Did rainfall shocks cause civil conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa? The implications of data revisions |
| |
| Institution: | 1. University of Adelaide, Centre for Housing, Urban and Regional Planning (CHURP), The University of Adelaide, South Australia, 5005, Australia;2. Singapore University of Social Sciences, 463 Clementi Road, 599494, Singapore;1. Cologne Center for Comparative Politics (CCCP), University of Cologne, Herbert-Lewin-Str. 2, 50931, Cologne, Germany;2. Cologne Center for Comparative Politics (CCCP), Cologne Graduate School (CGS), University of Cologne, Herbert-Lewin-Str. 2, 50931, Cologne, Germany;1. Baugh Center for Entrepreneurship & Free Enterprise, Baylor University, USA;2. Department of Economics, Clemson University, USA;1. Department of Economics, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608, USA;2. Department of Economics, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26501, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | In their seminal paper, Miguel et al. (2004) found that negative rainfall shocks (measured as negative year-on-year rainfall growth) had caused civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa over the 1981–1999 period. Since then, the rainfall and conflict data they used had undergone multiple revisions. We show that rainfall shocks are no longer statistically significant for civil conflict when the revised data are used. This is true whether we employ a different functional form for rainfall, extend the sample to include more recent observations, use longer lags for rainfall shocks, employ dynamic panel regression, or panel regressions that take into account of cross-sectional dependence. Using rainfall shocks as instruments for growth, we also find that growth is insignificant for civil conflict if the revised data are used. Upon further investigation, we find that updates in the rainfall and conflict data for one or a few countries may alone cause rainfall shocks to lose statistical significance. |
| |
| Keywords: | Climate Rainfall Civil conflict Data revisions |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
