Economists have become increasingly interested in the factors underlying insecurity, war and violent conflict. Public choice and game theory in particular focus attention on costs and benefits as well as the economic opportunities offered by insecurity.
A recent World Bank econometric modelling shows a strong correlation between the level of wealth of a country and its chances of succumbing to civil war, whereby a country with a per capita GDP of just $250 has a 15% probability of experiencing war or violent conflict over the next five years. The probability reduces by half if the country has a per capita GDP of $600; going down to as low as 4% for a country with per capita income of $1250.
Economists argue that this diametrical relationship between income and war is because wealthier countries have a better capacity to protect assets, thereby making violence less attractive. It is also well established in the literature that poverty predisposes societies to higher levels of violence, as groups engage in a zero-sum struggle for scarce resources. It is also known that high growth countries open up more opportunities for young people while expanding the possibility frontiers for collective welfare, leading to less insecurity.
Read Also: Nigeria loses over 8 thousand lives to insecurity in 2020
For countries with weak leadership and poor governance institutions where corruption and rent-seeking behaviour is rife, natural resources such as oil, diamond and gold can prove to be more of a curse than a blessing. This has been true of countries such as Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Central African Republic, DRC and Angola.
For countries with weak leadership and poor governance institutions where corruption and rent-seeking behaviour is rife, natural resources such as oil, diamond and gold can prove to be more of a curse than a blessing
In terms of the economic impact, the evolving economic literature shows that war and violent conflict undermine long-term growth, physical capital, population, human capital and total factor productivity (TFP). Violent conflicts undermine long-term growth by taking away resources from investments into purchase of guns and other implements of warfare. They also undermine the business eco-system while driving away foreign investors. Violent conflicts destroy physical infrastructures – from bridges to schools, hospitals, rail tracks and electrical institutions — that have been built over decades. Closure of schools and education institutions during war affect the build-up of critical skills needed for economic development.
It is generally understood that globalisation has brought with it several positive fallouts in terms of improved international trade and investments; providing an impetus to growth and enhanced global welfare. The internationalisation of world markets, the expansion in global trade and the movement of capital through instantaneous communication and the impact of electronic media such as CNN and Al-Jazeera have brought the world closer as never before.
On the negative side, however, globalisation has engendered new forms of vulnerabilities. Financial contagion and the spread of epidemic viral diseases pose greater risks than ever before in our borderless world. Communities that have hitherto lived in cultural cocoons have suddenly found themselves exposed to new habits and mindsets. Terrorist networks such as al Qaeda and ISIS have become transnational organisations that thrive on the opportunities opened by new technologies and communications channels.
There is no denying that sociological factors deriving from rapid urbanisation and modernisation contribute to spurring alienation and, ultimately, political violence. The French sociologist Emile Durkheim identified anomie as a major psychosocial malady in industrialising societies. The sprawling slums of cities such as Kaduna, Abuja, Lagos and Maiduguri are cesspools of crime, prostitution and violence. When youths drift to cities and lose the traditional moorings that provided meaning and signification to their lives, they could fall easy prey to extremist ideologies.
It is clear that poverty is a major factor explaining the current wave of terrorist insurgency. The incidence of poverty at national level has grown from 27.2% in 1980 to 60% in 2020. When one realizes that the population has more than doubled during those years, we get a better appreciation of the magnitude of the problem.
In northern Nigeria, where over 70 percent of the population live under the internationally defined poverty line, it is easy to see how any demagogue or religious extremist can mobilise the poor and destitute as instruments for his own political goals. There is the added factor of youth unemployment, especially within the growing stratum of university graduates. When people are pushed to the lowest levels of desperation and hopelessness, they can fall easy prey to religious demagogues who offer them a sense of belonging.
Another critical factor is state failure, where public institutions are no longer able to deliver positive political goods to citizens, particularly on a scale likely to undermine the legitimacy and the existence of the state itself.
Former American Ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell and the eminent political scientist Robert Rotberg, recently co-authored an article in the influential journal, Foreign Affairs, designating Nigeria a failed state. According to them, “This designation of repeated failure is not a knee-jerk, casual labelling using emotive and pejorative words. Instead, it is a designation informed by a body of political theory developed at the turn of this century and elaborated upon, case by case, ever since”.
Most development experts have tended to dwell on vertical inequities as measured by the Gini Coefficient as the only real yardstick for determining socio-economic inequality. But it is also becoming more evident that inter-group inequities could prove to be even more explosive. Professor Frances Stewart of Oxford, for example, has done important work on the dynamics of ‘horizontal inequities’. Cross-country cases from Burundi, Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria and Malaysia show that decision-makers need to give more attention to issues of ‘horizontal inequities’ which have the potential of leading to group alienation and violent strife.
Some recent estimates put casualties figures as high as 350,000 dead. Another 15 million have been adversely affected, with more than 3 million internal refugees. Rural livelihoods have been wiped out. A government that pursues an exclusionary, nepotistic agenda has systematically destroyed the residues of trust and social capital that once held our communities together. We have become more divided and poorer than ever. There is fear, hunger, anger and anxiety everywhere. We have reached breaking-point.
In tackling these challenges, economic science will provide some of the critical solutions. It is an important, but not a sufficient condition, of course. The grundnorm will have to be re-engineered. It will require no less than the better angels of our nature.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
