Origins of the debate
Analyzing data on civil wars from 1960 to 1999, Collier and Hoeffler (2004) argued that opportunities to start and sustain rebellion explain civil war onset better than the intensity of grievances. Risk was higher in countries highly dependent on primary commodity exports, where rebels could easily loot or tax resources, and in countries with low income and education, where the opportunity cost for young men to join rebels was small. By contrast, grievance indicators such as inequality or a lack of political rights showed no clear statistical explanatory power. These results, summarized as a greed view that treats rebellion as profit-seeking, drew wide attention.
Opportunity and feasibility
Fearon and Laitin (2003) reported that conditions favoring insurgency, such as poverty, weak state capacity, mountainous terrain and large populations, explain civil war better than ethnic or religious diversity itself. Reviewing research on natural resources and civil war, Ross (2004) concluded that oil is linked to civil war onset, while lootable resources such as gemstones and drugs are linked to war duration. Collier, Hoeffler and Rohner (2009) developed the debate into a feasibility hypothesis, holding that what matters most is whether rebellion is financially and militarily feasible. This line of work connects to the resource curse and the collective action problem.
Rediscovering grievance and critiques
Later research showed that results change when grievances are measured at the group level rather than as inequality among individuals. Cederman, Wimmer and Min (2010) reported that ethnic groups excluded from state power are more likely to rebel, and Cederman, Weidmann and Gleditsch (2011) found that greater economic gaps between ethnic groups, or horizontal inequalities, raise the risk of civil war. Keen (2012) criticized the either-or dichotomy itself, arguing that economic interests and grievances intertwine and change during war. Today most researchers see motive and opportunity working together, a view that also connects to the theory of relative deprivation.
FAQ
- What is the greed and grievance debate in simple terms?
- It is a debate over whether civil wars happen because of money and opportunity or because of discrimination and resentment. The greed view stresses economic conditions that make rebellion easy, while the grievance view stresses social causes such as discrimination and inequality.
- Which side is considered right today?
- Most researchers no longer pick one side. Evidence has grown that grievances such as inequality between groups and political exclusion matter, while conditions that make rebellion feasible also matter, so a combined view of motive and opportunity is now common.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563–595. The paper that launched the debate — start here for the opportunity-based view of civil war.
- Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 75–90. Finds state weakness and insurgency-friendly conditions, not ethnic diversity, explain civil war.
- Collier, P., Hoeffler, A., & Rohner, D. (2009). Beyond greed and grievance: Feasibility and civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 61(1), 1–27. Collier's later 'feasibility' hypothesis — how the argument evolved beyond greed.
- Ross, M. L. (2004). What do we know about natural resources and civil war? Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 337–356. Reviews the resources–civil war link — which resources matter and through which channels.
- Cederman, L.-E., Wimmer, A., & Min, B. (2010). Why do ethnic groups rebel? New data and analysis. World Politics, 62(1), 87–119. New data showing politically excluded ethnic groups rebel more — grievance returns.
- Cederman, L.-E., Weidmann, N. B., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2011). Horizontal inequalities and ethnonationalist civil war: A global comparison. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 478–495. Global evidence that inequality between groups raises civil war risk — empirical support for grievance.
- Keen, D. (2012). Greed and grievance in civil war. International Affairs, 88(4), 757–777. Critiques the greed-vs-grievance dichotomy itself — how the two intertwine.