This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (12) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Urdal, H. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

People vs. Malthus: Population Pressure, Environmental Degradation, and Armed Conflict Revisited

Centre for the Study of Civil War, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO), henriku{at}prio.no

Demographic and environmental factors have claimed a dominant position in the post-Cold War security discourse. According to the neo-Malthusian conflict scenario, population pressure on natural renewable resources makes societies more prone to low-intensity civil war. On the contrary, resource-optimists concede that agricultural land scarcity caused by high population density may be a driving factor behind economic development, thus causing peace in a long-term perspective. These notions are tested in a quantitative cross-national time-series study covering the 1950-2000 period. The results do not provide strong support for either perspective. Countries experiencing high rates of population growth, high rates of urbanization, or large refugee populations do not face greater risks of internal armed conflict. There is some indication that scarcity of potential cropland may have a pacifying effect. However, where land scarcity combines with high rates of population growth, the risk of armed conflict increases somewhat. This trend is particularly marked for the 1970s, the decade that saw the great rise in neo-Malthusian concerns. Claims that the world has entered a ‘new age of insecurity’ after the end of the Cold War, where demographic and environmental factors threaten security and state stability, appear to be unfounded. Overall, the robustness of the empirical support for both paradigms is low. A strong emphasis on security as a macro rationale for reducing global population growth thus seems unwarranted.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 42, No. 4, 417-434 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343305054089


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Urdal Population, Resources, and Political Violence: A Subnational Study of India, 1956-2002 Journal of Conflict Resolution, August 1, 2008; 52(4): 590 - 617. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. R. Vreeland The Effect of Political Regime on Civil War: Unpacking Anocracy Journal of Conflict Resolution, June 1, 2008; 52(3): 401 - 425. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Z. Tadjoeddin and S. M. Murshed Socio-Economic Determinants of Everyday Violence in Indonesia: An Empirical Investigation of Javanese Districts, 1994 2003 Journal of Peace Research, November 1, 2007; 44(6): 689 - 709. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. R. Abouharb and A. L. Kimball A New Dataset on Infant Mortality Rates, 1816 2002 Journal of Peace Research, November 1, 2007; 44(6): 743 - 754. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Brunborg and H. Urdal The Demography of Conflict and Violence: An Introduction Journal of Peace Research, July 1, 2005; 42(4): 371 - 374. [Abstract] [PDF]