Applied Game Theoretic Analysis, International Relations Theory, International Political Economy, Formal Models of Bureaucracy, Economic Modeling.
Director, CSCW, PRIO, August 2002-2012
Professor, University of Oslo, 2015--
Professor, Norwegian Univ of Science & Technology, 2003--
Michigan State University, Associate Professor, 1996-2003
PRIO, Program Leader and Research Professor, 1999-2002
PRIO, Visiting Research Fellow, 1997- 1999
Norwegian Univ. of Science and Technology, Visiting Scholar 96-97,98
Univ. of Trondheim, Visiting Associate Professor, 1994-95
Michigan State University, Assistant Professor, 1989-1996
PhD, Political Science, University of Michigan, 1989
MS, Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, 1985
MA, Political Science, University of Michigan, 1983
BA, Political Science, University of Minnesota, 1980
BA, Anthopology, University of Minnesota, 1980
Headlines from battlefields in Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine give the impression that the world is becoming ever more violent. Indeed, since 2013 the number of armed conflicts in the world and the number of battle deaths has risen. Fortunately, the long-term trends nevertheless driving the waning of war are still at work. Since the Korean War, battle casualties have been declining. As a result of the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, casualties have risen to the highest level in 25 years, but are still far below levels of the Cold War. The number of conflicts has also risen in 2013 and 2014, ...
War is a development issue. War kills, and its consequences extend far beyond deaths in battle. Armed conflict often leads to forced migration, long-term refugee problems, and the destruction of infrastructure. Social, political, and economic institutions can be permanently damaged. The consequences of war, especially civil war, for development are profound. In this two-part post, we examine the development consequences of internal armed conflict. Part 1 focuses on how conflict affects development. Part 2 turns to the conflict trap and the post-2015 development agenda. Development in reverse The Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) has investigated the consequences of internal armed ...
The development consequences of armed conflict are profound and far-reaching. While the direct victims of war understandably receive most attention, the effects of conflict extend far beyond battlefield casualties and refugee camps. Research has shown that conflict affects all aspects of development covered by the Millennium Development Goals, and that conflict has been an important impediment to achieving these goals. The consequences of conflict extend far beyond the battlefield. PRIO has documented substantial negative effects of conflict on most developmental indicators. The indirect effects of conflict may be as great as the direct effects. There is a clear case for ...
The recent uprising in Ukraine echoes what happened in the earlier Orange Revolution. Much can be learned by comparing these events and looking at similar uprisings in other countries. This comparison clearly shows the important role played by security forces in determining whether brutal repression or successful regime change will follow. How the security forces react is intimately linked to the tactics employed by civil society. Brief Points: Nonviolent revolt is much more likely to succeed. This has been evident in Ukraine and the Arab Spring. The actions of security forces largely determine the success of popular uprisings, as seen in ...
Posted by Christian Davenport & Scott Gates on Monday, 10 February 2014
Part 1 of this two-part series is here. Misconception #3 – “The Domestic Conflict Field is a Mess” Misconception #4 -”There is No Good Data on Civil Conflict“ Read more at Political Violence @ a Glance, published January 30, 2014
Democracy is to a large extent about parties being willing to accept electoral defeat. In Nepal the Maoist Party, previously engaged in guerrilla warfare, has done precisely this. A wave of election boycotts is sweeping across Asia. In Thailand’s election on 2 February the “Democrats” succeeded in preventing voting in enough constituencies to delay the result. Bangladesh’s New Year election descended into pure farce following a boycott by most of the opposition. Last year’s election in Malaysia triggered massive protests, while in Cambodia the opposition is refusing to accept the results of the 2013 election. While this unrest has attracted ...
Posted by Christian Davenport & Scott Gates on Friday, 31 January 2014
Misconception #1 – “Intrastate Conflict Is Just Not as Important as Interstate Conflict” Misconception #2 – “Intrastate Conflict Has No Relevance to Interstate Conflict” Read more at Political Violence @ a Glance, published on January 21, 2014