A Micro-Level Event-Centered Approach to Investigating Armed Conflict and Population Responses

Abstract

In this article, we construct and test a micro-level event-centered approach to the study of armed conflict and behavioral responses in the general population. Event-centered approaches have been successfully used in the macro-political study of armed conflict but have not yet been adopted in micro-behavioral studies. The micro-level event-centered approach that we advocate here includes decomposition of a conflict into discrete political and violent events, examination of the mechanisms through which they affect behavior, and consideration of differential risks within the population. We focus on two mechanisms: instability and threat of harm. We test this approach empirically in the context of the recent decade-long armed conflict in Nepal, using detailed measurements of conflict-related events and a longitudinal study of first migration, first marriage, and first contraceptive use. Results demonstrate that different conflict-related events independently shaped migration, marriage, and childbearing and that they can simultaneously influence behaviors in opposing directions. We find that violent events increased migration, but political events slowed migration. Both violent and political events increased marriage and contraceptive use net of migration. Overall, this micro-level event-centered approach yields a significant advance for the study of how armed conflict affects civilian behavioral responses.

How does unrest affect migration? Evidence from the three southernmost provinces of Thailand

“…Previous studies have found that long-term instability and violence often bring about migration and produce significant displacement, both within and across national borders (Bohra-Mishra and Massey 2011;Castles 2003;Czaika and Kis-Katos 2009;Engel and Ibânez 2007;Morrison 1993;Tolnay and Beck 1992;Williams et al 2012;Williams 2013). Threat of harm has been the most commonly cited reason for this migration (Bohra-Mishra and Massey 2011; Engel and Ibânez 2007;Williams et al 2012).…”

“…Threat of harm has been the most commonly cited reason for this migration (Bohra-Mishra and Massey 2011; Engel and Ibânez 2007;Williams et al 2012). However, whether the effect is direct or indirect remains a debate.…”

“…In summary, while aggregate-level studies have been relatively abundant, apart from studies in Nepal (Bohra-Mishra and Massey 2011; Williams et al 2012), there has been little research that examined the connection between violence and migration at the individual or household level (Engvall and Andersson 2014). Previous study indicates that new empirical research on civil war on the subnational scale is most promising (Blattman and Minguel 2010).…”

Mixed and Complex Mixed Migration during Armed Conflict: Multidimensional Empirical Evidence from Nepal

“…violence and safety), many other factors (including economic and non-economic) might be important considerations in migration decisions and behaviors during armed conflict. Although there are few direct tests of the mixed migration hypothesis, several empirical studies of migration during armed conflict show that factors like age, gender, access to community services, and others have statistically significant influences on migration during armed conflicts in Nepal, Lebanon, and Colombia and during different periods that experienced varying levels of violence in Zimbabwe (Bohra-Mishra and Massey 2011; Crush et al 2012; Engel and Ibanez 2007; Ibanez and Velez 2008; Williams et al 2012; Williams 2013). As before, analytical methods vary for these studies and not all of them use representative samples or direct statistical tests of the mixed migration hypothesis.…”

“…In the language of causal analysis, the mixed migration hypothesis suggests that both conflict-related factors and non-conflict related factors influence migration during armed conflict. This idea has gained traction as shown by some qualitative and quantitative evidence to suggest this is the case during armed conflicts in areas as disparate as Lebanon, Guatemala, Nepal, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Somalia, Ethiopia, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Albania, and much of Sub-Saharan Africa (Boehm 2011; Bohra-Mishra and Massey 2011; Crush et al 2012; de Haas 2006; Jones 1989; Jureidini 2010; Khawaja, Assaf, and Yamout 2011; Lindley 2010; Lundquist and Massey 2005; Morrison and May 1994; Van Hear 2009; Vulltenari 2012; Williams et al 2012; Williams 2013). These studies are published in different areas of the academic literature, and many of them provide indirect evidence or just suggestion of mixed migration.…”