Lately, a friend and I have been discussing the economic factors of conflict. How does the economy precipitate conflict, and (how) can altering economic factors reduce the fighting? Does economic growth play a role in conflict, and what role does it play?

These are answers that I am neither fully prepared nor educated to give; not that they could even be started to be answered entirely in one tiny blog post… but bear with me.

One thought that came out of the discussion revolved around the idea of conflict being caused by rates of economic growth and trying to trace the “real” origins of a conflict. Essentially, that economic growth (or lack thereof) has the ability to cause or cease conflict. Economic factors definitely play a role, but I don’t think it’s as simple as some sort of linear causality. Without economic factors, there would be little incentive for many players to war (ie. $), and no weapons to do it with. This is true, but it is also dependent on a whole host of other factors.

Where do you trace the true “beginning” of a conflict? It’s next to impossible. If you look around to any of the wars or genocides or mass abuses happening in the world right now, resources are definitely involved, but are they the cause of the conflict?

Economic growth can affect a conflict because a country with poor economic growth has little to pay its civil workers. If you have an unsatisfied civil sector, you have corruption. If you have corruption, you have the ability to underhandedly steal resources from the state or population for profit. It’s all connected, but not always so cut and dry. Sometimes, as can be seen in some parts of North America, highly paid civil workers are still corrupt and stealing resources. In this case, it can be bad leadership, or incomprehensible property rights and legalities, but it is still not just directly economic factors.

A “poor” country with good leadership is possibly much less likely to conflict than a “rich” country with bad leadership. But then again, a richer country probably has developed a more complex legal system, and therefore has more leaps to jump to conflict, or legal ways around the extraction of resources, and apt policing systems that lessen outbreaks of direct conflict.

Clearly, each conflict is complex, and highly individual with many overlapping “causes” and fuels. Trying to find a true singular cause is really impossible. Many of the modern day conflicts are rooted in political/economic choices and decisions that are hundreds of years in the making. Economics can’t be separated from history, which can’t be separated from political choices, which can’t be separated from the daily life experienced by those living in the conflict.

So how do we stop conflict then?

There is not some simple, band-aid solution that can be cast onto each conflict. There is no one way to peacebuilding. It can start with removing incentives to conflict. Reduced incentives means no economic payoff, which means no money to buy weapons, and no money to be made from conflict.

It also takes creating incentives. Incentives to follow laws, incentives to be socially inclusive, incentives to reduce corruption… and so on. But it’s much more than that. It also involves just political leadership. It involves societal healing for past and current wrongs. It involves societal change and education towards conflict mediation and transformation strategies. It involves society become engaged in the peace process and wanting to find solutions that work for them. The list goes on and on.

Economic factors play a role in all conflict, but they should never be the seen as the only cause or solution to the conflict.