Homer Dixon - Marc Levy

7/27/2019 Homer Dixon - Marc Levy

1/11

Environment and SecurityAuthor(s): Thomas F. Homer-Dixon and Marc A. LevySource: International Security, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Winter, 1995-1996), pp. 189-198Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539143 .

Accessed: 11/05/2013 06:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Security.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.54.67.91 on Sat, 11 May 2013 06:49:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2539143?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2539143?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/11

CorrespondenceThomas Homer-DixonEnvironment nd Security Marc A. Levy

To the ditors:Professor arcLevyof Princeton niversityas lately ublished everal ritiques frecentcholarshipnenvironmentalecurity,ncludingne n nternationalecurity.'egivesparticularttentiono theresults f a major esearch roject n "EnvironmentalChange nd AcuteConflict"ponsored y thePeaceand Conflicttudies rogram ttheUniversityfTorontond theAmerican cademy fArts nd Sciences. s the eadresearcheror hisprojectnd its successors,ndas the ole or ead author f severalarticles hat evy ites,2 respond o his commentsere.I largely greewithLevy's ontentionhatmany ommentatorsse "security"s arhetoricalevice: ytalkingbout he mpact f nvironmentalroblemsn "security,"theymake hese roblemseem ikebig ssues na highly ompetitivearket or ublicandpolicymakerttention.nmywritings,havegenerallyvoidedusing heword"security,"3nd nstead ocused n the inks etweennvironmentaltress nd violence.Violence s easier odefine,dentify,ndmeasure;his ocus elpsboundourresearcheffort.I also agreewith evy hat zone depletionndclimate hange ouldendanger oreAmerican aluesand are thereforeirect hreats o U.S. securitynterests.4nfortu-nately,hough, evydoes notadequately cknowledgehat hese reunlikelyo benear-termhreatso the United tates,whereasmanyregional nvironmentalrob-lems-including andscarcity,uelwoodcarcity,nd depletion f water upplies ndThomas .Homer-Dixons Assistant rofessorfPolitical cience nd Director fthePeaceandConflictStudiesProgramt theUniversityfToronto. rom1990 to1993,he was co-directornd lead researcheroftheProject n Environmentalhange ndAcuteConflict.Marc A. Levy s InstructorfPolitics nd Internationalffairst Princeton niversity.1. Marc Levy, "Timefor Third Wave of Environment nd Security cholarship?"EnvironmentalChange nd Securityroject: eport,ssue 1 (Spring 1995),WoodrowWilsonCenter, p. 44-46; andMarc A. Levy, "Is the Environment National Security ssue?" Internationalecurity, ol. 20, No.2 (Fall 1995), pp. 35-62.2. Thomas F. Homer-Dixon,"On the Threshold: EnvironmentalChanges As Causes of AcuteConflict," nternationalecurity,ol. 16,No. 2 (Fall 1991),pp. 76-116;Homer-Dixon,Jeffreyout-well, and GeorgeRathjens, Environmental hange and ViolentConflict," cientificmerican, ol.268, No. 2 (February1993), pp. 38-45; Homer-Dixon, "Environmental carcities and ViolentConflict: videncefromCases," Internationalecurity,ol. 19, No. 1 (Fall 1994),pp. 5-40.3. Two exceptions re Thomas Homer-Dixon, Environmental nd DemographicThreats o Cana-dian Security," anadianForeign olicy,Vol. 2, No. 2 (Fall 1994),pp. 7-40; and JeffreyoutwellandThomas Homer-Dixon, "EnvironmentalChange, Global Security, nd U.S. Policy," n CharlesHermann, ed., American efenseAnnual,1994, 9th ed. (New York:MershonCenter,LexingtonBooks, 1994), pp. 207-224.4. Levy,"Is the Environment National Securityssue?" pp. 46-47.Internationalecurity,ol. 20,No. 3 (Winter 995/96),pp. 189-198i 1995 by the President nd Fellows ofHarvard College and the Massachusetts nstitute fTechnology.

189

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/11

Internationalecurity 0:3 | 190

fish tocks-are oday ffectinghe ore aluesofhundreds fmillions fpeople nthedeveloping orld.Levy'sexclusive ocus n U.S. securitynterestss parochial.n theAcuteConflictprojectndits uccessors, e recognize hat uch focuswouldproduce nimpover-ishedresearch rogram. oreover,evy's gendawouldbeunacceptableo themanyexpertsndeveloping ountries ho contributeoour work.Wethereforeddress helinks etween nvironmentnd violent onflictnthedeveloping ountriesmainly sthey ffecthose ountries,ot s they ffectheUnited tates.There refour ointswhere sharply isagreewith evy.CONVENTIONAL WISDOMFirst, evy claims hat ur research indings rom heAcuteConflict roject implyrepeat onventional isdom. heproject's esults,ewrites, arevirtuallydenticalotheconventional isdom hatprevailed efore heresearch as carried ut."5More-over, y aiming orefute henullhypothesishat nvironmentaltress oesnot auseviolence, ur researchroject lost he bility o sayanything ore hanthe nviron-mentmatters,'omething. . we knewbefore hisworkwas undertaken."6

Levy swrong. efore ebegan urresearch,onventional isdom id not old hatenvironmentaltresswas animportantontributoro violencendevelopingountries.Therewas very ittleiteraturerior o our work hat nalyzed he inkages etweenenvironmentnd conflict.evy ites CIAreport;nd nthefirstewfootnotesfmy1991 rticle On theThreshold," cite lmost ll therest ftherelevant ost-WorldWar I literature. hile omeof hismaterial asvery ood,nonewas at the enterfresearchrpolicy iscourse n causes of conflictndeveloping ountries.nstead,hevastbulkof pastanalysis ocused nthegeo-strategicources f conflictn thedeve-lopingworld,mostlyrising romhe uperpower ivalrynd n somecasesfromhemachinationsfregional owers uch as SouthAfrica nd India. ftheconventionalwisdomhaslongbeenthat nvironmentalroblemsauseconflict,here s the itera-ture eflectinghiswisdom?Infact, urpreliminaryindingsartly ontradicthose fthemost rominent orkof the astdecades inking esourcecarcitynd conflict-Nazli houcri nd RobertNorth'sNationsnConflict.7hereas houcri nd Northuggesthat nternalesourcescarcities ill ncrease he hances fresource ars mong ountries,urwork uggeststhat his s not true n the case ofrenewable esourcesChoucri nd North id notclearly istinguishetween enewablesndnon-renewables).Moreover, any houghtfuleoplehaveactually isputed urfindings.here avebeenserious ttacks n ourwork n thepress.8 arly n in theproject,ome senior5. Levy,"ThirdWave," p. 45.6. Ibid. Levy refers ere to the null hypothesis,whichguided our initialresearch, hat environ-mental carcity oes not cause violent onflict.ee Homer-Dixon, Environmental carcities," . 7.7. Nazli Choucri and RobertNorth,Nations n Conflict: ationalGrowth nd International iolence(San Francisco:Freeman,1975).8. Forexample, ee MarcusGee, "Apocalypse Deferred,"Globe nd Mail, April9, 1994,pp. D1-D2;my reply appeared as Homer-Dixon, Is AnarchyComing?A Response to theOptimists,"Globeand Mail, May 10,1994, p. A21.



4/11

CorrespondenceI191

scholarswere adamant hatwe had found ittle vidence f a connection etweenenvironmentaltress nd conflict.9imilarly,eniorU.S. demographersndeconomistshave attackedur findingsy saying hat resourcesren't ery mportantnymore"(because f themodern bility osubstitutemong esources),o they re unlikelyobe a key ource f conflict.If heres a conventional isdom bout he inks etween nvironmentnd conflict,it exists argelywithin arrow ircles f political cience cholars oncernedboutenvironmentalatters.othe xtent hat his onventional isdom sbecomingmorewidelyheld, t may ctually e a functionfresearch rojectsuch s ours.Levyfurtherlaims hat ccess to resourcess whatpeople usuallyfight bout ndeveloping ountries,hat nalysts hereforelmost lways onsiderhe ole fnaturalresourcesn regional onflict,nd thatmost uchconflicts thus nalyticallyninter-esting.10Butthere re obviouslymany onflictsn developing ountrieshat o not nvolverenewable esources,xceptn perhaps heperipheralense that he conflicts overterritoryhatncludes ropland. hese restrugglesver ecession,thnicurvival,rcontrol f the tate.Analysts uiterightlyo notmention enewableesources henthey iscuss hese onflicts,ecause esourcesrenot entralactors. oreover,n caseswhere esourcecarcitieso contributeo conflict,ur researchhows hat t s rare orpeople to fight irectlyver resources. iolence suallyarises ndirectlyrom heeconomicnd institutionalislocationausedbyresourcetress.Weargue hat hese onflictsre nterestingecause hey epresentarlyndicationsofworse to come.We do notclaim that hetypesof conflicthemselvesre new:insurgency,thniclashes,ndrebellionre ancient orms fviolence.Wedo,however,claim hat ecause nvironmentaltresssworsening,e canexpect n increasen thefrequencyf conflicts ith n environmentalomponent.fthat s not nterestingosecuritynalysts,henwhat s?In addition, evycontendshat ur research asnotproduced seful nowledge."Again,he is wrong.He largely gnores hefindingsdentifiednmyrecent rticlenInternationalecurity,hich ummarizesheresults fourfirsttage fresearch. ere,inshort orm,resix:

Thekey ndependentariable n research n the social mpacts fenvironmentalstresssnotenvironmentalegradationutthe carcityfrenewableesources.hereare three mportantourcesof this "environmentalcarcity": ecreased upplyofthe resource ue to depletion nd degradation,ncreased emand due to popula-tiongrowth r increased er capitaresource onsumption,nd unequalresource9. For example, nAugust 1992,Professor rnstHaas wrote o me that lthoughhe felt heremightbe important nvironment-conflictinkages n the future, I continue obe a candidateforpersua-sion that omething ery telling an be demonstrated bout a significantinkage n the past."10. "Developing country litesfight verrenewableresources or he ame reason thatWilly uttonrobbed banks: that s where the money s." "[Few] good studiesof regionalconflict eglectnaturalresources as centralfactors."Levy, "Is the Environment National Security ssue?" pp. 56-57and 37.11. "The research n environmental egradation nd politicalconflict as failed to generatenewfindings.... [Theresearch] ffersmoreanecdotes,but not moreunderstanding." bid., p. 56.



5/11


distribution.12esearchersndpolicymakershouldfocus n thegeneral roblem fenvironmentalcarcityather han xclusivelyn environmentalegradation.Levyapparently issed his oint, incehereferso environmentalegradationhroughouthis critiques f our work.)Environmentalcarcity's ost erniciousocial ffectsesult romnteractionsmongits three ources. wo nteractionseem to be particularlyommon: esource aptureandecologicalmarginalization.13Institutionsuch s the tate re vulnerableo environmentalcarcities.14The capacity f societies o adapt to environmentalcarcitiesnd population res-sures an be underminedy the carcitieshemselves.15Environmentalcarcitiesreunlikelyocause nterstateresource ars."Rather, ostof theconflicthat risesfromnvironmentalcarcity ill be diffuse,ersistent,ndsubnational.16Environmentalcarcities renot wholly endogenoustopolitical, conomic, nd socialfactorswithin ociety.17Some of thesepointsare entirely ew,while some have been made individuallybyother scholars.However,beforeour project,no one had brought hemtogethernto asingle, ntegrated nalysis,norprovideddetailed supporting vidence and argument.If these six findingsdo not add to our understanding, hen Levy is imposing such ahighthreshold or"new" knowledgethatthework of mostpolitical cientists lso failsto add to our understanding.

INTERACTIONLevy suggeststhatourprojecthas neglected o notethat nvironmental actorsnteractwithmany non-environmentalactors o cause violentconflict.18his is a misrepresen-tation of our work. We have been acutelyattentive o non-environmental actors.Wehave neverclaimed-as he implies-that there re mechanismsproducingconflict hatare "purelyand discretely nvironmental."n fact,we wrote that"it is important onote that he environments butone variable na seriesof political, conomicand socialfactors hat an bring bout turmoil."19urthermore,nbothofmy nternationalecurityarticles, devotemany pages to discussinga rangeofkey nterveningnd interactingfactors.2012. Homer-Dixon, Environmental carcities," p. 8-9.13. Ibid., pp. 10-16.14. Ibid., p. 25.15. Ibid., pp. 16-17.16. Ibid., pp. 18-20.17. Ibid., pp. 35-36.18. "Better esearch"will grow out of "an understanding hat nvironmental actors nteractwitha variety f otherfactors o spawn violent onflict." evy, Is theEnvironment National SecurityIssue?" p. 58.19. Homer-Dixon,Boutwell, nd Rathjens, Environmental hange and ViolentConflict," . 38.20. Homer-Dixon, "On the Threshold," pp. 85-88; Homer-Dixon, "Environmental carcities,"pp. 20-21 and especially pp. 25-28.



6/11

Correspondence193

FOCUSING ON THE APPROPRIATE VARIABLELevy argues hat ather hanfocusing n theenvironments a causeofconflict, eshouldturn urattentiono thefull ange f causes of regional onflict.We do notknowmuch bout herole fthe nvironmentn causing onflict,"ewrites,becausewe do notknowmuch boutwhat auses regional onflictverall."'21Levy s caught n a contradiction.n one handhe says hat he onnectionsetweenenvironmentalressuresnd conflict,s we have identifiedhem, re conventionalwisdom. ntheother and,he says hatwe do notknowmuch bout he onnections.Actually,e is entirely rong n bothcounts:manyof ourfindingso notrepeatconventional isdom t all, and they epresentealprogressn ourunderstanding.Thanks o ourresearchndthat fothers, e actually o know fair mount boutthe onnectionsetweennvironmentalressuresnd conflict.But Levy's main pointhere s thatwe should focusour research ffortsn thedependent ariable ather han n the ndependentariable. stronglyisagree. s Ihave argued lsewhere,22nvironment-conflictesearch oes not imto determinehewhole rangeoffactors hatcurrentlyause changes n the value of thedependentvariablethe ncidencefviolent onflict).ather,t eeks odeterminef hypothesizedindependent ariablenparticularenvironmentalcarcity)anbe an importantauseofchangesnthedependent ariable.Thisfocus sreasonable hen woconditions old:first,hevalue of a variablen acomplex ystemschangingignificantlyr s thoughtikely ochange ignificantlynthefuture;nd second,researchers ant to know fthischangewill affect thervariables hat nteresthem. hese onditionspplyhere: videnceuggests hat nvi-ronmentalcarcitys gettingworserapidly n many partsof theworld;and theincidence fviolentonflictround heworld s of nterestomany esearchers.Levywouldhaveenvironment-conflictesearchersivert esourcesndirectionshatare argelyrrelevanto theirnterestsnd nappropriateiven henature fthe ubjectmatter. e is advocatingn unnecessarilyigid nd often terile pproach o socialscience.CHOICE OF CASESLevy suggests hat ather han electingasesfor tudy hat ppearto show a linkbetweennvironmentaltress ndconflict,e shouldhavecomparedsocietiesacingsimilar nvironmentalroblems utexhibitingifferentevels of violent onflict."23Since haveaddressed his rgumentndetail lsewhere,24makeonly fewquickpoints ere.First,he trategyevy uggests oes not ccordwith sual cientificrocedure:evyadvocates oldinghe ndependentariable onstantndvaryinghedependentari-21. Levy, Is the Environment National Security ssue?" p. 37.22. Thomas Homer-Dixon, "Strategiesfor Studying Causation in Complex Ecological-PoliticalSystems,"Report of the Projecton Environment, opulation,and Security, mericanAssociationfor he AdvancementofScience,June1995.23. Levy, Is the Environment National Security ssue?" p. 57.24. Homer-Dixon, Strategies."



7/11


able,whereas n experimentalr quasi-experimentalpproachwould vary he nde-pendent ariable nd then xamine ubsequent hangesn thedependent ariable.Second, ince, would argue, uchexperimentalpproaches re unworkablenresearch n complex cological-politicalystems,here s some merit o the pproachLevy uggests. ut heres an importantaveat.t wouldbegrosslynefficientomakea large nvestmentf resourcesarlynenvironment-conflictesearch ostudy null"cases nwhich nvironmentaltressspresentut onflictoes not ccur. eforeloselyexamininguch ases, nalysts eed a good understandingf heboundaryonditionsgoverningheir ypothesesbout nvironment-conflictinks,nunderstandinghat anbestbe gainedfrom n exacting tudyof the causal processesn cases in whichenvironmentalcarcityppears o ead to conflict.This s the well-knownmethodologyfprocess racing.n violation f thestrictcanons f conventionalolitical cience,ases are selected xplicitlynboth he nde-pendent nd dependent ariables. he aim is to determinefthe ndependentnddependent ariablesreactually ausallyinked nd, f hey re, o derivenductivelyfrom close study f many uchcasesthecommon atternsf causalitynd thekeyintermediatend interactingariables hat haracterizehese inks.25rocess racingoftennvolves ropping own oneor moreevels fanalysis odevelop more inelytexturednd detailed nderstandingf the ausal steps etween he ndependentnddependent ariables.During arly esearchna newfield, speciallyf he ubjectmatters highlyomplex,scholars an use research esourceso best dvantage y examiningasesthat ppear,prima acie,odemonstratehecausalrelations ypothesized-thats, by selectingnthe ndependentnddependentariables. hisnarrow ocuswillallow theresearcherto identifyonceptualrrors ndbasic empirical eaknesses fficientlyn theearlyhypotheses.ater,s thehypothesesecomemore efinedndunderstandingfbound-ary onditions ore extured,hey an be subjectedo more igorousesting.Theapproach evy uggestss most ffective-indeed,wouldargue, anonlybeeffective-atater tages f research s part f a process fprogressiveefinementfhypothesesnd their oundaryonditions.erhaps nvironment-conflictesearch asnow reached stage whereLevy's approachwould be fruitful; e have, n fact,included he "null"case of Indonesia n our latest oundofcase studies.But t isnonsense o suggest hat ur early esearchfailed ogenerate ewfindings"ecauseof hewaywe selectedur ases. fwe hadfollowed evy's trategyarly n,wemighthaveproduced study cceptableothedefendersfmethodologicalrthodoxy,utwe would havefar esstoshow,n terms f ubstantiveindings,or ur efforts.-ThomasF Homer-DixonToronto

25. Alexander George and TimothyMcKeown, "Case Studies and Theories of OrganizationalDecision Making," in RobertCoulam and Richard Smith, ds., Advances n Informationrocessingin OrganiZations,ol.2 (London: JAI Press,1985), pp. 24-43.



8/11

Correspondence95

The AuthorReplies:I welcomehe hance oreply o Professoromer-Dixon'shoughtfulnd mpassionedresponse o my rticle. s I said n that rticle,consider he nvironmentnd securityliteratureo suffer rom starklyow level of critical ebate. learned hings romHomer-Dixon'sesponse hat had not appreciatednhis otherwritings,nd I takethat s at leastprimaacie vidence hatmoredebate s better;hat s ultimatelyorothers o udge,however.Before take up Homer-Dixon's ain points ndividually,et me state hat didnot ntendmy rticle o be an attack n Homer-Dixons a scholar.My commentsnhis research rogram erepart fa sweeping eview fthe ntire enre. n placesmytone r choice fwordsmayhavebeen bit xtreme,nd while stand ymy nalyti-cal conclusions, apologize f created ny mpressionfdisrespect.n fact, con-sider Homer-Dixono be a model scholarwho setsveryhigh tandardsworthy femulation.Now will ddressHomer-Dixon's ain riticisms; yheadings re lightlyifferentthanhis but have tried o reply o each major oint.IS U.S. SECURITY AN INAPPROPRIATE ANALYTICAL FOCUS?Homer-Dixonaysthatmyfocus n U.S. securitynterestss parochial nd dismissiveof hehundreds fmillions fpeople n thedeveloping orldwho face erious ecurityproblemsngenderedyenvironmentalhange.He wouldbe rightf argued hatU.S.securityere ll thatmattered,ut explicitlyaidthe pposite.Myreason or ocusingon theUnited tateswas that,when tcomes opolicy ecommendations,irtuallyllof he nvironmentndsecurity ritingventuallyomes round oarguingor majorreorientationf U.S.policies,many f whichhavesignificantinancialmplications.fthe United tates s evergoing oengage nsuchmeasures,t s reasonable oexpectsome xplicitationaleelineatinghe enefitso heUnited tates hatwillresult. roma globalist erspectivetmaybeunfortunate,ut tremainsrue,hat opoint utthata particularoreignid packagemight reventmass violencendevelopingountrieswillnotguaranteetclean ailing hrough ongress. argued hat heU.S.governmentisunlikelyo bemovedby argumentsonnectinghirdWorld iolence o U.S.securityinterests,ut that ther ppeals might are etterthough urelyn the hort un nyoptimismt all rests n shaky rounds).WILL THE REAL CONVENTIONAL WISDOM PLEASE STAND UP?Homer-Dixonays do notgiveenough redit o his workfor reaking ewground,by claiminghat t arrives t conclusionsdentical o theprior onventional isdom.He saysmy haracterizationf he onventionalisdom s n fact rue nly f narrowbandof nvironmentcholars.erhaps. may ufferrom aving one ocollegenthelate1970s,when oursesndepartmentsfgovernment,ociology,istory,nd anthro-pology inaddition o environmentaltudies) ll pointed utquite xplicitlyhe on-nectionsmongnatural esourcecarcityndviolent onflictnthedeveloping orld.



9/11


When readHomer-Dixon's ork t seems ikede6jau.1 et confess obeing hockedat theprivate orrespondenceith leading cholar hathe cited ohelpmakehispoint,which acknowledgeoes reveal differentiew of theconventional isdomthan averred.f Homer-Dixon's orkhelps persuade uch scholars hat hey rewrong,henhe indeeddeserves great eal ofcredit.In theend,mycritique oes not hinge n whether thers ave made thesepointsbefore,rwhethert spossible ofind erious dherentsothenullhypothesis,ecauseI alsoargue hat hepointsmade ntheresearchrogramodatearetoo shallow obeuseful.Homer-Dixonummarizes is key esults etter han did nmy rticle, hich riedto examine muchbroader ange fthe iteraturehanusthis work.His sixfindingsare stated learly noughfor nterestedeaders o udgewhether hey dd up to "asingle, ntegratednalysis"2hat arries s to new ntellectualerrain. y point s thatthese indingsrenot pecificnoughobe ofmuch se eithernalyticallyrpractically.Theydo nottellus whatkinds f conditionsre ikely o triggerhesedynamicsndwhat onditionsre ikelyodampen hem, hatkinds f trategies ake hings orseandwhatkindsmake hem etter, hatkinds fstates reespecially ulnerablendwhatkinds specially obust. he conclusionsre all highlyontingent,utthe ontin-gencies re not atisfactorilylaborated r explored. heclosest hing o a categoricalconclusion-thatnterstateesource ars areunlikely-is lso theone thatwas mademost learly y anearlierwork.3Weare eftwith laims hat ometimesnvironmentalscarcity roduces iolent onflictsut notknowingwhatconditionsmattermost ndwhat nterventionoints remost romising;ven f twere rue hatwe did notknowthat efore, nowingt now does not eem ll thathelpful.Myview that hefindingsre shallow xplains he pparentontradictionfwhichHomer-Dixonccuses me,when say both thathe has recreated he conventionalwisdom nd thatwe needmore tudy f thecauses of conflictenerally ecausewedo notunderstandtadequately.he conventional isdom ntheroleofthe nviron-mentnsparking iolence s ratherhallow;weneed morework nregional iolencebecause t s notdeep enough ounderstandhe nteractionsnd contingencieshathelp explain ndividual ases. I am accusingHomer-Dixonf recreating shallowconventional isdom nstead fdeepeningurunderstandingf onflictrocesses;hatis not contradiction.Butultimately,hat hiswork dds up to sanempirical atter:freaders ainnewinsightsrom hese esults hat n turnead them ogeneratesefulknowledge,henHomer-Dixons rightnd I willgladly oncede hispoint.nprivate ommunication1. The BrundtlandCommission report, repared n 1986 and published n book formn 1987,hasan entire hapterdevoted todemonstrating hat environmentaltress s both a cause and an effectofpoliticaltension nd military onflict."WorldCommission on Environment nd Development,Our Common utureOxford:OxfordUniversity ress, 1987), p. 290. This reporthad political ndintellectual nfluence hatwas too widespread to qualify t as "narrow."2. Homer-Dixon etter, . 192.3. Ronnie D. Lipschutz,WhenNationsClash:Raw Materials,deology,nd Foreign olicy Cambridge,Mass.: Ballinger, 989).



10/11

Correspondence197

he has shared ompelling vidence hat his ortof dynamic s occurring. remainskepticalbout he ongrun, hough, or easons hat re primarily ethodological.WHAT METHODOLOGICAL STRATEGIES ARE LIKELY TO BE MOST PRODUCTIVE?Homer-Dixonrgues hat he ase studies arried ut n his project provided etailedsupportingvidence ndargument"orhisfindings.4disputed his nmy rticle yarguing hat he election fcases constrainedhe nalysis, specially ecause llcaseshad both erious nvironmentalcarcity roblemsndserious olitical iolence rob-lems.5Homer-Dixonays thismethod s appropriate ordetermining hether nviron-mentalcarcity6s an importantauseofpolitical iolence. agree hat rocess racingof the sort Homer-Dixon nd his colleagueshave carried ut is a good way forascertainingausalpathwaysncomplexocial ystems.utwhen tcomes o denti-fyingwhether hese ausal pathways re "important,"think he selection f whatamount o most-likelyase studies mposes fundamentalonstraint.o abela causeas "important"s tosaythat t has some ombinationf xplanatoryower ndpolicyutilityhat s high, elative o other auses.But t is veryhard to support uch ajudgment ith videncewhen ll the aseswere hosen ecause heywere houghtohave strong nvironment-conflictinks.Forexample, o abelenvironmentalcarcityn importantause ofconflicts to saysomethingbout tspowerrelative opoliticalnstitutionss causesof conflict.7 hatifone held a hypothesishat, n the ases of violent onflicttudied y Homer-Dixonandhis colleagues,weak political nstitutionseremore important"s causes thanenvironmentalcarcity?Sucha hypothesismight e true ven if t turns ut thatscarcityxacerbatesnstitutionaleakness.)nprinciple,his s a testable roposition,but npractice omer-Dixon'sase studies o notpermithe est o be carried ut.Yettheclaim hat nvironmentalcarcityariables re"importantauses" makes judg-ment boutwhat hat estwould reveal.

Whenprocess racings doneright,t is highlyensitive o counterfactuals:owmight givencase ofscarcityave evolveddifferentlyfpoliticalnstitutionserecloser o theSingapore r Costa Ricamodel, ay, han heBangladeshmodel? uchquestions elp harpenurquest or nderstandinghemportancef pecificariablesin explaining particularase, especially hen ases are complex. utcounterfactualanalysis equires groundingnreliable nowledge,ither heoreticalrempirical,obe valid; fwe ask howthingswould have been differentnder ingapore-r Costa4. Ibid.5. The number of case studies is also a limiting actor. ome ofhis conclusions are empiricallygrounded in only one or two cases.6. Homer-Dixon faultsme forreferringo environmental degradation"rather han"scarcity."did not mean the termdegradation o rule out scarcity; o me scarcity s one form fdegradation.Ground water resources can be degraded, forexample, by becomingscarcer n quantity, r bybecoming contaminatedwithsalts resulting rom xcessive fertilization.7. The mostthorough reatise n variation n political nstitutions s an explanationforvariationin political conflict n the developing world is Samuel P. Huntington, oliticalOrder n ChangingSocieties New Haven, Conn.: Yale University ress,1968).



11/11

Internationalecurity 0:3 1 98

Rica-likenstitutions,e have to know omethingbout ingapore nd Costa Rica. nthephenomenaf nteresto Homer-Dixon,t seemsclear hat etter se of counter-factualsnmaking ausal rgumentsillrequire mpiricalnvestigationf aseswherethere s more ariationnthe mportantariables. therwise,ssertionsbout ertainvariables' mportancemount o guesswork.Homer-Dixoneemstothink want cholars o do nothingutstrictlyontrolledquasi-experimentalase studies.Nothing ould be furtherrom he truth. lsewheremy olleaguesnd have argued tronglyormethodologicalluralismn a spirit hatHomer-Dixon ill, think, indhospitable.8 et methodologicalluralism oes notmeandoingwhatever oufeel ike, nd anymixture ftechniquess likely o havesomeflaws.WhileHomer-Dixons right hat heresearchtrategye pursuedhadmanymerits,hat oesnotmean tdoesnot lsosufferrom he imits have dentified.Let me concludewith hemethodologicaloint hat think espresentshe mostserious ifferenceetween s: whetherngagingnthe esearchtrategiesrecommendwould constitute diversion f resourcesn a directionhatwouldbe "largelyrrele-vant" to scholars nterestedn environmentnd conflict.9feelquite stronglyhatshiftinghefocus oconflicter e,rather han nvironmentallyausedconflict,ouldbe more ppropriateor oth ntellectualndhumanitarianeasons.My argumentsnintellectualroundsre summarizedbove.My reasoningn humanitarianroundssfairlytraightforward.nvironmentalcarcitys butone cause ofpolitical iolence; edonotdisagreebout hat t all. Political iolences a very erious roblemn tsownterms,oth or he eople ffectedirectlynd those thers hofor varietyfreasonsareconcemedboutpreventinguchviolenceagain, cannotmaginehatwedisagreeaboutthat).On humanitarianrounds,t s theviolence er e that s important,otwhethert was causedbyenvironmentalcarcity.herefore e would be makinggravemistakefwe did not tacklehead on themultiple ausesofpolitical iolence.What f here re more easible r relevantmeans fpreventingolitical iolence hanthroughnterveningn theenvironmentalomain?Or what fsome environmentalinterventionsillget verwhelmedy other actorsf he atter re not ddressed oo?And, ince twould befollyopresumehatwe willever ompletelyreventnviron-mentalcarcityroblems,o we nothave nobligationostudymeasures or espond-ingtoviolencewhen hey reak ut?Forthese easons thinkmoving owhat havecalled a "thirdwave"10 f environmentnd securitycholarship,n whichpoliticalviolence ccupies entertage nd the nvironmentoins castofother ausalagents,wouldgo furthestnhelping s achieve he mportantoalswe share.-Marc A.LevyPrinceton,.J.8. MarcA. Levy,Oran Young, nd Michael Zuern, "TheStudyof nternational egimes,"EuropeanJournalf nternationalelations, ol. 1, No. 3 (Fall 1995), pp. 267-330.9. Homer-Dixon etter, . 193.10. Marc A. Levy, "Time fora Third Wave of Environment nd Security cholarship?" Environ-mental hange nd Security roject, o. 1 (Spring1995), pp. 44-46.

Date post:	02-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	leonardo-orlando
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Homer Dixon - Marc Levy

Documents