Superstitions and Civilian Displacement : Evidence from the Colombian Conflict
Violence during armed conflict has been explained using a variety of theories, including rationality, organizational dynamics, and personal and collective grievances. These explanations overlook the significance of so-called “irrational” belief sys...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Working Paper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099851504262235525/IDU0ccf9533d00a44048a908f940ebbf3528dc2b http://hdl.handle.net/10986/37392 |
| Summary: | Violence during armed conflict has
been explained using a variety of theories, including
rationality, organizational dynamics, and personal and
collective grievances. These explanations overlook the
significance of so-called “irrational” belief systems that
are found in different countries among both combatants and
the general population. Conflict-related religious and
superstitious beliefs can shape civilians’ faith, resolve,
optimism, social ties, and therefore levels of
risk-acceptance and decisions to displace from their
communities. This study explores new survey and interview
data from Colombia from 2016–2019 and shows that a
substantial share of the conflict-affected population holds
a variety of conflict-related superstitious beliefs. The
determinants of these beliefs are analyzed and impacts
assessed on three key displacement-related outcomes: How
likely are individuals to displace if their town is
attacked; how they cope with the difficulties of daily life
in conflict zones (resilience); and would they recommend
that displaced relatives return home. Regression analysis,
statistical matching techniques, and interview and focus
group accounts indicate how superstitions and religious
beliefs and practices affect these outcomes. The paper
concludes with implications for the field of conflict
studies, as existing theories of conflict and violence may
be based on incomplete foundations and inaccurate models of decision-making. |
|---|