Thought Paper Or Reflection Paper "OPINION"

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

War Andreas Wimmer Department of Sociology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08450; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014. 40:173–97

The Annual Review of Sociology is online at soc.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043416

Copyright c© 2014 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

Keywords

civil war, interstate war, nationalism, state building, political legitimacy, political inequality, welfare state, democracy

Abstract

Though war has long been a neglected topic in the social sciences, we now look back on several decades of systematic research. This review first summarizes the main strands of recent research in political sci- ence, where the most influential studies and well-structured debates have emerged. It then outlines four main contributions made by politi- cal, cultural, and comparative historical sociologists: the study of ideo- logical, cultural, and legitimation processes leading to and being shaped by war; configurations of political power and inequality as causes and outcomes of war; how wars influence and are influenced by organiza- tional developments (including of state capacity); and the long-term causal forces that produce macro-level regularities.

173

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

INTRODUCTION: SOCIOLOGY’S LONG NEGLECT OF WAR

War arguably represents one of the most dra- matic and consequential events in human his- tory, especially in the modern age of mass armies and total mobilization of the popula- tion for war. It has demanded an increasingly high death toll: somewhere around 110 million in the twentieth century alone, far more than in any previous epoch (Eckhart 1992, p. 272). The two world wars profoundly shattered societies and polities across Europe and East Asia, as did Cold War conflicts around the world. A third of all countries have experienced a civil war with more than 1,000 battle-related deaths over the past 50 years, and half of them went through an armed conflict costing at least 25 lives. One- fifth of all countries in the world have experi- enced at least ten years of civil war since 1960 (Blattman & Miguel 2010, p. 3).

Figure 1 (from Wimmer & Min 2009) gives a detailed overview of average war frequen- cies over the past 200 years. Left columns re- fer to the territories of today’s countries on which wars were fought (data from Wimmer & Min 2006); the right columns show which states fought how many wars (data from Small & Singer 1982) on whatever territory. The left column thus lists wars by geographic location, the right column by the state actors involved. The figure further distinguishes between inter- state wars in the top panel and civil wars in the bottom panel, both of which are defined on the basis of a 1,000-battle-death threshold.1 When it comes to interstate wars, Western powers have clearly done most of the fighting, and the global South is where most of it has occurred. Civil wars are distributed more evenly over the globe. What emerges from these raw data and

1 War is commonly defined as a violent confrontation be- tween armed organizations, at least one of which represents a government. Various death thresholds have been used (for a critical discussion, see Sambanis 2004). It is thus distin- guished from genocide (in which the victims are not orga- nized and armed), riots (in which none of the actors repre- sents a government), and other forms of mass violence, all of which are outside the focus of this review.

figures, then, is that war is a more ubiquitous and frequent phenomenon than is assumed— perhaps because the most prominent social sci- entists live in Western countries that have not seen any fighting in their own territory since at least World War II or, in the case of the United States, since the Civil War.

Given the prevalence and ubiquity of war, what does sociology have to offer to explain its causes, conduct, and consequences? From the late 1930s (e.g., Keller 1945) to the present (Malešević 2010b, p. 11), sociologists com- plained that their discipline had contributed “little or nothing” (Park 1940/1941, p. 551) to our understanding of war. Certainly there was no lack of moral outrage, nationalistic fin- ger pointing, and philosophical grandstanding about the meaning of the Great War by ma- jor sociologists (cf. Joas & Woodgate 1990), and many policy studies appeared of the con- sequences of war for population dynamics or the economy (for a British example relating to World War II, see Smith 1986; for the Vietnam war, Modell & Haggerty 1991). Yet few analy- ses included a discussion of the causes of war.

According to Sorokin (1938), one of the first American sociologists to systematically study war, “The existing literature on war causation reveals the almost hopelessly muddled condi- tion of our knowledge in this field, and in that of causality generally.” He concluded, “Either we do not know any-thing real about the causes of war, or if we do know something, the theo- ries, remaining pure conjecture, do not show it” (Sorokin 1938, pp. 475, 480). Echoing Sorokin, Bock (1954, p. 108) stated 15 years later that “signs of a forthcoming empirical sociology of war are less encouraging.” Thirty-five years af- ter Bock, a systematic review of half a cen- tury of sociology journals in the United States and Europe concluded that “sociologists devote incredibly little attention to war . . . especially in comparison to most other topics” (Garnett 1988, p. 271), a complaint that could also be heard among political scientists (Singer 1980) and economists (Blattman & Miguel 2010).

In the 1980s, sociologists started to debate how to explain this neglect, perhaps stimulated

174 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

by the systematic attention that Hans Joas (1991, 1999; Joas & Woodgate 1990; Joas & Knöbl 2013) gave to the intellectual his- tory of sociology’s approach to war. Some faulted the classics from Marx to Durkheim, who had neglected the topic because they be- lieved in the peaceful future of modern so- cieties (Ashworth & Dandeker 1987; Mann 1988, p. 147). The modernization theorists of the postwar era, Joas (1999) argued, fell into the same trap by thinking that eco- nomic growth and political integration would lead to a peaceful future for the develop- ing South—quite in line with the evolution- ary sociologist Spencer (1851), who a century before had predicted that war would disappear once military societies were replaced by indus- trial ones. Major sociological theorists of the postwar era therefore thought that wars repre- sented contingent events best left to the inquiry of historians.

Others blamed ideology, arguing that the more bellicose authors of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, especially of the German tradition, were banned from the paci- fist postwar canon (Malešević 2010a). Similarly, Singer (1980) thought that the postwar peace studies movement in Western academia had de- layed a systematic empirical study of the causes of war in international relations. Finally, many authors highlighted that sociology had dele- gated studying war to specialized subfields such as the sociology of the military or to other dis- ciplines altogether, such as international rela- tions ( Joas 1991, p. 48) or history (Bock 1954; see also Joas & Knöbl 2013, p. 193; Scott 2001; Shaw 1988, p. 10).

As a remedy to this situation, many scholars suggested rediscovering and building upon earlier students of war who had been ignored for these disciplinary or political reasons, such as Clausewitz and other military strategists (Roxborough 1993, Kestnbaum 2009), the anarcho-syndicalist Proudhon (Noland 1970) who wrote extensively about war, Weber’s contemporary Emil Lederer (Huebner 2008), or the various bellicist authors of the prewar era (Malešević 2010a).

However, the lamento over the lack of a soci- ological tradition of studying war is increasingly unjustified. Over the past few decades, sociol- ogists have started to pay more systematic at- tention to the role of war in the development of modern societies and beyond. Although it certainly does not represent an integrated field with clearly defined contours of debate and also remains marginally influential compared with the dominant strands of research that have since emerged in international relations or compara- tive politics, a distinctive sociological tradition has grown over the past years. The present arti- cle outlines the main elements of this emerging scholarship—leaving out the sociology of the American military, a variant of institutional so- ciology that has been reviewed elsewhere (Lang 1972, Kestnbaum 2009).

Despite many overlaps and parallelisms with major works in political science, as is noted throughout this review, the emerging sociol- ogy of war emphasizes four themes that are less prominently reflected in mainstream political science research: First, sociological work on war often addresses long-term historical develop- ments, rather than short-term decision-making processes or fast-changing configurations of al- liances that lead to war. Focusing on secular trends and broad patterns has been largely given up in the political science literature on the sub- ject, as is noted below. Second, a distinctly soci- ological literature addresses the organizational causes and consequences of wars, including the building of administrative state capacities or welfare states, topics that are less often the focus of a political science literature, which is more preoccupied with the inner workings of formal political institutions (parliaments, cabinets, and the like). Third, some sociologists of war have zoned in on how political legitimacy, nation- alist ideologies, or cultural framings affect and are affected by war, topics that find less inter- est among political scientists, mostly owing to tricky conceptual and measurement issues and to the discipline’s commitment to the rational choice paradigm. Finally, sociologists call at- tention to the role of political power and con- figurations of power—the varying relationships

www.annualreviews.org • War 175

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Germany

Israel

Syria

Peru

Morocco

Italy

South Africa

Pakistan

Turkey

Egypt

Vietnam

Russia

Ethiopia

India

China

0 5 10 Number of wars

15 20

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Wars/ decade

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.32

0.32

0.38

0.38

0.43

0.43

0.43

0.48

0.54

1.08

45 wars

57 wars

0 5 10 15 20

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0.27

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.32

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.48

0.54

0.59

1.02

0.35

0.76

1.58

0.38

0.38

0.48

0.51

0.54

0.49

0.66

0.71

1.16

0.93

Wars/ decade

Italy

Iraq

Peru

Morocco

India

Brazil

Spain

South Africa

Pakistan

Colombia

Mexico

Argentina

China

T e

rr it

o ri

a l

lo c

a ti

o n

s

a Most prone to interstate wars

b Most prone to civil wars Wars/ decade

0 5 10 Number of wars

15 20

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Wars/ decade

S ta

te p

a rt

ic ip

a n

ts (

C O

W P

ro je

c t)

T e

rr it

o ri

a l

lo c

a ti

o n

s

S ta

te p

a rt

ic ip

a n

ts (

C O

W P

ro je

c t)

Netherlands

Israel

Greece

Germany

Austria-Hungary

Egypt

USA

Japan

Turkey

Spain

Italy

China

Russia

France

United Kingdom

0.34

1.02

0.42

0.58

0.78

0.90

0.55

0.76

0.71

0.71

0.82

1.09

0.99

2.49

3.13

Number of wars

0 5 10 15 20 Number of wars

Iran

Iraq

Nigeria

Spain

United Kingdom

Colombia

Argentina

Mexico

USA

France

Russia

China

Turkey

176 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

←−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− Figure 1 War frequencies over the past 200 years. (a) Wars of conquest and interstate wars fought on the territories of countries that existed in 2001; the Correlates of War (COW) Project list is of state participants involved in interstate and extrastate wars up to 1997. (b) Includes secessionist and nonsecessionist civil wars fought on the territories of countries that existed in 2001; COW list is of state participants involved in intrastate wars up to 1997. Adapted with permission of Taylor & Francis from Wimmer & Min (2009).

of political domination and subordination be- tween political actors, whether or not these find expressions in formal political institutions or remain informal and only loosely organized. In the tradition of Max Weber and Barrington Moore, therefore, political actors are often un- derstood more broadly (and one might say less precisely) as representing social interest groups or class factions (such as the landed gentry in Moore), rather than political organizations such as parties, guerilla armies, or political move- ments with a clearly identifiable leadership.

This review is organized accordingly. First, I briefly sketch out the major strands of thinking about war in political science, first in interna- tional relations, which has traditionally studied interstate wars, and then in comparative poli- tics, which is more concerned with civil wars. I then discuss sociological work on legitimacy and ideology, configurations of power, orga- nizational development, and long-term trends. For each of these four factors, I first review works that see them as causes of war and then those whose focus lies on war’s consequences. Recommendations for future research are made along the way.

THE STUDY OF WAR IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

A vast research area centered on the study of war has emerged in political science and among political economists in economics. It surpasses sociological research on war not only in terms of quantity but also in terms of analytical so- phistication and empirical precision. Students of war in political science have also assembled major cross-national data sets (Small & Singer 1982, Gurr 1993, Jones et al. 1996, Gleditsch et al. 2002, Sambanis 2004, Klein et al. 2006, Eck & Hultman 2007, Cunningham et al. 2009, Raleigh et al. 2010). The following overview

will have to be brief, touching only on ma- jor works, rather than the manifold debates and empirical controversies that many of them have triggered. Also omitted from this review is the considerable amount of work on how best to end wars through external interven- tion (Doyle & Sambanis 2000) or negotiation (Walter 2002).

Interstate War

In the international relations literature, long- wave theories of war once sought to explain the periodic recurrence of world wars as a conse- quence of global economic cycles stretched over six decades (Goldstein 1991) or of the century- spanning rise and fall of hegemonic powers that dominate the global political arena (Modelski & Morgan 1985, Thompson 1988). Although the past two centuries have obviously seen sev- eral such global wars involving the major power centers of the world, most researchers now rec- ognize that these wars do not follow a clear pat- tern of periodicity (a view pioneered by Singer 1980, pp. 355–56). In other words, there are no cycles of a uniform length between global wars, and the search for such regularities has now been largely given up, including by its most prominent early proponents (see Levy & Thompson 2011). But there is still some inter- est in the question of whether or not a global war breaks out every time a new state rises to global dominance over its main rival (Organski & Kugler 1980), independent of whether or not the rise and fall of hegemons follows a regular pattern.

The dominant strand in international re- lations research on war (see the excellent overview in Levy & Thompson 2010), however, was never based on world-systems theory but on realist assumptions: the basic insight that the modern world is not governed by a global state

www.annualreviews.org • War 177

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

but divided into competing sovereign entities. This anarchic structure makes wars between states a recurrent feature of global history since the emergence of the modern state system. At the beginning, international relations scholars were preoccupied with the question of whether a bipolar system, such as the one that existed during the Cold War, is more war-prone than a multipolar system (Waltz 1979). This once hotly debated issue (cf. Singer 1980, p. 357), which opposed various strands of realism, has now largely been abandoned, perhaps because the N in such global-system-level analysis is so small that no firm conclusions can be reached (see most recently Bennett & Stam 2004).

The current focus in international relations research has thus shifted away from long-term, global trends and toward the decision-making processes within states or the nature of pairs of states that make them more war-prone. Decades of debate unfolded to determine which exact distribution of military power between state dyads and which features of their inter- nal decision-making processes will make inter- state war more likely. Will security-maximizing states always attack each other when they have the military upper hand (the offensive realism of Mearsheimer 2001) or only when offensive military doctrines and technologies dominate over defensive ones (the offense-defense the- ory of Van Evera 1999), as before World War I? Are states with a long and persistent history of sabre rattling and competition, such as be- tween India and Pakistan, more likely to fight each other on the battlefield (the rivalry theory developed by Dietz & Goertz 2000)? Which is- sues that states compete over are more likely to lead them into war (the steps-to-war ap- proach of Senese & Vasquez 2008) and which types of informational asymmetries or com- mitment problems make the costly pursuit of war more attractive than a bargained solution (the rational choice–based commitment prob- lem theory of Fearon 1995)? Can international norms and institutions (the neoliberal institu- tionalism of Keohane 1984) or intense trade between countries (Polachek 1980) counter- vail the consequences of anarchy and prevent

war? What kind of domestic coalitions of actors can succeed in pushing for expansionist wars, and how do they manage to rally their popula- tions behind them (a diversionary theory of war; Snyder 1991)? And relatedly and most exten- sively debated: Why do democratic states not fight other democracies (the democratic peace theory introduced by Russet 1993)? Each of these major theoretical approaches in interna- tional relations has given rise to sustained em- pirical debates, most of which are summarized in Levy & Thompson (2010).

Civil Wars

A similar movement toward more precise, actor-focused arguments at the micro level can be observed in the civil war literature in comparative politics. It received a consider- able boost with the appearance of two large-N, cross-country studies of the covariates of civil war, a genre of research that rapidly replaced the hitherto dominant, small-N, comparative tradition (for an overview of quantitative re- search in economics and political science, see Sambanis 2002, Blattman & Miguel 2010).

Fearon & Laitin’s (2003) much discussed in- surgency model maintains that wars are driven not by questions of political legitimacy but by military opportunity. If government forces are weak and disorganized, and if mountainous ter- rain allows rebels to hide and retreat, ambitious leaders will be able to organize a rebellion in whatever name: national liberation, fewer taxes, religious renewal, the elimination of class op- pression, or straightforward self-enrichment. Similarly, Collier & Hoeffler (2004) argue that civil wars occur where rebellions are most feasible, rather than where actors are motivated by political grievances. More specifically, they maintain that lootable economic resources make organizing and sustaining a rebel or- ganization easier and thus explain where and when civil wars break out (see also Collier et al. 2006). Relatedly, Ross (2006, 2012) studies how natural resources affect different types of violent conflict. When rebels can obstruct the extraction of natural resources,

178 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

as with oil, gas, and diamonds, the likelihood of civil war (and especially of separatist civil wars) increases; this has been especially true from the 1970s onward, when oil resources came increasingly under the control of national governments.

Yet another group of authors has related regime type to civil wars. The democratic civil peace theory states that democracies are able to solve internal disputes through the ballot. Autocracies can suppress rebellions by the use of force or by threatening massive violence. Civil wars should therefore be less likely in both democratic and autocratic societies and thus most likely in countries in between, the so-called anocracies (Müller & Weede 1990, Hegre et al. 2001; see the empirical critique by Vreeland 2008).

Another debate has ensued about which for- mal institutional arrangements—proportional representation, alternate list systems, presiden- tialism or parliamentarism, certain types of fed- eralism, and so forth—are most likely to pre- vent civil wars, a topic of considerable interest to policy makers and constitutional engineers. From an original opposition between “consoci- ationalists” recommending federalism, propor- tionalism, and parliamentarism (Lijphart 1977) on the one hand, and “centripetalists” favoring the combination of federalism, majoritarian- ism, and presidentialism on the other (Roeder 2005), the debate has now broadened to include a range of more specific institutional designs, tailored to specific ethnopolitical demographics and geographies (cf. Horowitz 2002, Mozaffar et al. 2003, Reilly 2011, Reynolds 2011; for a skeptical view on this literature, see Wimmer 2013, ch. 6).

New Trends in the Study of Civil Wars

More recent studies of civil war are no longer exclusively concerned with explaining in which countries and during which years conflict is more likely to break out. The de- bate now includes concerns over how long civil wars last (Fearon 2004, Cunningham 2011, Wucherpfennig et al. 2012); the dif-

fusion of conflicts across countries (Lake & Rothchild 1998, Gleditsch 2007); and whether specific configurations of state and rebel forces (Cunningham et al. 2009), types of rebels (Weinstein 2006), and shifting alliance patterns between armed groups (Christia 2012) shape how a conflict unfolds.

Beyond this broadening of the research agenda to include different outcomes, a three- fold trend toward disaggregation can be ob- served (see also Cederman & Gleditsch 2009): one in terms of the units of observation used to study the occurrence of civil war; the sec- ond in terms of studying who is actually killed during civil war; and the third in terms of the combatants’ motivations, which are now stud- ied directly rather than assumed from the rela- tive importance of country-level variables.

Whereas previous quantitative scholarship took country-years as units of observation, scholars have more recently begun to assemble fine-grained data sets, including detailed civil war event histories that decompose a civil war into various battle episodes (Raleigh & Hegre 2005), or studies of war theaters at the regional level, allowing the researcher to locate battle events in grid cells of various sizes (Buhaug & Rød 2005, Aas Rustad et al. 2011). This research offers new insights into the strategic and tacti- cal logic of fighting, allowing us to understand how terrain, natural resources, the positioning of army garrisons, and so forth influence where the fighting takes place.

A second trend of disaggregation concerns the actual logics of violence during civil war— a closer look at who kills whom and why. The central focus of this research strand is to understand why and when combatants tar- get civilians. Three prominent approaches have emerged. According to Weinstein (2006; see also Humphreys & Weinstein 2006), rebel organizations that initially relied on funding from natural resource extraction or from out- side governments attract opportunistically mo- tivated fighters and will be less hierarchically integrated. Such organizations therefore count more loose guns among their ranks and will be more likely to prey upon the civilian population,

www.annualreviews.org • War 179

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

looting their possessions, killing those who can- not run fast enough, and raping women as a rite of initiation (Cohen 2013).

According to Kalyvas (2006), both rebel and government forces seek information on locals who collaborate(d) with their opponents and then kill them, especially after freshly entering a territory. This dynamic of targeted killing is fed by village feuds among the locals who de- nunciate each other as supposed collaborators, especially when an occupying force is in firm control and the risk of denunciation is therefore low. When territorial control over an area is not yet fully established, Kalyvas argues, civilians are most likely to become victims of targeted killings because an already sufficiently high sup- ply of denunciations meets a still high enough demand for killing collaborators.

Greed theories of civil war maintain—as do prominent nongovernmental organizations working to prevent conflicts in Africa—that lootable natural resources such as diamonds and other minerals are the main stake in armed conflicts between warlords, government troops, and rebel organizations. Correspondingly, the population in resource-rich areas will more likely become victims of terror and intimi- dation that armed groups deploy to estab- lish or maintain control over these territories (Azam & Hoeffler 2002). These and a range of other theories are now explored using regional- or even local-level data to track civilian vic- timization in more detail (for an overview, see Kalyvas 2008; Blattman & Miguel 2010, p. 33).

A third recent strand of research offers a more disaggregated view of conflict partici- pants by using surveys of or interviews with former combatants or members of informal support networks (Parkinson 2013) to dis- cern motives, modes of recruitment, experi- ence with violence, and postconflict behavior. This is a quickly expanding domain of em- pirical research, and I refer the reader to the most prominent studies in this field, including Gates (2002), Humphreys & Weinstein (2008), Verwimp (2005), Blattman (2009), and others (Blattman & Miguel 2010, p. 36).

SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACHES

As mentioned at the outset, a political sociol- ogy of war and violent conflict has emerged over the past few decades, making the refrain that sociology has little to offer to our under- standing of war sound like an echo from the past. My review of this literature is confined to those areas where sociologists could or already have made a difference with regard to the dom- inant political science research outlined above. These contributions consist of bringing (back) into the picture questions of political legitimacy and cultural framing, political power configu- ration and grievances, organizational develop- ments, and long-term historical trends.

Legitimacy, Cultural Frames, and Collective Memory

Principles of political legitimacy: nation- alism. The first consistent argument that focused squarely on political legitimacy is Luard’s (1986) overview of how war has been waged by different types of states in the past 600 years. He argues that the motivations, aims, and decision-making procedures vary dramat- ically between dynastic states, sovereign ter- ritorial states, nation-states, and communist regimes because leaders operate within dif- ferent cultural frames that define honor and shame, victory and defeat, friend and foe, and so forth. Consequently, the types and frequencies of interstate war depend on which of these po- litical cultures informs state behavior (for em- pirical evidence of this conjecture, see Wimmer & Min 2009).

Wimmer & Min (2006) and Wimmer (2013) further developed this Bendixean (Bendix 1979) theme on the basis of new data assembled for the entire globe since 1816. They show that war is most likely to occur when and because princi- ples of political legitimacy—theocracy, empire, absolutism, and the nation-state—change. Most importantly, the shift from imperial to nationalist principles of legitimacy—when sovereignty is transferred from the emperor to a nationally defined people—represents one of the main causes of both international and

180 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

domestic war in the modern world. Nation- alism delegitimized imperial hierarchies and encouraged anticolonial movements across the world, often leading to violent wars of national liberation. Once nation-states were established, and with them the like-over-like principle of political legitimacy, ethnopolitical inequalities could be even more easily portrayed as illegit- imate. Violent civil wars over who controlled the national state often followed (see also Wimmer et al. 2009). Interstate wars over the fate of coethnics across the border, equally motivated by nationalism, were a frequent accompaniment to the process of nation-state formation as well (on nationalism and interstate war, see also the international relations scholars Miller 2007, Woodwell 2007, Saideman & Ayres 2008).

Taking nationalism as a source of war seri- ously and focusing on the nature of state units that compose the international system repre- sent a considerable departure from standard in- ternational relations approaches. These have treated nationalism not as a serious candidate for explaining wars (Van Evera 1994) but rather as a “second order force in international pol- itics” (Mearsheimer 1990, p. 21) because it is “caused in large part by security competi- tion among. . .states, which compelled. . .elites to mobilize publics to support national defense efforts” (Mearscheimer 1990, p. 12; for an em- pirical critique of the notion that nationalism is a consequence, rather than a cause, of war, see Hiers & Wimmer 2013). As one of the main students of nationalism in international relations theory notes (Miller 2007, p. 32), this fails to account for why most nationalist move- ments are directed against existing states—as in the anti-imperial, secessionist nationalisms that have transformed the shape of the world in the past two centuries. Mainstream international relations theory long overlooked that unit-level transformation—the shift from an interna- tional system composed of empires and dynastic kingdoms to a system composed of nation- states—is itself an important cause of war.

A small, more recent literature on national- ism and war in political science is beginning to

change this. Miller (2007) argued that a combi- nation of ethnopolitical demography and state strength explains when which type of war is to be expected: In regions with strong states hosting politically mobilized minorities who identify with another state, interstate war is more likely; in regions where weak states com- bine with politically mobilized minorities, civil wars are most common. J. Lyall (unpublished manuscript) looks at the role of nationalism in determining the outcomes of interstate wars. He shows, using global data sets that span long periods, that wars are won by the soldiers who are more motivated because they identify more with their state. In other words, states with na- tionalistically mobilized populations win over less nationalistic ones.2 Although this is a clas- sical realist argument, Lyall adds an impor- tant element by showing that a state’s troops are more nationalistic the more inclusionary the ethnopolitical power configuration—a find- ing that complements Wimmer and coauthors’ (2009) argument that ethnopolitical exclusion fosters civil war.

Relatedly, in an article based on survey ex- periments conducted in Afghanistan, Lyall et al. (2013) showed that counterinsurgency activity by foreign troops delegitimizes them, whereas the same activity by local (Pashtu) forces has no such effects on the minds of the local population—another illustration of the con- sequences of nationalism. Similarly, in a de- tailed study of Eastern Europe and the western Soviet Union, Darden (2013) explored patterns of voting, secession, and resistance to German and Soviet occupational forces during World

2 This contrasts with the microsociological perspective of Collins (2013). He starts from the assumption that humans are not very good at being violent and generally prefer to run rather than fight, are inefficient killers in the face of dangers to their own life, and so forth. Rather than being motivated by nationalism or other macropolitical concerns, soldiers in large-scale wars fight because they cannot run away and be- cause they care for the life and well-being of their fellow platoon members. In other words, it is the microstructure of discipline and camaraderie that armies can organize—from Greek phalanxes to parade-ground formations in the age of Europe’s mass armies—that allows soldiers to overcome hu- mans’ antiviolent instincts and to wage war effectively.

www.annualreviews.org • War 181

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

War II. All three were influenced less by strate- gic opportunity or coalitional politics than by the national identities learned in the schools that first alphabetized the population.

Finally, sociologist Feinstein (2012) has studied the mechanisms underlying the rally- around-the-flag phenomenon in the United States, which allows presidents to wage interna- tional wars with public support. He combines historical analyses of rally and nonrally foreign policy crises, the analysis of surveys, and the re- sults of a survey experiment. Contrary to elite manipulation or rational choice models of the rally phenomenon, Feinstein shows that it oc- curs when nationalist framings trigger an iden- tification with the American nation, which in turn leads to emotions such as pride, hope, and confidence in the president, increasing support for his foreign policies across political divides.

Future research in this area needs to zone in more precisely on the empirical questions of how and by whom legitimacy and national identity are actually perceived and experienced. To avoid endogeneity problems, one could analyze global longitudinal surveys on how major political actors, including governments, are perceived by different segments of the population before conflict erupts. Under- standably, this has so far proven difficult to achieve, despite dramatic improvements in international surveying capacity thanks to, among others, the Global Barometer surveys, given that autocratic governments usually resist such questions being asked. Another fruitful methodological strategy is to use survey or natural experiments to identify more pre- cisely the conditions under which individuals perceive political actors as legitimate.

International cultural order. A second strand of sociological research focuses on the principles of legitimacy enshrined in global- level institutions. The idea of state sovereignty and the sanctity of its borders represents, in the postwar world, one such institutionalized prin- ciple of legitimacy, as sociologists of the world society tradition have long argued (Meyer et al. 1997; for similar approaches in international

relations, see Hall 1999, Bukovansky 2002). Writing within this tradition, Hironaka (2005) shows that this has consequences for how wars are fought and especially how long they last: Be- cause existing governments in the global South are legitimized and financially or even militar- ily supported by the international system, they are less easily overthrown by rebellious move- ments. They remain institutionally and militar- ily too weak, however, to decisively win civil wars. As a consequence, civil war duration has tripled since the immediate post–World War II years. This is in line with arguments put for- ward by political scientists Jackson (1990) and Badie (2000), according to whom many states in the developing world remain institutionally weak because they can rely on international law as a source of legitimacy and on global institu- tional support. They are therefore not consoli- dated into fewer entities through war and con- quest. This line of reasoning might profit from a more direct encounter with other possible pre- dictors of civil war duration [from the power configuration that drives them (Wucherpfen- nig et al. 2012) to the number of rebel fac- tions involved] or state strength [from climate and geography à la Herbst (2000) to past wars à la Tilly (1975)]. Sociologists following this line of reasoning may also want to consider early-nineteenth-century Latin American ex- periences (Centeno 2003), which arguably un- folded in a period long before the nation-state model became enshrined in world cultural tem- plates and international law.

Cultural frames and norms. Smith (2005) introduced a more straightforward cultural sociology argument about how cultural frames shape when and why governments declare war. Analyzing the public discourses surrounding the American war in Iraq (2003–2011), the Gulf War (1990–1991), and the Suez Crisis (1956), he decodes the cultural narratives that make war seem a plausible course of action: the binary distinctions between good and evil, sacred and profane, and rational and irrational that together produce an apocalyptic narrative

182 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

that legitimizes the large-scale sacrifice of human lives.

A similar approach has recently been revi- talized in international relations work on inter- state wars. Following up on a long, qualitative tradition of scholarship, Dafoe et al. (2014) ar- gue that protecting national honor, reputation, and status are important motives for the de- cision to go to war. They offer methodological advice on how to study these soft aspects of deci- sion making in more rigorous ways—similar to Dafoe & Caughey’s (2013) own work that seems to indicate that southern US presidents, who grew up in a culture of honor, are more likely to fight wars and to fight them in more persis- tent ways than do northern presidents. Whereas the above work focuses on elite discourse and norms, political scientist Wood (2003) looks at the frames of legitimacy that motivated peasants to support the guerrillas in the Salvadoran civil war. Rather than hopes of future gains from a rebel victory or immediate concerns about pos- sible repression, as rationalist theories would have it, these peasants were motivated by moral outrage over what they perceived as an unjust regime and the hopes of realizing their vision of full citizenship in the future.3

Cultural consequences: militarism and nationalism. This brings us to sociological studies of the cultural consequences of war. In a series of books and articles, Shaw (e.g. 1991) has argued that the total mobilization for World War I and II produced a militarist polit- ical culture, i.e., a view of history that sees war as inevitable and preparation for future wars as practically necessary and morally justified. Writing at the end of the Cold War, Shaw diag- nosed a process of demilitarization throughout the Western world, reducing the overall preoc- cupation of the population and political elites with war making and defense. Democratization in Eastern Europe and the collapse of Stalinist

3 Another cultural argument about the causes of war posits that monotheistic religions or religiosity itself foster armed confrontations (see the review in Gorski & Türkmen- Dervişoğlu 2013).

militarism, the increasing resistance to military conscription, the rise of professional armies, and technological change that makes war a distant matter of aerial bombings or drone attacks combined to produce a “postmilitary” citizenship (Shaw 1991; see also Lachmann 2013).

At a more micro level, Wagner-Pacifici (2005) studied the cultural performances and rituals to end war—more specifically, the cere- monies of surrender that concluded the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), the American Civil War (1860–1865), and World War II (1939– 1945). She analyzes how surrender and dom- ination are enacted and represented and con- siders how the rituals themselves preconfigure the fault lines of future conflicts by providing a dramatic visualization and performative evo- cation of defeat and dishonor that future polit- ical and military leaders may feel called upon to correct. In a related study, Wagner-Pacifici & Schwartz (1991) analyze the controversies around the Vietnam War Memorial in Wash- ington, DC. They argue that collective remem- bering of lost wars sometimes does not produce shared feelings of heroism and collective strug- gle, as the cultural historian Mosse (1991) had argued with regard to German war memorials, but rather brings into sharp relief the internal dissent and conflicting interpretations of what a lost war might mean for national history.

On a more theoretical level, Malešević (2010b, ch. 6) argues that if nationalist ideolo- gies have not already deeply penetrated every- day perceptions of the political world among regular citizens, wars will not foster national co- hesion, offer heroic memories, or establish sym- bolic community. This latter view—that war creates nationalist sentiment—was embraced by a long line of prominent sociologists who saw war as a community-creating and recreating event (Smith 1981, Hutchinson 2007) or even as a necessary blood sacrifice without which the civic religion of nationalism would cease to hold its spell on the citizenry (Marvin & Ingle 1999).

In a related vein, Olick (2007) and Giesen (2004) study how nationalist memory can even

www.annualreviews.org • War 183

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

incorporate lost wars and war crimes, such as in Germany—with important consequences for the nature of political debates, political cul- ture, and the future likelihood of war. Accord- ing to Giesen, Germany’s postwar political cul- ture centers firmly around the “trauma of the perpetrator.” Beyond the specificities of the German case, Giesen argues, remembering moral shame and acknowledging past injus- tice have become part and parcel of a post- utopian collective identity spreading through- out the Western world (Giesen 2004).

The important questions that these various cultural sociologies of war raise is whether indeed different forms of framing a conflict (Smith) or remembering war (Wagner-Pacifici, Smith, Hutchinson, Marvin & Ingle, Olick, Giesen) influence the behavior of political elites—independently of coevolving political alliance structures, military capabilities, and other aspects focused upon by the realist tradition. For example, whether Germany’s political culture of guilt indeed shapes its foreign policy preferences to make interstate war less likely than does a country with a more bellicose nationalism such as the United States (Marvin & Ingle 1999) is a conjecture that awaits a more rigorous comparative and empirical test. Equally intriguing would be to study, following up on Smith (2005), whether narratives of an apocalyptic encounter with evil always precede international wars and whether political leaders use these narratives instrumentally or are themselves trapped by them (for a related argument about the ideological correlates of genocidal violence in contemporary Africa, see Straus 2012).

Domestic Power Configurations and Grievances

A second perspective prominent in sociology is seeing war as the outcome of a genuinely polit- ical struggle over state power. In political sci- ence, by contrast, civil war is often analyzed as a matter of the repressive capacity of the state, individual-level incentives to join a rebellion, economic inducements such as price shocks,

the presence of natural resources or lootable goods, institutional incentives to radicalize po- litical party platforms, commitment problems in postconflict power-sharing coalitions, and the like.

Olzak (2006), following up on her earlier work on urban riots in the United States, stud- ied the dynamics of ethnic mobilization and war. Using a global event data set as well as information on a subset of ethnic groups from the Minorities at Risk Project, she argues that a combination of ideological and power rela- tional factors determine whether ethnic mobi- lization escalates into violent conflict and war. The spread of global ideas about human rights and equal opportunity into a national political arena leads to political mobilization of minori- ties; if this combines with restrictions on formal political rights of minority members at the na- tional level and poverty at the group level, mo- bilization might well turn into violent conflict.

Also focusing on ethnic conflict and war, Wimmer and political scientists Cederman and Min (Wimmer et al. 2009) assembled a new global data set that more precisely describes changing ethnopolitical relations of power. Working within a power-cum-legitimacy theo- retical framework developed earlier (Wimmer 2002), they show that within a more exclu- sionary power configuration—i.e., where large segments of the population remain detached from the web of political alliances centered on the national-level government—ethnic wars are more likely to erupt. This represents an important corrective to the dominant political economy approaches in political science that disregard grievances as a factor for understand- ing civil war. Group-level analysis of this data set by the same authors (Cederman et al. 2010) further revealed that groups that fell from power are particularly likely, among politically excluded groups, to rebel (in line with the qualitative findings of Petersen 2002), as are ju- nior partners in a power-sharing coalition that represent a larger share of the population than senior partners—another way of violating the like-over-like principle of legitimacy intro- duced by nationalism.

184 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

Further explorations of this data set by political scientists led to additional refinements of the power configurational view of war. Political scientist Roessler (2011), for exam- ple, showed how African leaders in unstable coalitions fraught with commitment problems might preemptively stage a coup and politically marginalize their former coalition partners, thus producing a situation of political inequal- ity that might lead to civil war further down the road. Political scientists Wucherpfennig and coauthors (2012) showed that civil wars caused by high levels of ethnopolitical inequality last longer than other civil wars.

The literature discussed so far has focused squarely on ethnopolitical configurations of power, but the same approach could be applied to other types of political cleavages—along the lines of class, region, profession, or party al- legiance, for example—or even to a full, si- multaneous mapping of all aspects of a power configuration. Considerable investment in data collection would be necessary to bring such a project to fruition, yet it is feasible and brings the considerable benefit of a test of the politi- cal grievances argument beyond the domain of ethnic politics.

Power configurational arguments have also been made by international relations scholars (though not under that label). Walt (1992) highlighted a possible link between a revolu- tionary change in the domestic power configu- ration and the possibility of interstate war (see also Maoz 1989). He offers a classical neorealist argument, according to which “revolutions cause war by increasing the level of threat be- tween the revolutionary state and its rivals and by encouraging both sides to view the use of force as an effective way to eliminate the threat” (Walt 1992, pp. 322–23). More recently, Colgan (2013) has argued that revolutions lead to international war because the lead- ers emerging from revolutionary turmoil are inherently less conflict averse and more politically ambitious.

Emphasizing another possible link between a change in domestic power configurations and international war, Mansfield & Snyder (2005)

demonstrated that states more often go to war with each other during the early stages of de- mocratization. In a shaky political arena, both old and new elites who vie for control of the democratizing state mobilize the masses to get an electoral advantage over their competitors. The elites then use the nationalist spirit con- jured up during this process to lead their coun- tries into an international war, hoping that this will increase their legitimacy in the eyes of the masses and thus help them stay in power (for an empirical critique of this diversionary theory of interstate conflict, see Narang & Nelson 2009).

Several other scholars have studied the reverse conjecture: that a revolutionary trans- formation of the domestic power configuration may result from international war. The most prominent study in comparative historical sociology can be subsumed, for the purposes of this review, under this angle: Focusing on the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions, Skocpol (1979) sought to counter dominant Marxist interpretations of revolution by hear- kening back to the writings of Otto Hintze (1975). Rather than rising revolutionary class consciousness and popular mobilization, she argued, it was lost international wars and the ancien régime’s incapacity to respond to the re- sulting crises, given the constraints imposed by monarchical or imperial institutions, that made these massive revolutionary transformations of the power structure possible. Although the long debate initiated by Skopcol’s study cannot be reviewed here (cf. Goldstone et al. 2014), quan- titative work by political scientists Bueno de Mesquita et al. (1992) has shown, quite in line with Skopcol’s original argument, that lost wars (especially by the instigator) increase the risk of violent regime change quite substantially, possibly for democratic regimes as much as autocratic ones (Bueno de Mesquita & Siverson 1995; for a game theoretic analysis of the con- sequence of winning wars for regime stability and nation building, see Sambanis et al. 2014).

Finally, another group of political scien- tists has explored whether war may enhance the prospect of transitioning from autocracy to democracy. Celestino & Gleditsch (2013) show

www.annualreviews.org • War 185

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

that violent insurrections increase the chances of transitioning from one autocratic regime to the next, whereas peaceful mobilization in- creases the likelihood of a democratic transi- tion. In line with this general finding, a detailed analysis of African cases shows that a violent war of independence based on a rural guerilla movement is associated with postcolonial au- tocracy, whereas peaceful urban independence movements lead to more stable democracies (Wantchekon & Garcia-Ponce 2013). Refer- ring to interstate, rather than civil, wars and to earlier phases of political development in Eu- rope, Downing (1992) arrives at a similar con- clusion about the negative consequences of war: that frequent war between powerful and con- tiguous neighboring states delayed democratic transitions. The constitutional arrangements of late medieval Western Europe combined in dif- ferent ways with the consequences of the mili- tary revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, during which large, extraordinarily expensive, standing armies emerged. Where wars were less frequent and could be financed from outside revenues or from existing coffers, medieval constitutions were not abrogated for the purpose of more effective war taxation, and early and lasting democratization followed.

Systematic statistical analysis of the relation- ship between external war and the prospects of democratization between 1827 and 1997 by Mansfield & Snyder (2010), however, does not reveal that war hinders democratization in a systematic way. Similarly, Wantchekon & Garcia-Ponce (2013) and Bermeo (2010) find that democracies that emerged from violent conflict after World War II have lasted longer than those born peacefully. Obviously, further research is needed to reconcile the conflicting findings of how war and democratization relate to each other.

Shaw (2003) pinpoints another even more dramatically negative consequence of war by arguing that most genocides occur during war and that the analytical separation into a distinct field of genocide studies is therefore not jus- tified. Genocide represents, according to his analysis, a form of degenerate war that is di-

rected against specific groups of civilians with the intent to exterminate them. In other, less extreme forms of degenerated war, combatants seek to break the will of the enemy civilian pop- ulation by targeting it with massive violence. In this context, it is interesting to note that democracies are more likely to inflict mass casu- alties on civilian populations during interstate wars, as Downes (2007) has shown. More sys- tematic work on the occurrence of genocide confirms Shaw’s intuition: Genocides almost al- ways take place in the midst of war (Harff 2003), which thus represents a perhaps necessary—but not sufficient—condition for their occurrence. Correspondingly, war does not feature as a cru- cial factor in either quantitative (Harff 2003) or qualitative (Mann 2005) empirical work on genocide (for an overview of recent scholarship on genocide, see Owens et al. 2013).

Organizational Development

State capacity. Sociology’s most widely rec- ognized contribution is without doubt the comparative historical analysis of the rela- tionship between state development and war- fare. Following up on Hintze’s (1975) argu- ments a century before, Charles Tilly has argued in a series of well-known books (Tilly 1975, 1990, 2003) that throughout Western history, a state’s capacity to tax and ad- ministratively penetrate its territory depended on, and was in turn further enhanced by, its ca- pacity to wage and win wars with other states. In a nutshell, the more deeply a state reached into the hinterland, the more administratively capa- ble it was, the more it could raise taxes to finance standing armies, the more prone to and suc- cessful in waging war such a state was, the more territory it controlled and the more completely it controlled it, leading to a further increase in taxing capacity, which in turn fed a subse- quent round of war-making.4 Other historical

4 In later work, Tilly took on an increasingly critical, anti- statist view, comparing states to racketeers “since govern- ments themselves commonly simulate, stimulate, or even fabricate threats of external war and since the repressive

186 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

sociologists have confirmed the basic lines of this developmental story, although Mann (1986–2013, Vol. 2) added popular mobiliza- tion by the taxed population to the analysis, ar- guing that citizens started to demand participa- tion in return for direct rule and an increasing tax burden, thus leading to more politically in- clusionary, gradually democratizing regimes. A series of case studies, such as the one by histo- rian Sparrow (2011) on the dramatic increase of the size and power of the American federal government during and after World War II, has confirmed Tilly’s bellicist theory of state formation even for more recent periods.

Giddens (1995), the grand master of British social theory, presented a similar account of the same process. He points the causal arrow mainly in one direction: from state formation to international war, arguing that political mod- ernization, the increasing control and surveil- lance of the domestic population, and its grad- ual integration through citizenship rights and democracy produced internally homogeneous and largely pacified social spaces, bounded by the power container of the state. This inter- nal pacification and homogenization, however, allowed the waging of total war between such national states, thus adding an element of en- demic conflict to modern society. In line with more recent constructivist scholarship in inter- national relations, the anarchic and war-prone character of the state system is therefore de- rived from the nature of its constituent units, rather than from system-level characteristics.

More recent research has extended the Tillyean line of reasoning to civil wars. Accord- ing to the political scientist Slater (2010), vio- lent popular rebellion in Southeast Asia played a functionally equivalent role to war between territorial states in early modern Europe if it fostered elite coherence and thus the political capacity to develop administratively and mili-

and extractive activities of governments often constitute the largest current threats to the livelihoods of their own citizens” (Tilly 1985, p. 171). He also elaborated on how coercive state formation varied depending on how it interacted with the rise of commerce and capitalism (Tilly 1990).

tarily capable leviathans. Observing how effec- tive states were built after the decisively won civil wars in Rwanda, Uganda, and elsewhere in Africa, some policy-oriented scholars have argued against the dominant doctrine of peace making through negotiation in favor of “letting one side win” and thus building long-term state capacity (Weinstein 2005).

Similarly, some scholars have called atten- tion to the structure of the international sys- tem, which granted legal recognition and thus protection from conquest even to fragile states that would never have survived interstate com- petition in early modern Europe. The result, particularly in regions with late transitions to independence such as Africa ( Jackson 1990), is a system of weak states prone to civil wars (Holsti 1996) that are difficult to end decisively (Hironaka 2005). Similarly, Centeno (2003) has argued that the relative peacefulness of the tran- sition to independent statehood and the low fre- quency and intensity of postcolonial interstate war made Latin American states weaker than their more bellicose European counterparts. They thus had fewer taxation capacities and shaky monopolies of violence, and their popula- tions identified less with them and saw them as less legitimate, making them more prone to civil war (a conjecture that is confirmed in Figure 1).

In the meantime, some critical studies have modified the basic Tillyean story about the European cases. They showed that war is not the only route leading to the modern state on the old Continent. State centralization in France preceded the rise in war frequency and was achieved by political bargains and coalition building (Spruyt 1996, ch. 5); wars spurred po- litical centralization only if they increased in frequency after bureaucratic positions were no longer sold but staffed with university-educated professionals (Ertman 1997); increased taxa- tion could also be brought about in decen- tralized polities such as the Netherlands; re- ligious asceticism was as much a motivating force for the state builders of Prussia and the Netherlands as the hunt for more taxation to fi- nance larger armies (Gorski 2003); and so forth (cf. Vu 2009, who also summarizes major work

www.annualreviews.org • War 187

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

beyond Europe). Other political sociologists have criticized the almost exclusive focus on regular armies in Tilly’s work and have inves- tigated how irregular armed forces, from guer- rillas to police forces to warlords, undermined, mimicked, or enhanced processes of state for- mation (Davis & Perreira 2003).

This discussion on the link between war and state building would be greatly enhanced if it could move beyond consideration of European, Latin American, and a handful of East Asian cases. A Continental or even global analysis based on quantitative data over long stretches of time, however, is not currently feasible be- cause there is no good indicator of state capac- ity (see the discussion by Hendrix 2010). Con- siderable efforts are needed to overcome this problem and gain a more precise understand- ing of whether interstate wars precede, follow, or both from increasing state capacity; whether this pattern is limited to certain periods and re- gions; what other historical routes to adminis- tratively centralized states exist; whether weak administrative capacity is indeed a recipe for civil war; and so forth. Another possibility is to treat the frequently shifting boundaries of states over relatively stable populations as natural ex- periments to study how state capacity relates to war probability, including the likelihood of civil war in these particular areas (for an exam- ple of how to exploit shifting state boundaries analytically, see Darden 2013).

Welfare state and citizenship. Historical sociologists have also studied other aspects of organizational development, most impor- tantly the rise of welfare states and citizen- ship rights. In contrast to research on bureau- cratization and state formation, however, war is now treated almost exclusively as a cause, rather than an effect, of institutional develop- ment. Multiple authors have studied how caring for the veterans of war laid the institutional foundation for the development of modern wel- fare states. Perhaps the most prominent study in the English-speaking world is by Skocpol (1992). Her largely historical narrative recounts

how caring for the veterans of the US Civil War and their families represented a major in- stitutional innovation—which did make it more difficult, however, to establish a generalized pension or worker’s insurance scheme later on, despite serious and sustained efforts in the Progressive Era. The war-born origins of the American welfare state thus explain its patch- work character that contrasts with that of its European counterparts. Similar stories about how warfare translated into welfare, however, are being told for postwar Japan (Kasza 2002), Canada (Cowen 2008), various European coun- tries that transformed their war economies into welfare economies after World War II (Klausen 1998), Kenya after World War II (Lewis 2000), Eastern and Western Europe during the Cold War (Obinger & Schmitt 2011), and so forth.

A related topic concerns how the mass in- volvement in the wars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries affected citizenship rights. Andreski (1968) maintained that the growth of armed forces and a correspondingly high “mili- tary participation ratio” would lead to undemo- cratic, hierarchically structured, and highly centralized polities. Most authors, however, think that universal conscription prepared the way for full citizenship rights and democracy. Historian Marwick (1988), for example, argued that total war increased participation, includ- ing through voting, of previously marginal- ized groups of people who contributed to the war effort. Similarly, Mann (1987) identified a European “period of citizen wars” that lasted from the Napoleonic wars to World War II, during which he observed a “dialectic of de- velopment of civic and military participation,” i.e., a deepening of democracy as a result of mass mobilization for war through universal conscription. This is also the main thrust of Kestnbaum’s (e.g., 2002; see also Lachmann 2013) analysis of how popular mobilization for external wars led, in the four Western countries he studied, to universal conscription, which in turn provided the framework within which pop- ular interest in war and identification with its

188 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

causes developed, thus preparing the ground for mass political participation and citizenship.

Markoff (1996) argues that the world wars led to the enfranchising of women and prop- ertyless men as a reward for forgoing strikes and by filling in for men in the war in- dustries (for a more detailed analysis of the conditions under which labor can maintain wartime gains, see Kier 2010). In a simi- lar vein, Hughes (2009) has shown through quantitative analysis that especially long-lasting civil wars in the developing world often have produced political openings that proved ben- eficial to women’s representation in parlia- ment (but see the more pessimistic assess- ment by the historians reviewed in Hartmann 1982; see also the reverse argument—that war- prone regimes tend to have less female political representation and labor force participation— by Caprioli 2000). Along similar lines but with a focus on citizen participation in voluntary orga- nizations rather than citizenship rights or polit- ical representation, Kage (2010) finds that co- horts who experienced World War II are more likely to join such organizations, especially in societies that were fully mobilized for the war effort (see also, for the United States before World War II, Skocpol et al. 2002). Finally, Blattman (2009) showed that boys abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Northern Uganda to serve as child soldiers were later more likely to vote and to become active in community affairs, mostly because of the psy- chological growth that followed experiencing traumatic violence (see also for Sierra Leone: Bellows & Miguel 2006; and further literature cited in Blattman & Miguel 2010, p. 44).

As with other areas of research, much more needs to be done to disentangle the various causal processes and positive and negative feed- backs (or endogeneity). The research on war, welfare, and citizenship could more systemati- cally take into account other factors that have been discussed in the historically oriented wel- fare literature (Ritter 1986) as well as in the de- mocratization literature (e.g., Boix 2011). Does war indeed make a difference when the pic-

ture broadens to include these other factors? More than other areas of research, moreover, the problems of sampling on the dependent variables persist in that most research looks at how total war led to the extension of effective citizenship and the development of welfare for soldiers and citizens. No such effects, however, have so far emerged, for example, from what has been termed a Third World War currently taking place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighboring states. Conversely, the world’s first social welfare scheme devel- oped in Bismarck’s Germany for a variety of reasons (Ritter 1986), none of which was di- rectly related to war. It would therefore be use- ful to extend the analytical horizon beyond the OECD and to more precisely specify the scope conditions under which the purposed mecha- nisms are at work.

The Long-Term, the Complex, and the Contingent

A final characteristic of the political sociology of war is that it assumes a long-term historical perspective that has, for the reasons outlined in previous sections, been largely abandoned in international relations (with the exception of rivalry theory; Senese & Vasquez 2008) and comparative politics (with exceptions such as Darden 2013). Much of the literature discussed above assumes such a long-term perspective. This includes most of the research on state building and war inspired by Tilly; the more recent work on the shift from imperial to na- tionalist principles of political legitimacy as a major cause of war; and scholarship on welfare state development and war as well as on the link- age with democracy. In all of these strands of research, causality is thought to work through long-term processes that often span centuries, certainly decades, and never just through the instant context of individual decision making. Long-term patterns of regularities thus emerge, invisible if the analytical or data horizon is re- duced to only a couple of years, as in the more disaggregated research programs currently pur- sued in comparative politics.

www.annualreviews.org • War 189

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

Another characteristic of much of the political sociology literature on war is its tolerance of complexity and contingency. This is perhaps the defining feature of Mann’s (1986–2013) monumental four volumes The Sources of Social Power. These are not books about war per se but about the entire history of humankind over the past millennia, including the wars that have shaped it. Most remarkable for the purpose of this review, Mann does not aim at a clear-cut causal argument of when which type of war is more likely to break out, even though his theory gives military aspects of society an unusual prominence by conceiving it as one independent system of power beyond those of economics, politics, and culture. Mann does not formulate a theory of war because he sees history as a largely contingent process: Ideological, political, military, and economic processes are not synchronized with each other; rather, each system produces its own patterns, obeys its proper logics, and follows a different rhythm or temporality, to use Sewell’s (1996) term. The four systems influence each other in crucial ways, however. Combine this with the consequential actions of powerful, but not fully rational, leaders and with the concatenation of independent event chains that cascade into dramatic accelerations of history and you get the crises that have interrupted the regular, long-term developmental trends emanating from the normal functioning of each system, such as World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, and so forth.

Conformingly, in order to understand how and where wars have emerged and what their consequences were, Mann takes other, nonmilitary forces and factors into account that have also influenced event chains and societal developments, such as the rise of capitalism, the emergence of democracy, and technological revolutions. Writing the history of humankind and its major wars then becomes one single, integrated, and complexly woven narrative tapestry. Extending Mann’s approach, one could argue that regularities of how economic, political, ideological, or military mechanisms affect war probabilities

and consequences can indeed be discerned. But concrete historical developments such as those leading to a specific war can only be reconstructed narratively as the outcome of the conjoint influence of multiple such causal mechanisms. Such a view of history—as a contingent conjunction of causally effective processes (see also Tilly 1995) that lead to and from war—represents a welcome complement to the search for regularly recurring causal mechanisms that preoccupies much of political sociology and political science today.

TWO CONCLUDING REMARKS

As the above makes clear, sociologists pay much attention to culture/ideology/legitimacy, polit- ical inequalities, organizational developments, and the long-term; they have also studied the consequences of war more often than its causes. Because it seems to be the opposite in political science, one could argue that a healthy division of labor between neighboring social science dis- ciplines has emerged. One wonders, however, if this sort of division of labor does not hinder, over the long run, an adequate understanding of war because it impedes the precise identifi- cation of the endogenous, positive and negative feedback loops between war-causing and war- caused phenomena. There is, therefore, much to be said for an integrated approach that tries to empirically specify, analytically identify, and theoretically synthesize the various processes leading from and to war.

Furthermore, identifying individual mech- anisms through controlled case comparisons, statistical work, or natural experiments has, over the past few decades, led to an ever-larger list of mechanisms that may be at work (the “x matters, y matters too, and so does z” research program), as this review has made evident. Sorting these mechanisms in order of their effectiveness, specifying the conditions under which they operate, and identifying countervailing mechanisms that make the focal ones ineffective or reverse their consequences remains a major challenge for future research. Now that the social sciences no longer ignore

190 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

the wars that have shaped modern societies in such profound ways, a more systematic and

theoretically integrated study of its various aspects is perhaps within reach.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED

Aas Rustad SC, Buhaug H, Falch Å, Gates S. 2011. All conflict is local: modeling sub-national variation in civil conflict risk. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 28(1):15–40

Andreski S. 1968. Military Organization and Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Ashworth C, Dandeker C. 1987. Warfare, social theory and West European development. Sociol. Rev. 35:1–18 Azam J-P, Hoeffler A. 2002. Violence against civilians in civil wars: looting or terror? J. Peace Res. 39(4):461–85 Badie B. 2000. The Imported State: The Westernization of the Political Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Bellows J, Miguel E. 2006. War and institutions: new evidence from Sierra Leone. Am. Econ. Rev. 96(2):394–99 Bendix R. 1979. Kings to People: Power and the Mandate to Rule. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Bennett DS, Stam AC. 2004. The Behavioral Origins of War. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press Bermeo N. 2010. Armed conflict and the durability of electoral democracy. See Kier & Krebs 2010, pp. 67–94 Blattman C. 2009. From violence to voting: war and political participation in Uganda. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.

103(2):231–47 Blattman C, Miguel E. 2010. Civil war. J. Econ. Lit. 48(1):3–57 Bock KE. 1954. The study of war in American sociology. Sociologus 4(2):104–12 Boix C. 2011. Democracy, development, and the international system. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105(4):809–28 Bueno de Mesquita B, Siverson RM. 1995. War and the survival of political leaders: a comparative study of

regime types and political accountability. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 89(4):841–55 Bueno de Mesquita B, Siverson RM, Woller G. 1992. War and the fate of regimes: a comparative analysis.

Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 86(3):638–46 Buhaug H, Rød JK. 2005. Local determinants of African civil wars, 1970–2001. Presented at Disaggregating the

Study of Civil War and Transnational Violence, March 7–8, Univ. Calif. Glob. Confl. Coop., San Diego Bukovansky M. 2002. The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton Univ. Press Caprioli M. 2000. Gendered conflict. J. Peace Res. 37(1):53–68 Cederman L-E, Gleditsch KS. 2009. Introduction to the special issue on “Disaggregating Civil War.” J. Confl.

Resolut. 53(4):487–95 Cederman L-E, Wimmer A, Min B. 2010. Why do ethnic groups rebel? New data and analysis. World Polit.

62(1):87–119 Celestino MR, Gleditsch KS. 2013. Fresh carnations or all thorn, no rose? Nonviolent campaigns and transi-

tions in autocracies. J. Peace Res. 50(3):385–400 Centeno MA. 2003. Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America. Pittsburg: Pa. State Univ. Press Christia F. 2012. Alliance Formation in Civil Wars. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Cohen DK. 2013. Explaining rape during civil war: cross-national evidence (1980–2009). Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.

107(3):461–77 Colgan JD. 2013. Domestic revolutionary leaders and international conflict. World Polit. 65(4):656–90 Collier P, Hoeffler A. 2004. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxf. Econ. Papers 56(4):563–95 Collier P, Hoeffler A, Rohner D. 2006. Beyond greed and grievance: feasibility and civil war. CSAE Work. Pap.

Ser. 2006-10, Cent. Study Afr. Econ., Dep. Econ., Oxford Univ. Collins R. 2013. Does nationalist sentiment increase fighting efficacy? A sceptical view from the sociology of

violence. See Hall & Malešević 2013, pp. 31–43 Cowen D. 2008. Military Workfare: The Soldier and Social Citizenship in Canada. Toronto: Univ. Toronto Press Cunningham DE. 2011. Barriers to Peace in Civil Wars. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

www.annualreviews.org • War 191

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

Cunningham DE, Kristian SG, Salehyan I. 2009. It takes two: a dyadic analysis of civil war duration and outcome. J. Confl. Resolut. 54(4):570–97

Dafoe A, Caughey D. 2013. Honor and war: Southern US presidents and the effects of concerns for reputation. SSRN Work. Pap. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2343466

Dafoe A, Renshorn J, Huth P. 2014. Reputation and status as motives for war. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 17:371–93 Darden K. 2013. Resisting Occupation: Mass Schooling and the Creation of Durable National Loyalties. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Davis DE, Perreira AW. 2003. Irregular Armed Forces and Their Role in Politics and State Formation. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Dietz PF, Goertz G. 2000. War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press Downes AB. 2007. Restraint or propellant? Democracy and civilian fatalities in interstate wars. J. Confl. Resolut.

51(6):872–904 Downing BM. 1992. The Military Revolution and Political Change: Origins of Democracy and Autocracy in Early

Modern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Doyle MW, Sambanis N. 2000. International peacebuilding: a theoretical and quantitative analysis. Am. Polit.

Sci. Rev. 94(4):779–801 Eck K, Hultman L. 2007. One-sided violence against civilians in war: insights from new fatality data. J. Peace

Res. 44(2):233–46 Eckhart W. 1992. Civilizations, Empires and Wars: A Quantitative History. Jefferson, NC: McFarland Ertman T. 1997. The Birth of the Leviathan: Building States and Regimes in Medieval and Early Modern Europe.

New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Fearon JD. 1995. Rationalist explanations of war. Int. Organ. 49(3):379–414 Fearon JD. 2004. Why do some civil wars last so much longer than others? J. Peace Res. 41(3):275–301 Fearon JD, Laitin DD. 2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97(1):1–16 Feinstein Y. 2012. Rallying around the flag: nationalist emotions in American mass politics. PhD Diss., Dep. Sociol.,

Univ. Calif., Los Angeles Garnett RA. 1988. The study of war in American sociology: an analysis of selected journals, 1936–1984. Am.

Sociol. 19(3):270–82 Gates S. 2002. Recruitment and allegiance: the microfoundations of rebellion. J. Confl. Resolut. 46(1):111–30 Giddens A. 1995. National State and Violence. Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press Giesen B. 2004. Triumph and Trauma. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Gleditsch KS. 2007. Transnational dimensions of civil war. J. Peace Res. 44(3):293–330 Gleditsch NP, Wallensteen P, Eriksson M, Sollenberg M, Strand H. 2002. Armed conflict 1946–2001: a new

dataset. J. Peace Res. 39(5):615–37 Goldstein JS. 1991. A war-economy theory of the long wave. In Business Cycles: Theories, Evidence and Analysis,

ed. N Thygesen, K Velupillai, S Zambelli, pp. 303–25. New York: NYU Press Goldstone JA, Foran J, Selbin E. 2014. Understanding Revolutions: Their Origins, Processes, and Outcomes. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Gorski P. 2003. The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe. Chicago:

Univ. Chicago Press Gorski P, Türkmen-Dervişoğlu G. 2013. Religion, nationalism, and violence: an integrated approach. Annu.

Rev. Sociol. 39:193–210 Gurr TR. 1993. Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflict. Washington, DC: US Inst. Peace

Press Hall RB. 1999. Social Constructs and International Systems. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Hall S, Malešević S, eds. 2013. Nationalism and War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Harff B. 2003. No lessons learned from the Holocaust? Assessing the risks of genocide and political mass

murder since 1955. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97(1):57–73 Hartmann SM. 1982. Review of Anderson, Berkin and Lovett, Braybon and Greenwald. Sign 7(4):894–96 Hegre H, Ellingsen T, Gates S, Gleditsch NP. 2001. Toward a democratic civil peace? Democracy, political

change, and civil war, 1816–1992. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 95(1):33–48 Hendrix CS. 2010. Measuring state capacity: theoretical and empirical implications for the study of civil war.

J. Peace Res. 47(3):273–85

192 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

Herbst J. 2000. States and Power in Africa. Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Hiers W, Wimmer A. 2013. Is nationalism the cause or consequence of imperial breakdown. See Hall & Malešević 2013, pp. 212–54

Hintze O. 1975. Military organization and the organization of the state. In The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze, ed. F Gilbert, pp. 178–215. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Hironaka A. 2005. Neverending Wars: The International Community, Weak States, and the Perpetuation of Civil War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Holsti KJ. 1996. The State, War, and the State of War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Horowitz DL. 2002. Constitutional design: proposals versus process. In The Architecture of Democracy: Con-

stitutional Design, Conflict Management, and Democracy, ed. A Reynolds, pp. 15–36. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press

Huebner DR. 2008. Toward a sociology of the state and war: Emil Lederer’s political sociology. Arch. Eur. Sociol. 49(1):65–90

Hughes MM. 2009. Armed conflict, international linkages, and women’s parliamentary representation in developing nations. Soc. Probl. 56(1):174–204

Humphreys M, Weinstein JM. 2006. Handling and manhandling civilians in civil war. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 100(3):429–47

Humphreys M, Weinstein JM. 2008. Who fights? The determinants of participation in civil war. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 52(2):436–55

Hutchinson J. 2007. Warfare, remembrance and national identity. In Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism, ed. A Leoussi, S Grosby, pp. 42–54. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Univ. Press

Jackson RH. 1990. Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Joas H. 1991. Between power politics and pacifist utopia: peace and war in sociological theory. Curr. Sociol. 39(1):47–66

Joas H. 1999. The modernity of war: modernization theory and the problem of violence. Int. Sociol. 14(4):457– 72

Joas H, Knöbl W. 2013. War in Social Thought: Hobbes to the Present. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Joas H, Woodgate KB. 1990. The classics of sociology and the First World War. Thesis Eleven 27:101–24 Jones DM, Stuart AB, Singer JD. 1996. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816–1992: rationale, coding rules,

and empirical patterns. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 15(2):163–213 Kage R. 2010. The effects of war on civil society: cross-national evidence from World War II. See Kier &

Krebs 2010, pp. 97–120 Kalyvas SN. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Kalyvas SN. 2008. Promises and pitfalls of an emerging research program: the microdynamics of civil war. In

Order, Conflict, and Violence, ed. S Kalyvas, I Shapiro, T Masoud, pp. 397–421. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Kasza GJ. 2002. War and welfare policy in Japan. J. Asian Stud. 61(2):417–35 Keller AG. 1945. Perspective on war. Am. Sociol. Rev. 10(1):12–17 Keohane R. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton Univ. Press Kestnbaum M. 2002. Citizen-soldiers, national service and the mass army: the birth of conscription in revo-

lutionary Europe and North America. Comp. Soc. Res. 20:117–44 Kestnbaum M. 2009. The sociology of war and the military. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:235–54 Kier E. 2010. War and reform. Gaining labor’s compliance on the homefront. See Kier & Krebs 2010,

pp. 139–61 Kier E, Krebs RR, eds. 2010. In War’s Wake: International Conflict and the Fate of Liberal Democracy. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Klausen J. 1998. War and Welfare: Europe and the United States. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Klein JP, Goertz G, Diehl PF. 2006. The new rivalry dataset: procedures and patterns. J. Peace Res. 43(3):331–

48

www.annualreviews.org • War 193

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

Lachmann R. 2013. Mercenary, citizen, victim: the rise and fall of conscription in the West. See Hall & Malešević 2013, pp. 44–70

Lake DA, Rothchild D. 1998. The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Lang K. 1972. Military Institutions and the Sociology of War. Beverly Hills: Sage Levy JS, Thompson WR. 2010. Causes of War. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Levy JS, Thompson WR. 2011. The Arc of War: Origins, Escalation, and Transformation. Chicago: Univ. Chicago

Press Lewis J. 2000. Empire State-Building: War and Welfare in Kenya, 1925–52. Oxford, UK: James Currey Lijphart A. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press Luard E. 1986. War in International Society: A Study in International Sociology. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.

Press Lyall J, Blair G, Imai K. 2013. Explaining support for combatants in wartime: a survey experiment in

Afghanistan. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 107(4):679–705 Malešević S. 2010a. How pacifist were the founding fathers? War and violence in classical sociology. Eur. J.

Soc. Theory 13(2):193–212 Malešević S. 2010b. The Sociology of War and Violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Mann M. 1986–2013. The Sources of Social Power, Vols. 1–4. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Mann M. 1987. The roots and contradictions of modern militarism. New Left Rev. 1(162):35–50 Mann M. 1988. States, War and Capitalism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Mann M. 2005. The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.

Press Mansfield ED, Snyder J. 2005. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press Mansfield ED, Snyder J. 2010. Does war influence democratization? See Kier & Krebs 2010, pp. 23–49 Maoz Z. 1989. Joining the club of nations: political development and international conflict, 1816–1976. Int.

Stud. Q. 33(2):199–231 Markoff J. 1996. Waves of Democracy. Social Movements and Political Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Marvin C, Ingle DW. 1999. Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Marwick A. 1988. Total War and Social Changes. London: Macmillan Mearsheimer JJ. 1990. Back to the future: instability in Europe after the Cold War. Int. Secur. 15:5–56 Mearsheimer JJ. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton Meyer J, Boli J, George MT, Ramirez FO. 1997. World society and the nation-state. Am. J. Sociol. 103(1):144–

81 Miller B. 2007. States, Nations, and the Great Powers. The Sources of Regional War and Peace. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Univ. Press Modell J, Haggerty T. 1991. The social impact of war. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 17:205–24 Modelski G, Morgan P. 1985. Understanding global war. J. Confl. Resolut. 29(3):391–417 Mosse GL. 1991. The Nationalization of the Masses: Political Symbolism and Mass Movement in Germany from the

Napoleonic Wars through the Third Reich. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Mozaffar S, James RS, Galaich G. 2003. Electoral institutions, ethnopolitical cleavages, and party systems in

Africa’s emerging democracies. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97(3):379–89 Müller EN, Weede E. 1990. Cross-national variation in political violence: a rational action approach. J. Confl.

Resolut. 34(4):624–51 Narang V, Nelson R. 2009. Who are these belligerent democracies? Reassessing the impact of democratization

on war. Int. Organ. 63(2):357–79 Noland A. 1970. Proudhon’s sociology of war. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 29(3):289–304 Obinger H, Schmitt C. 2011. Guns and butter? Regime competition and the welfare state during the Cold

War. World Polit. 63(2):246–70 Olick JK. 2007. The Politics of Regret: On Collective Memory and Historical Responsibility. London: Routledge Olzak S. 2006. The Global Dynamics of Race and Ethnic Mobilization. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Organski AFK, Kugler J. 1980. The War Ledger. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

194 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

Owens PB, Su Y, Snow DA. 2013. Social scientific inquiry into genocide and mass killing: from unitary outcome to complex processes. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39:69–84

Park RE. 1940/1941. The social function of war: observations and notes. Am. J. Sociol. 46:551–70 Parkinson SE. 2013. Organizing rebellion: rethinking high-risk mobilization and social networks in war. Am.

Polit. Sci. Rev. 197(3):418–32 Petersen RD. 2002. Understanding Ethnic Violence: Fear, Hatred, and Resentment in Twentieth-Century Eastern

Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Polachek SW. 1980. Conflict and trade. J. Confl. Resolut. 24(1):55–78 Raleigh C, Hegre H. 2005. Introducing ACLED: an armed conflict location and event dataset. Presented at Disag-

gregating the Study of Civil War and Transnational Violence, March 7–8, Univ. Calif. Inst. Glob. Confl. Coop., San Diego

Raleigh C, Linke A, Hegre H, Karlsen J. 2010. Introducing ACLED: An Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset. J. Peace Res. 47(5):1–10

Reilly B. 2011. Centripetalism: cooperation, accommodation, and integration. In Conflict Management in Divided Societies: Theories and Practice, ed. S Wolff, C Yakinthou, pp. 57–65. London: Routledge

Reynolds A. 2011. Designing Democracy in a Dangerous World. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Ritter GA. 1986. Entstehung und Entwicklung des Sozialstaates in vergleichender Perspektive. Hist. Z.

243(1):1–90 Roeder PG. 2005. Power dividing as an alternative to ethnic power sharing. In Sustainable Peace: Power and

Democracy After Civil War, ed. PG Roeder, D Rothchild, pp. 51–82. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Roessler PG. 2011. The enemy from within: personal rule, coups, and civil wars in Africa. World Polit.

63(2):399–46 Ross M. 2006. A closer look at oil, diamonds, and civil war. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 9:265–300 Ross M. 2012. The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Univ. Press Roxborough I. 1993. Clausewitz and the sociology of war. Br. J. Sociol. 45(4):619–36 Russet BM. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War Period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Univ. Press Saideman S, Ayres W. 2008. For Kin and Country: Xenophobia, Nationalism, and War. New York: Columbia

Univ. Press Sambanis N. 2002. A review of recent advances and future directions in the quantitative literature on civil war.

Def. Peace Econ. 13(3):215–43 Sambanis N. 2004. What is civil war? Conceptual and empirical complexities of an operational definition.

J. Confl. Resolut. 48(6):814–58 Sambanis N, Skaperdas S, Wohlforth W. 2014. Nation-building through war: military victory and social

identification after the Franco-Prussian War. Work. Pap., Univ. Calif., Irvine. http://www.economics. uci.edu/files/economics/docs/2014/sambanis

Scott A. 2001. The political sociology of war. In The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology, ed. J Nash, A Scott, pp. 183–94. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Senese PD, Vasquez JA. 2008. Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Sewell WH. 1996. Three temporalities: toward an eventful sociology. In The Historic Turn in the Human

Sciences, ed. TJ McDonald, pp. 245–80. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press Shaw M. 1988. The Dialectics of War. London: Pluto Shaw M. 1991. Post-Military Society: Militarism, Demilitarization and War at the End of the Twentieth Century.

Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press Shaw M. 2003. War and Genocide: Organized Killing in Modern Society. Oxford, UK: Polity Singer JD. 1980. Accounting for international war: the state of the discipline. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 6:349–67 Skocpol T. 1979. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Skocpol T. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States.

Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press

www.annualreviews.org • War 195

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

Skocpol T, Munson Z, Karch A, Camp B. 2002. Patriotic partnerships: why great wars nourished American civic voluntarism. In Shaped by War and Trade: International Influences on American Political Development, ed. I Katznelson, M Shefter, pp. 134–80. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Slater D. 2010. Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Small M, Singer JD. 1982. Resort to Arms: International and Civil War, 1816–1980. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Smith AD. 1981. War and ethnicity: the role of warfare in the formation, self-images and cohesion of ethnic

communities. Ethn. Racial Stud. 4(4):375–97 Smith H. 1986. War and Social Change: British Society in the Second World War. Manchester, UK: Manchester

Univ. Press Smith P. 2005. Why War? The Cultural Logic of Iraq, the Gulf War, and Suez. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Snyder J. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Sorokin PA. 1938. A neglected factor of war. Am. Sociol. Rev. 3(4):475–86 Sparrow JT. 2011. Warfare State: World War II Americans and the Age of Big Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford

Univ. Press Spencer H. 1851. Social Statics. London: Chapman Spruyt H. 1996. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Straus S. 2012. Retreating from the brink: theorizing mass violence and the dynamics of restraint. Perspect.

Polit. 10(2):343–62 Thompson WR. 1988. On Global War: Historical-Structural Approaches to World Politics. Columbia: Univ. S.C.

Press Tilly C. 1975. Western state-making and theories of political transformation. In The Formation of National

States in Western Europe, ed. C Tilly, pp. 601–38. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Tilly C. 1985. War making and state making as organized crime. In Bringing the State Back In, ed. P Evans,

pp. 169–91. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Tilly C. 1990. Coercion, Capital and European States: AD 990–1990. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Tilly C. 1995. To explain political processes. Am. J. Sociol. 100(6):1594–610 Tilly C. 2003. The Politics of Collective Violence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Van Evera S. 1994. Hypotheses on nationalism and war. Int. Secur. 18(4):5–39 Van Evera S. 1999. Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Verwimp P. 2005. An economic profile of peasant perpetrators of genocide: micro-level evidence from Rwanda.

J. Dev. Econ. 77(2):297–323 Vreeland JR. 2008. The effect of political regime on civil war: unpacking anocracy. J. Confl. Resolut. 52(3):401–

25 Vu T. 2009. Studying the state through state formation. World Polit. 62(1):148–75 Wagner-Pacifici R. 2005. The Art of Surrender: Decomposing Sovereignty at Conflict’s End. Chicago: Univ.

Chicago Press Wagner-Pacifici R, Schwartz B. 1991. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial: commemorating a difficult past. Am.

J. Sociol. 97(2):376–420 Walt SM. 1992. Revolution and war. World Polit. 44(3):321–68 Walter B. 2002. Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.

Press Waltz KN. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill Wantchekon L, Garcia-Ponce O. 2013. Critical junctures: independence movements and democracy in Africa. Work.

Pap. No. 173, Cent. Compet. Advant. Glob. Econ. (CAGE), Univ. Warwick, Coventry, UK Weinstein JM. 2005. Autonomous recovery and international intervention in comparative perspective. Work. Pap.

No. 57, Cent. Glob. Dev., Washington, DC Weinstein JM. 2006. Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Wimmer A. 2002. Nationalist Exclusion and Ethnic Conflicts: Shadows of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Univ. Press Wimmer A. 2013. Waves of War: Nationalism, State Formation, and Ethnic Exclusion in the Modern World.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

196 Wimmer

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40CH08-Wimmer ARI 27 June 2014 11:39

Wimmer A, Cederman L-E, Min B. 2009. Ethnic politics and armed conflict: a configurational analysis of a new global dataset. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74(2):316–37

Wimmer A, Min B. 2006. From empire to nation-state: explaining wars in the modern world, 1816–2001. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71(6):867–97

Wimmer A, Min B. 2009. The location and purpose of wars around the world: a new global dataset, 1816–2001. Int. Interact. 35(4):390–417

Wood EJ. 2003. Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Woodwell D. 2007. Nationalism in International Relations. Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave Wucherpfennig J, Metternich N, Cederman L-E, Gleditsch KS. 2012. Ethnicity, the state and the duration

of civil war. World Polit. 64(1):79–115

www.annualreviews.org • War 197

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40-FrontMatter ARI 8 July 2014 6:42

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 40, 2014Contents

Prefatory Chapter

Making Sense of Culture Orlando Patterson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Theory and Methods

Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable Felix Elwert and Christopher Winship � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �31

Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research Eldad Davidov, Bart Meuleman, Jan Cieciuch, Peter Schmidt, and Jaak Billiet � � � � � � � � �55

The Sociology of Empires, Colonies, and Postcolonialism George Steinmetz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �77

Data Visualization in Sociology Kieran Healy and James Moody � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

Digital Footprints: Opportunities and Challenges for Online Social Research Scott A. Golder and Michael W. Macy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 129

Social Processes

Social Isolation in America Paolo Parigi and Warner Henson II � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 153

War Andreas Wimmer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 173

60 Years After Brown: Trends and Consequences of School Segregation Sean F. Reardon and Ann Owens � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 199

Panethnicity Dina Okamoto and G. Cristina Mora � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 219

Institutions and Culture

A Comparative View of Ethnicity and Political Engagement Riva Kastoryano and Miriam Schader � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 241

v

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40-FrontMatter ARI 8 July 2014 6:42

Formal Organizations

(When) Do Organizations Have Social Capital? Olav Sorenson and Michelle Rogan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 261

The Political Mobilization of Firms and Industries Edward T. Walker and Christopher M. Rea � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 281

Political and Economic Sociology

Political Parties and the Sociological Imagination: Past, Present, and Future Directions Stephanie L. Mudge and Anthony S. Chen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 305

Taxes and Fiscal Sociology Isaac William Martin and Monica Prasad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 331

Differentiation and Stratification

The One Percent Lisa A. Keister � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 347

Immigrants and African Americans Mary C. Waters, Philip Kasinitz, and Asad L. Asad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 369

Caste in Contemporary India: Flexibility and Persistence Divya Vaid � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 391

Incarceration, Prisoner Reentry, and Communities Jeffrey D. Morenoff and David J. Harding � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 411

Intersectionality and the Sociology of HIV/AIDS: Past, Present, and Future Research Directions Celeste Watkins-Hayes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 431

Individual and Society

Ethnic Diversity and Its Effects on Social Cohesion Tom van der Meer and Jochem Tolsma � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 459

Demography

Warmth of the Welcome: Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy in the United States Elizabeth Fussell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 479

Hispanics in Metropolitan America: New Realities and Old Debates Marta Tienda and Norma Fuentes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 499

Transitions to Adulthood in Developing Countries Fatima Juárez and Cecilia Gayet � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 521

vi Contents

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

SO40-FrontMatter ARI 8 July 2014 6:42

Race, Ethnicity, and the Changing Context of Childbearing in the United States Megan M. Sweeney and R. Kelly Raley � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 539

Urban and Rural Community Sociology

Where, When, Why, and For Whom Do Residential Contexts Matter? Moving Away from the Dichotomous Understanding of Neighborhood Effects Patrick Sharkey and Jacob W. Faber � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 559

Gender and Urban Space Daphne Spain � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 581

Policy

Somebody’s Children or Nobody’s Children? How the Sociological Perspective Could Enliven Research on Foster Care Christopher Wildeman and Jane Waldfogel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

Sociology and World Regions

Intergenerational Mobility and Inequality: The Latin American Case Florencia Torche � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 619

A Critical Overview of Migration and Development: The Latin American Challenge Raúl Delgado-Wise � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 643

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 31–40 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 665

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 31–40 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 669

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/soc

Contents vii

A nn

u. R

ev . S

oc io

l. 2

01 4.

40 :1

73 -1

97 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

A cc

es s

pr ov

id ed

b y

A ri

zo na

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

14 /1

7. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

1. ar:
1. logo: