Ethnic Conflict in FYR Macedonia and the Balkans
Conclusion The question of ethnic strife has preoccupied numerous theorists and poli- cymakers. The study of ethnic conf lict contains many schools of thought, and depending on which one we subscribe to, we might get dif ferent answers to our questions. Despite the growing accumulation of knowl- edge, and the increased sophistication of methodological approaches, new debates continue to emerge. This study provides a thorough strategic analysis of the emergence, management and security implications of intra- state violent ethnic conf lict through the prism of relative deprivation and strategic mobilization. The analysis has concentrated on the dominant theoretical debate between advocates of greed-based conf lict accounts and supporters of grievance-based explanations of the origins of ethnic conf lict (Gurr, 1970; Woodward, 2005; Collier, 2004; Fearon and Laitin, 2003). Supporters of the deprivation theory argue that violent conf lict is the result of real or perceived social, economic and political grievances (Gurr, 1970, 1993; Gurr and Moore, 1997; Davis, 1999; Woodward, 2005). The theory claims that ethnic groups encounter discontent because of the perceived discrepancy between their expectations and capabilities (Gurr, 1970). The gap between what ethnic groups get and what they think they deserve creates a feeling of frustration. As a result, disgruntled ethnic groups may become aggressive. The theory emphasizes that the level of aggression and violence is determined by the levels of discontent. Thus, economic, social and political grievances instigate the psychological mechanism of frustration-aggression, in order to produce ethno-political conf lict. The theory of relative deprivation has...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.