Communalizing colonial policies (CCPs) include a variety of practices that recognize and institutionalize communal difference among colonized populations, and several qualitative analyses find that they promoted postcolonial ethnic conflict. In contrast, the few quantitative analyses that explore this issue focus on several mechanisms, make conflicting claims, and provide mixed results, thereby suggesting that CCPs do not have general effects. Yet the quantitative findings might be inaccurate for several reasons: Some use the identity of the colonizer as a proxy for CCPs, others measure a CCP but have small samples with limited variation in the focal independent variable, and all of these analyses are unable to explore whether CCPs affect ethnic conflict through different and competing mechanisms. To address these limitations, we create four ideal types of CCPs, gather data on a CCP that conforms to each ideal type, and test the relationships between CCPs and ethnic civil warfare onset using the set of former British and French colonies. We find that a discriminatory CCP is associated with high odds of ethnic civil war onset, especially shortly after independence. Alternatively, differentiating and accommodating CCPs lack general relationships with ethnic civil war onset, and an empowering CCP is negatively related to ethnic warfare in most models.

In this article, we reorient the literature on colonialism and ethnic violence by exploring how different types of communalizing colonial policy (CCP) affected postcolonial patterns of ethnic warfare. We hypothesize that CCPs have limited or mixed effects when they simply recognize or empower communities but that they promote ethnic warfare when explicitly favoring some communities over others, especially when this discrimination affects the power of communities. To test these hypotheses, we combine a statistical analysis of the British Empire with a focused case study of Myanmar. We find that two relatively non-discriminatory CCPs—the use of communal census categories and high levels of indirect rule—had limited or mixed effects on postcolonial ethnic warfare. Unequal communal representation in the legislature and security forces and a mixed use of indirect rule, on the other hand, are three highly discriminatory CCPs, and we provide evidence that they increased the odds of postcolonial ethnic warfare.

No abstract

Recent research argued that the colonial policy of community-based representation in the legislative assembly strongly increases the risk of postcolonial ethnic warfare in former British and French colonies. This paper delves deeper into the relationship by using an updated dataset that codes the receipt or non-receipt of communal representation for nearly all ethnic groups in former British and French colonies. The results confirm the war-inducing effect of this communalising colonial policy and additionally find that such an effect applies relatively uniformly to groups that benefited from this policy as well as those that were excluded from it. In addition, based on sociological theory and previous research, it was hypothesised that a combination of precolonial receipt of communal legislative representation and postcolonial political exclusion would make an ethnic group particularly prone to postcolonial ethnic warfare. This hypothesis, however, was not supported by the data. This null result has theoretical implications for our understanding of the conditions that give rise to conflict-inducing psychological strain in the field of colonialism and ethnic warfare.

It is widely held in socio-behavioral studies of suicide that higher levels of stress and lower levels of economic status amplify suicidal vulnerability when confronted with a proximal stressor, reflecting the traditionally prevalent understanding in health psychology and sociology that associates adverse life circumstances with undesirable mental health outcomes. However, upon reflection, there are strong theoretical reasons to doubt that having more stress or being in a more stressful environment always increases suicidal vulnerability given the occurrence of a crisis. Using large nationally representative public survey data on South Korean adolescents, I show that the association between recent psychosocial crisis and suicidal ideation often gets stronger with more favorable levels of perceived stress and improving levels of family economic status. Overall, the increase in the probability of suicidal ideation from recent exposure to a psychosocial crisis is consistently the smallest around medium levels of stress or family economic status and larger at low or high levels. A supplementary exercise suggests that the identified moderation effects operate mainly in virtue of individual-level stress or family economic status in the relative absence of contextual influences at the school level. The findings present preliminary evidence of the stress inoculation hypothesis with regard to suicidal ideation. Research on suicidal vulnerability could benefit from increased attentiveness to the mechanisms through which being in an adverse or unfavorable life situation could protect against the suicide-inducing effects of proximal stressors.