Introducing ViNSAR: Dyadic Data on Violent Non-state Actor Rivalry

1Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A growing line of research examines causes and consequences of militant group competition. However, empirical work on these topics has limitations. Most quantitative research uses relatively rough proxies for competition, such as counts of groups in a country. Other work uses dichotomous indicators, ignoring the intensity or degree of rivalries. Additionally, many studies examine either terrorist organizations or rebel groups, overlooking cross-type rivalry (e.g., terrorist vs. rebel). We address these issues by introducing time-varying dyadic rivalry data on hundreds of groups – rebels, terrorists, and pro-government militias – in Africa and Asia, 1990-2015. Rivalry levels include denouncements, threats, and violence. After presenting the data, we test the “outbidding” hypothesis: the notion that inter-organizational competition leads to more terrorism. This argument has found support in qualitative analyses, but quantitative tests using rivalry proxies show mixed results. Using our data we find support for the hypothesis. We conclude with research questions that could be addressed with the data.

References Powered by Scopus

Introducing ACLED: An armed conflict location and event dataset

1108Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Expanded trade and GDP data

1023Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

One-sided violence against civilians in war: Insights from new fatality data

420Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Violent Competition and Terrorist Restraint

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Conrad, J., Greene, K. T., & Phillips, B. J. (2023). Introducing ViNSAR: Dyadic Data on Violent Non-state Actor Rivalry. Journal of Conflict Resolution. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220027231208708

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

50%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

25%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 3

100%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free