{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016600790513833993, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015810276679841897, 'mean_word_length': 5.36180904522613, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Poverty of riches: contesting an economic interpretation of civil war and insurrection

Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler contend that greed is the motivation behind an insurgency, a conclusion arrived at via the application of rational-choice theory to situations of conflict. To gauge the likelihood of internal conflict, they constructed a series of quantitative variables that allowed them to test a data set of over 50 countries with a legacy of warfare. Based on this data set and the proxies employed, such as primary commodity exports, Collier and Hoeffler claim that the greed-based narrative provides greater explanation of intrastate violence than the grievance model, since, statistically, similarities exist between countries that have experienced violent conflict. While their work offers a new means of examining internal conflict, the faults inherent in the analysis prevent it from achieving its objective of establishing a predictive theory of civil war. The problem with this is not overall theory, but the authors’ interpretations: the proxies that they adopt mean that important factors in conflict initiation are ignored. In order to illuminate such concerns, this article examines them through the narrower lens of the Northern Ireland conflict.