Identifying Conflict and Violence in Micro-Level Surveys

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in 1 Executive SummaryThe overall goal of the report is to increase the capacity of researchers and policy makers to identify comparatively, and across time, how individuals, households and communities are affected by violent conflict. The report provides an extensive overview of existing practices and datasets used in this field of research. We investigate existing methodologies and data-bases used to operationalize the variables of interest and discuss the channels linking violent conflict to individual and household welfare. Special attention is paid to methodological issues on how to design a module and operationalize variables that allow researchers to analyze the welfare effects of violent conflict across countries and across time.We develop and discuss a generic household module that can be easily inserted into future socio-economic surveys implemented in conflict-affected countries. This module will enable researchers to address specific violencerelated issues comparatively across different conflict settings and systematically across time. The module proposed builds on previous experiences on survey designs in conflict-affected areas. We review existing conflict-and violence-related questionnaires, with a special focus on World Bank's Living Standard Measurement Surveys (LSMS), and propose suggestions on how to improve questionnaires in order to deepen the understanding of the nature of violent conflict and the channels whereby conflict and violence affect the welfare characteristics and choices of individuals and households in conflict areas.

Explaining Support for Combatants during Wartime: A Survey Experiment in Afghanistan

“…Given the methodological and ethical issues associated with direct questions in wartime environments, such efforts are unlikely to yield credible data on public opinion that policymakers require. At the other extreme, the World Bank's signature Living Standards Measurement Survey avoids sensitive topics and typically does not record data on exposure to violence, even when fielded in (post-)conflict environments (Brück et al, 2010). Between these two extremes, there is enormous opportunity to use and combine multiple indirect techniques to tackle sensitive issues of pressing theoretical and practical importance.…”

Does Security Imply Safety? On the (Lack of) Correlation Between Different Aspects of Security

“…Brück et al (2010) argue for the inclusion of a standardized module in existing household surveys containing questions that would provide indicators of technical safety, perceived security and perceived safety. These include questions on whether a member if the household has been subjected to different types of violence, and on the respondent's perception of the safety and security (e.g.…”

“…how safe they feel their neighbourhood is, how often they fear that they or their family might be subject to particular forms of political violence). Although this module is not currently included as standard in a multi-country survey programme, it is clear that numerous individual surveys already include conflictrelated questions (Brück et al 2010).…”

The Effect of Farmer-Pastoralist Violence on Income: New Survey Evidence from Nigeria’s Middle Belt States

“…During the course of the administration of our survey, many pastoralist communities originally from Benue state had migrated recently to Nasarawa, where they felt more secure. 8 Our survey was based on a 2-stage cluster sampling frame. The first stage selected the Local Government Areas (LGAs) to be sampled and determined how many clusters were in each sampled LGA.…”