State Fragility and Armed Conflict

The document examines how fragile states—characterized by poverty and weak institutions—are prone to recurring armed conflict. It describes a 'conflict trap' where low development leads to war, and war further degrades GDP and public services. The authors argue that the international community can break this cycle during peace settlements by deploying robust peacekeeping operations to solve 'commitment problems' and by ensuring peace agreements are inclusive of women and civil society rather than relying solely on elite bargains.

• Fragile states are defined by a combination of high risk exposure and insufficient capacity to provide basic public goods, such as law and order, health, and education, making them highly susceptible to environmental degradation, economic collapse, and corruption.
• Armed conflict creates a 'conflict trap' where low socio-economic development fuels rebellion, and the resulting conflict further reduces development; on average, conflict decreases GDP per capita by 15%, with the median affected country remaining nearly 10% below its non-conflict growth trajectory.
• Conflict often leads to a 'political conflict trap' where state insecurity triggers repression, which in turn sparks riots and further securitization; states with durable, recurring wars are 80% more likely to engage in severe human rights abuses, including widespread torture.
• Peacekeeping operations (PKOs) are effective at reducing the risk of conflict spread, shortening conflict duration, and increasing peace longevity by addressing the 'commitment problem' and security dilemmas in fragile settings.
• Simulations suggest that if the UN had invested USD 200 billion in PKOs with strong mandates between 1990 and 2013, the incidence of major armed conflict could have been reduced by up to two-thirds, potentially saving 150,000 lives and recouping 10% of global GDP.
• Peace agreements are more durable when they are inclusive of non-elite groups, such as women and civil society organizations, rather than relying on 'elite bargains' or power-sharing arrangements which often fail to constrain government repression.
• Between 1990 and 2010, the inclusion of women in peace processes remained low, with only about 9% of negotiators being women and only around 16% of agreements addressing gender issues.

APA

Nygård, H. M., Gates, S., & Dupuy, K. (2016). State Fragility and Armed Conflict. Peace Research Institute Oslo. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/2723b83a-1eca-4f68-b8fd-ac928a41a8e2/Dupuy Gates Nygård - State Fragility and Armed Conflict Conflict Trends 7-2016.pdf?inline=true

Chicago

Nygård, Håvard Mokleiv, Scott Gates, and Kendra Dupuy. State Fragility and Armed Conflict. Peace Research Institute Oslo, 2016. https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/2723b83a-1eca-4f68-b8fd-ac928a41a8e2/Dupuy Gates Nygård - State Fragility and Armed Conflict Conflict Trends 7-2016.pdf?inline=true.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Nygård |first1=Håvard Mokleiv |last2=Gates |first2=Scott |last3=Dupuy |first3=Kendra |title=State Fragility and Armed Conflict |publisher=Peace Research Institute Oslo |date=July 2016 |url=https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/2723b83a-1eca-4f68-b8fd-ac928a41a8e2/Dupuy Gates Nygård - State Fragility and Armed Conflict Conflict Trends 7-2016.pdf?inline=true |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{nygrd2016state, author = {Nygård, Håvard Mokleiv and Gates, Scott and Dupuy, Kendra}, title = {{State Fragility and Armed Conflict}}, institution = {Peace Research Institute Oslo}, year = {2016}, month = jul, url = {https://cdn.cloud.prio.org/files/2723b83a-1eca-4f68-b8fd-ac928a41a8e2/Dupuy Gates Nygård - State Fragility and Armed Conflict Conflict Trends 7-2016.pdf?inline=true}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }