergenF.PaapR. (2006). Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition. Journal of Econometrics, 133(1), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.02.011
50.
KleinerJ. (2001). Korea: A century of change. World Scientific.
51.
KohlerU.KarlsonK. B.HolmA. (2011). Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 11(3), 420–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1101100306
52.
KoningE. A. (2016). The three institutionalisms and institutional dynamics: Understanding endogenous and exogenous change. Journal of Public Policy, 36(4), 639–664. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x15000240
53.
LaitinD. D. (1986). Hegemony and culture: Politics and religious change among the Yoruba. University of Chicago Press.
54.
LaverM. S. (2011). The sakoku edicts and the politics of Tokugawa hegemony. Cambria Press.
55.
LeeA. (2019). Land, state capacity, and colonialism: Evidence from India. Comparative Political Studies, 52(3), 412–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018758759
56.
LeeA.PaineJ. (2019). What were the consequences of decolonization?International Studies Quarterly, 63(2), 406–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy064
57.
LeeA.SchultzK. A. (2012). Comparing British and French colonial legacies: A discontinuity analysis of Cameroon. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 7(4), 365–410. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00011022
MamdaniM. (1996). Citizen and subject: Contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton University Press.
60.
MichalopoulosS.PapaioannouE. (2016). The long-run effects of the scramble for Africa. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1802–1848. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20131311
61.
MukherjeeS. (2018a). Colonial origins of maoist insurgency in India: Historical institutions and civil war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(10), 2232–2274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002717727818
62.
MukherjeeS. (2018b). Historical legacies of colonial indirect rule: Princely states and maoist insurgency in Central India. World Development, 111, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.013
63.
Müller-CreponC. (2020). Continuity or change? (In)Direct rule in British and French colonial Africa. International Organization, 74(4), 707–741. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818320000211
64.
Müller-CreponC.HunzikerP.CedermanL.-E. (2021). Roads to rule, roads to rebel: Relational state capacity and conflict in Africa. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 65(2–3), 563–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002720963674
65.
MustasiltaK. (2019). Including chiefs, maintaining peace? Examining the effects of state–traditional governance interaction on civil peace in sub-saharan Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 56(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318790780
66.
MustasiltaK. (2021). The implications of traditional authority contest for local-level stability – evidence from South Africa. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 38(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894220959655
67.
NordhausW. D. (2006). Geography and macroeconomics: New data and new findings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(10), 3510–3517. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509842103
68.
ØstbyG. (2008). Polarization, horizontal inequalities and violent civil conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 45(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307087169
69.
PaineJ. (2019). Ethnic violence in Africa: Destructive legacies of pre-colonial states. International Organization, 73(03), 645–683. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818319000134
70.
PankhurstR. (2001). The Ethiopians: A history. Blackwell Publishers.
71.
PemsteinD., et al. (2018). The V-dem measurement model: Latent variable analysis for cross-national and cross-temporal expert-coded data. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3167764 (Accessed 26 January 2023).
PuttermanL.TrainorC. A. (2006). Agricultural transition year country DataSet.
74.
RaleighC.De BruijneK. (2017). Where rebels dare to tread: A study of conflict geography and Co-option of local power in Sierra Leone. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(6), 1230–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715603767
75.
RayS. (2019). History and ethnic conflict: Does precolonial centralization matter?International Studies Quarterly, 63(2), 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqz010
76.
SakstrupC. (2023). Replication data for: When strength becomes weakness: Precolonial state development. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/Z3DQGI
77.
SobelM. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723
78.
StockJ. H.WrightJ. H.YogoM. (2002). A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 20(4), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500102288618658
79.
StockJ. H.YogoM. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In AndrewsD. W. K. (Ed.), Identification and inference for econometric models (pp. 80–108). Cambridge University Press.
80.
ThiesC. G. (2010). Of rulers, rebels, and revenue: State capacity, civil war onset, and primary commodities. Journal of Peace Research, 47(3), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343310361841
VreelandJ. R. (2008). The effect of political regime on civil war: Unpacking anocracy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(3), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002708315594
WigT. (2016). Peace from the past: Pre-colonial political institutions and civil wars in Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 53(4), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343316640595
89.
WigT.KromreyD. (2018). Which groups fight? Customary institutions and communal conflicts in Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 55(4), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343317740416
90.
WucherpfennigJ.WeidmannN. B.GirardinL.CedermanL. E.WimmerA. (2011). Politically relevant ethnic groups across space and time: Introducing the GeoEPR Dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(5), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894210393217
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
