Abstract
Which combinations of government structures and electoral systems create better frameworks for addressing ethnic violence? Is there any one-size-fits-all institutional solution to violent ethnic conflict? Why or why not? These questions are of substantial importance to scholars and policymakers alike, but the extant literature does not provide a systematic and thorough exploration. In this article, we argue that the effects of political institutions on ethnic violence are moderated by parameters of ethnic configurations. Through a large comparative study, we find that institutions are relevant when ethnic groups are not geographically dispersed, and whether ethnic minorities face a majority group also matters. For concentrated minorities facing a majority, semi-presidential-proportional and presidential-proportional systems are more effective in reducing violence. In cases involving concentrated minorities facing no majority, parliamentary-non-proportional systems are associated with the most intense violence. We conclude that states seeking to alleviate ethnic violence by institutional engineering must take contexts seriously.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
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.
