Mémoire
| Résumé : | Different study disciples have tried to explain conflict on a general basis with many different approaches to the topic. Conflict studies have looked towards solving how to prevent future conflicts and the reasoning behind conflicts, most arguments argue that deprivation of resources leads to conflict. Studies on mobility on the other hand look towards explaining how societies function and look towards explaining the social movement of people(s) is difficult to achieve. Inequalities studies try to bridge the gap between the two ideas in order to explaining how unequal distribution of resources or power leads to conflict. Modern conflicts have undoubtedly shifted in the but more specifically in developing countries modern conflicts are unpredictable in relatively new states as no one knows the exact variable that causes violence. Why certain countries have conflict while others do not is an interesting phenomenon that researchers try to resolve developing countries and generally in conflict studies. From realist authors to inequality authors, the end goal is to try and see which factors lead to conflict so that the right policies can be implemented to prevent these from happening. I argue that having a lack of mobility is the core reason for inequalities which usually ends up leading to armed conflict. I hypotheses that two countries with similar backgrounds in the developing world have different outcomes (conflict or not conflict) based on the two main variables (access to education and employment status. Using data from demographic surveys to compare the two similar countries, I find that both variables provide arguments as for conflict. |
