The Same, Only Different: Revisiting State Capacity’s Theoretical and Empirical Implications for the Study of Intrastate Armed Conflict

Abstract

The extent to which state capacity serves as an explanation for variations in intrastate (in)stability has for long been a major focus of political science in general, and armed conflict research in particular. Despite the conceptual and theoretical richness of the state capacity literature, this thesis argues that its measurements suffer from significant flaws. By reconceptualizing state capacity based on three identified dimensions and drawing upon 20 carefully selected indicators, exploratory factor analysis is employed with the aim to discover whether indicators form regular patterns and vary together. The results provide strong support for the proposition that the theorized dimensions are interrelated and hard to distinguish empirically. From there, a new aggregate measure of state capacity is constructed with demonstrated validity and utility for use as a powerful predictor of intrastate conflict onset. Founded on a solid theoretical base in which construct validity is critically assessed and capturing only the core state functions that are minimally necessary for the modern state to implement desired policies, the measure should capture the underlying concept more comprehensively than previous works. Thus, this thesis represents one of the first steps towards bridging an important methodological gap in the literature and provides the basis for a measurement strategy that can be applied not only to studies on peace and conflict, but to all comparative cross- national research concerned with the causes and consequences of state capacity.