Relación Beneficio Costo

After the Cold War, theories of conflict studies needed to be reconstructed in order to explain the phenomena of civil wars. Simultaneously, new theories emerged, such as the greed thesis that focused on the causes of wars. Paul Collier, like other scholars, relied on statistical analysis, which does not provide a deeper understanding of the conflicts (Duyvesteyn, 2012, p. 602). Although his method and theory have been criticised, many scholars used Collier's theory, which identifies greed as a trigger of war, as a starting point (Kalyvas, 2001; De Soysa, 2002; Regan & Norton, 2005). David Keen argued the weaknesses of Collier’s work in his article greed and grievance in civil war (2012). His criticism focused in particular on the quantitative method that Collier used. The quantitative method in conflict studies refers to the use of databases that are, especially in poor and conflict-ridden countries, not completely reliable. Keen argued that the problem of missing data has been the exception rather than the rule (2012, p. 767). Duyvesteyn added that research cannot rely on data from the state-level only, since it cannot explain sub-state violence. A scholar needs reliable data from, for instance, the local level to investigate the course of conflict resolution, negotiation and settlement in the final stages of armed conflict (Duyvesteyn, 2012, p. 602). Collier even admitted himself in his book Understanding Civil Wars, which he wrote together with Nicholas Sambanis, that the main shortcoming of the Collier-Hoeffler model is the lack of data. He claimed that the model would still be able to offer insights of factors causing violence or peace, despite this shortcoming.

Mats Berdal (2005) also questioned the use of the quantitative method in conflict studies. In his opinion, the truly interesting questions regarding violent conflict remain unanswered when quantitative method is used. A statistical analysis offers limited insight in the identification of factors that trigger and sustain civil war, the interaction between these factors, and the mutation of these factors over time. In order to gain a deeper understanding of conflict dynamics, it is advised to use the qualitative method. A quantitative approach can be interesting for research looking for a precise percentage, such as the chance the returning of a conflict. Unfortunately, it offers limited knowledge on the specifics of individual cases or the

The Sri Lankan Civil War: Tigers vs. Lions 43

actual conflict dynamics. Another important limitation of the quantitative method that Berdal (2005, p. 690) mentioned is the requirement to choose empirical data that might leave out highly relevant factors of the case. In order to gain a deeper understanding of a conflict and its dynamics, one should select a small N and consider many variables. It calls for a qualitative approach.

Karen Ballentine and Jake Sherman (2003) confirmed that statistical methods can be used to identify key variables across cases, which only highlight part of the situation. It proves a correlation between two factors, such as economic factors and intra-state conflicts. The explanatory weight of statistical methods is limited, as to whether and how specific factors promote or sustain conflict remains unclear (Ballentine & Sherman, p. 5). Qualitative methods can be used to go beyond the revelation of correlation and identify causality. In contrast to the quantitative approach, which assesses the occurrence of specific factors in an isolated manner, these qualitative methods can be used to ascertain the causal impact on conflicts of specific factors (for instance economics) in relation to and combination with other possible significant factors (for instance culture, ideology or politics) (Ballentine & Sherman, p. 6). While a case- specific approach might lack the rigor of large-number quantitative studies, it does offer a more precise understanding of how specific factors ignite a conflict, the extent to which the factors explain a conflict, and the influence of other factors.

The latter is also confirmed in Tarrow’s article Inside Insurgencies: "[…] not quantities but interactions are the key to the dynamics of violence in civil wars" (2007, p. 596). In this article, Tarrow argued why he thinks the quantitative method is not right in conflict studies. He stated that much of the used data in quantitative conflict studies is over aggregated and that analytical distinctions are ignored, such as the distinction between civil wars as a whole and violence in civil wars as a variable. Secondly, the operationalisation of variables is often incomplete, using only crude, incomplete or indirect indicators. Thirdly, a variable can have different effects in different phases of the war or in other wars, which is often not taken into account in many of the conflict studies using the quantitative method. The fourth comment refers to the same concern as Keen (2012) and Duyvesteyn (2012) had expressed with regard to the missing data from the subnational actors in civil war. The majority of the data is received from state actors. Finally, Tarrow stresses the lack of research on mechanisms or processes of civil war insurgencies, which is hard to measure using quantitative approach. Opposed to the quantitative study, a qualitative study enables better assessment of contextual

The Sri Lankan Civil War: Tigers vs. Lions 44

factors, which gives more insight into the mechanisms and processes of irregular wars (Tarrow, 2007. p. 589).