Abdul Karim Issifu, M.Phil.

(Candidate): Peace and Development Studies, Institute for

Development Studies, University of Cape Coast, Ghana.
Email: akissifu@gmail.com
+233 243133069
Abdul Karim Issifu, 2014

ETHNIC CONFLICTS OCCUR WHEN A PARTICULAR SET OF

FACTORS AND CONDITIONS CONVERGE: THE DAGBON CONFLICT
IN NORTHERN GHANA

Limiting explanations of ethnic conflict solely to primordial causes implies a degree of

ignorance and prejudice towards the societies affected by conflict. Also, viewing historically
rooted ethnic animosities as the only cause causative agent of conflict as posited by some
scholars is insufficient.
Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the causes of ethnic conflict is essential, and we
must move beyond just simplistic discussions of ancient hatreds, greed and grievances to
search for more holistic explanations. This implies that, there is no only one way causative
factor to ethnic conflict. Hence, ethnic conflicts occurs when a particular set of factors and
conditions converge: a major structural crisis; presence of historical memories of inter-ethnic
grievances; institutional factors that promote ethnic intolerance; manipulation of historical
memories by political entrepreneurs to evoke emotions such as fear, resentment and hate toward
the other; and an inter-ethnic competition over resources and rights.
The paper explored a way in these vital ethnic conflict theories including the social identity,
primordialist, political entrepreneurs, and competition over resources and institutional is
combined to explain how the interaction of the converging factors leads to ethnic conflict as well
as how the conditions explain the Dagbon ethnic conflict in northern Ghana.

Key words: ethnicity, ethnic conflict, converging factors, conditions for ethnic violence

Introduction
Since time immemorial, ethnic conflict has long been a component of international
politics. The 21st century conflicts within national boundaries have become increasingly
dominant. One third of all countries in the world have experienced civil conflict. Many of such
conflicts are found in Africa where violence along ethnic lines is rampant. In the recent past for
example, there have been numerous instances of ethnic conflicts including the ethnic war in
Angola, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, Uganda, Ivory Coast, El Salvador, Mozambique, Bosnia,
Afghanistan, Ghana, and the Hutus against Tutsis in Rwanda/Burundi which is tagged worst ever
genocide in the world (Sadowski, 1998).
I want to argue that the underlying causes of the ethnic conflicts in the above named
countries and contemporary ethnic conflicts around the world are not caused by a single
motivating factor or condition. It must be noted that all the ethnic conflicts in the world are
caused by multiple factors and conditions. This mean, ethnic conflict occurs when a particular
set of factors and conditions converge. This paper tries to explore the multidimensional factors
and conditions that converge before violent conflict along ethnic line is manifested. Finally,
using Blagojevics conceptual framework for a holistic explanation to the causes of ethnic
conflict, the paper will examine how the converging factors and conditions converged to cause
the Dagbon ethnic conflict in northern Ghana.

Definition of concepts
Ethnicity
Ethnicity as a term designates a sense of collective belonging, which could be based on
common descent, language, history, culture, race or religion (or some combination of these
(Horowitz, 1985). The term ethnicity refers to a group of people with a common socio-cultural
identity such as: language, common worldview, religion and common cultural traits. It is used

interchangeably with the term Tribe. Unfortunately, the early European writers used the term
"tribe" to refer to a group of uncivilised people, as if it had a different meaning from the term
"ethnic group".

Conflict
Conflict is inevitable in human existence and is a necessary part of human life (Bukari,
2011). Conflict is also a characteristic of human endeavour that cannot be prevented completely.
Kendie & Kuffour (2014) argues that conflict cannot be avoided in social life but it can only be
contained. Conflict might be at the class level, local government level, state or even international
level. Conflict usually occurs primarily as a result of a clash of interest in the relationship
between parties, groups or states, either because they are pursuing opposing or incompatible
goals (Oyeniyi, 2011). Usually, conflict is assumed to be present when two or more parties
perceived that their interest are incompatible, express hostile attitudes or pursue their interest
through actions that damage the other parties. Conflict is normally assumed to have occurred
when individuals fail to live according to their values, or when their values are threatened
(Kendie, 2010). Conflict is seen as the struggle between individuals and groups. A broad
definition of conflict that would apply to many of the types of conflicts referred to in this paper
has been provided by Coser. Coser (1956) defines social conflict as a struggle over values or
claims to status, power and scarce resources in which the aims of the conflicting parties are not
only to gain the desired values, but also to neutralise injury or eliminate their rivals.
Bujra (2002) notes that, any attempt to conceptualise conflict should place emphasis on
disagreement between wider aggregate of society as well as the incidence of violence and injury.
Awedoba (2009:5) on the other hand, explains conflict as a relationship between two or more
parties that centre on difference, disagreements, incompatibilities and clash of wills. Johnson
(1991) further defines conflict as a real or perceived difference which may affect actions or

outcomes that we believe are important. These definitions emphasise the importance of
difference as it demonstrate the action that people in agreement need to take. Thus, the element
of difference in social life must be seen as valid even though some of the agreement may not
eventually lead to violent conflict since they may be tangential to the motives for collective
action and may require different responses or outcomes. The outcomes of conflict depend on the
choices that are available to social actors and these choices can lead to different outcome in
different situations. People make choice every time they respond to the other party in a conflict
and these choices dictates what happens in any conflict situation.

Ethnic conflict
Ethnic conflict is defined as any episode of sustained violent conflict in which national,
ethnic, and religious or other communal minorities challenge governments to seek major changes
in status (Bates, 2003). This is the type of conflict that exists between and among ethnic groups.
It can be caused by the struggle for power or authority, chieftaincy, land or boundary,
dominance, exclusion or marginalisation as well as, superiority and recognition. There are two
main categories under ethnic conflict. These are intra-ethnic conflict and inter-ethnic conflict.
The former is the type of conflict between the same ethnic groups for example; the Dagbon
violent conflict between the Abudus and the Andanis which led to the death of the Yaa Na
(Yakubu Andani), overlord of Dagbon in 2002. Brukum (1995) described it as a war of
emancipation or secession. The latter, is the type where conflict exists between and among
different ethnic groups. Kendie & Tuffour (2014) argued that, inter-ethnic conflicts are mostly
caused by feelings of superiority by one ethnic group (mostly the indigenes) overs others. For
example, Nkoya vs. Alavayo conflict, Dagomba vs. Kokomba, Manprusi vs. Kusase and many
more. The underlying interest is either over land ownership, chieftaincy succession, competition
over land usage or location of institutions and services.

Ethnicity has contributed to most of the worlds atrocities and violence. Destructions as a
result of ethnic clashes have greatly affected socio-political and human development in most of
the witnessed countries. Ethnic conflicts have the potential of undermining economic and sociopolitical development. This is because it slows down growth and development as resources are
diverted to maintaining peace and security in affected areas. It also destroys physical
infrastructure; causes brain drain; and curtails foreign investments (Bukari, 2011). Above all,
ethnic conflicts have generated internecine wars of grave effects and truncating development and
democratic institutions in many pluralistic societies, thereby destabilising the nation-state in
many African counties (Kuffour et al, 2014).

Effects of ethnic conflict

Ethnic Conflict may lead to loss of confidence and trust in each other especially with
reference to the parties involved. This is very likely to happen where people have been betrayed,
where agreements and contracts, established rules, laws or procedures have been disregarded.
This may also lead to insecurity most especially if the conflict had involved loss of life and
property. Nyalemegbe (2011) argues that Tsito and Awudome communities in Ghana are
enjoying fragile peace because of fear and insecurity that exists between the two ethnic groups.
Ethnic Conflicts tend to create tension in people and relationships become strained and as a
result, things that could be done within a short time have to go through lengthy procedures or
any not be done at all. Parties become suspicious of each other and the situation saps a lot of
energy and may drive people displaced. Not much can be achieved in such countries unless steps
are taken to bring down tensions and deal with the conflict situation.
During ethnic conflict schools and other social services are disrupted; children and
teachers fear for their lives, and this retards educational development. Meanwhile, education is
not only the engine of social development but also the pillar within which economic growth

evolve. The effects of ethnic conflicts are often pervasive, affecting all aspects of a person or
communitys social, political and economic life and tend to also affect institutions such as
education and health (Coleman, 2000). In the event of conflicts, agriculture is seriously
hampered affecting crop yields and animal production (Zaur, 2006).

Benefits of ethnic conflict

Having analysed the cost of conflicts, it is fair to discuss the positive aspect of conflict so
that we can make the best use of it for socio-political development (Cox, 1972). Ethnic conflict
contributes to development and growth. Rwanda used not to have a constitution but after the
1994 genocide of mass killing of Tutsi by Hutus ethnic groups, there has been a need to have a
constitution to govern the country. Again, in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide womens
lives have been transformed through the opportunity given them to participate in decision
making processes. Women have been empowered to assume leadership roles at top government
levels which prior to the conflict they were relegated to the background (Mzvondiva, 2007).
In Ghana, Alavanyo and Nkonya ethnic groups refused to have a road built between the
towns because of ethnic conflict but after the parties brokered peace they have now built the road
which is serving the interest of the two towns (Nyalemegbe, 2011). These scenarios above
clearly underpin the fact that conflict in itself is beneficial but only tend to be bad when it
escalate into violence.

Theoretical underpinnings of ethnic conflict

According to Fearon & Laitin (1996) a good theory of ethnic conflict should be able to
explain why, despite the greater tensions, peaceful and cooperative ethnic relations are by far
more typical outcome than is large scale violence. In the context of this paper, five (5) theories
underpinning ethnic conflict is discussed. These theories include the social identity theory, the

primordalist theory, the political entrepreneur theory, competition over resources theory as well
as the institutional ethnic conflict theory.
First of all, according to the social identity theories each and every individual divides his
or her social worldview into distinct social categories. Individuals tend to suitably locate
themselves with others in their social category. Inasmuch as they feel comfortable in the social
categories or classifications they find themselves, tend to constitute their social identity. Social
identity also consists of how individuals define themselves in each social classification they are
located in. It could be geographical location, profession, rank, status, gender or class. Individuals
strive to locate themselves in a social identity category in order to enjoy certain values and
opportunities. As social identity is derived from membership in groups, a positive social identity
becomes the outcome of suitable social comparisons made between the members of such groups
and other social groupings. Individuals tend to adhere to social groups as long as their
membership in the group enhances their self-esteem, protection, security and create opportunities
for them make them remain a member of that group.
However, according to Tajfel (1981) if the groups that individuals share common identity
with fails to satisfy their ambitions, they may try to change the structure of the group (social
change), and they may seek a new way of comparison which would favour his/her group
belongingness, create opportunity for him/her or reinforce his/her social identity. Also,
individuals tend to leave the failing group with the desire to join the better group. Tajfel further
posits that it is difficult for a member of a minority group to achieve a positive social identity
because of their number. Given that, minorities almost have an interior status in comparison with
their majority counterpart. When someone has to choose their ethnic identity, they will choose
which one choice had given more advantage. If the ethnicity of that group gives less advantage
to him/her on economics or politics aspects, that person will choose other ethnic identity to

achieve the same goal. In this sense, minority groups usually do not contribute greatly to their
members self-esteem.
The basic assumption of the social identity theory is that, ethnic conflict in societies has
its root cause from social identity. Stronger ethnic groups seeing their strength tend to dominate
and exploit weaker ethnic groups which most often lead to violent conflict because the weaker
groups will begin to resist their oppressors and the process of the resistance most often leads to
ethnic clashes between the two groups.
Secondly, the notion of primordialism and its relation to ethnic conflict largely originates
from the writings of Geertz. He outlines the concept of primordialism in his book The
Interpretation of Cultures. Primordialist believes that if someone was born from one particular
ethnic group, it is obvious that, the person will easily identify their ethnic identity. It is because
that person heritage the same characteristics from their previous generation (Geertz, 1973). For
example, if their ancestors are from Ghanaian ethnic group identity, it means that person also
must belong to Ghanaian ethnic group and must behave as such. The primordalist argue that
ethnic conflict has existed since time immemorial. In Africa to be specific, the theories argue that
ethnic conflict in Africa is from within Africa and that before colonisation, there were ethnic
conflicts among African traditional leaders. This is term the theory of ancient hatred. The
theories explain the role of emotions in ethnic conflict and the conflict potential of ethnicity.
While ethnic emotions appear to be primordial, they are socially and potentially constructed
reality drawn from the historical memories of past injustices and grievance. Suny (2002)
illustrate that, national identities are saturated with emotions that have been created through
teaching, repetition, and daily reproduction until they become common sense. These tropes;
betrayal, treachery, threats from others, and survival are embedded in familiar emotions that is
anxiety, fear, insecurity and pride. Primordialist emphasizes the fact that peoples ethnicity is
deeply rooted in their past and hatred among ethnic groups is pass on from generation to

generation. Ethnic groups most often fight or are easily tempted to fight over the least mistake
their ancient ethnic rival does. This is why Irobi (2005) argues that memories of past traumas
magnify peoples anxieties. This is as a result of historical memories of grievances that produces
fear, hatred and, consequently, ethnic conflict among two ethnic groups which have a long
history of ethnic discrimination and stratification. Irobi posits that when an ethnic group has a
history of being stereotyped and discriminated based on their ethnic identity from another group,
it results in violent conflict since ethnic identity remains part and parcel of the entirety of an
individual they try to protect their identity and ethnic properties which sometimes the method
employed to safeguard their ethnic identity end up in violence. Ethnic groups which have been
discriminated against and stratified into lower class citizens always habour a feeling of
marginalisation of their identity and this produces strong feelings of hatred and resentment
towards the other group which is causing their exclusion and discrimination. The basic
assumption of the theory is that ethnicity is fixed and part of the identity of individuals and
groups. Therefore, any marginalization of an ethnic group or discrimination against it based on
ethnicity will receive strong resistance which may lead to violent ethnic conflict (Irobi, 2005).
Thirdly, the political entrepreneur theories contends that the instability and uncertainty
that result from a major structural change and institutional inability to regulate inter-ethnic
relations provide a perfect condition in which political entrepreneurs manipulate ethnic emotions
in order to mobilise groups for their own political gains. Political entrepreneurs exploit ethnic
differences in society thereby drawing upon historical memories of grievances and whip up
ancient hatred in order to gain or strengthen their chances of winning political power. The
dynamics that develops between politicians and their followers causes an inter-ethnic security
dilemma. Koufman (1996) explains that belligerent leaders stroke mass hostility; hostile masses
support belligerent leaders and they both together threaten other ethnic groups, creating a
security dilemma which in turn encourages even more mass hostility and leadership belligerence.

The general idea behind this theory is that ethnic conflict in societies are caused and influenced
by these political entrepreneurs whose aim is to capture political power through ethnic system of
divide and rule. They look out for ethnic group with large number and align themselves with the
majority group thereby relegating the minority groups to the background albeit may be having a
good case.
The competition over resource theories tries to debate that the causes of ethnic violence
in contemporary society is the competition and struggle over resource between ethnic groups.
Certain ethnic groups benefits economically, politically, socially, culturally compared to other
ethnic groups. Weak ethnic groups tend to compete over resources including employment, social
and political recognition with the dominating ethnic groups. In the process of the competition
and struggle over the resource, ethnic groups tend to fight which most often lead to violent ethnic
clashes. The scarcity of resources and struggle is what political entrepreneurs capitalises on to
instigate conflict along ethnic lines in order to achieve their political selfish interest. Rothschild
and Lake (1996) note that property rights, government contract, employment, access to
education, scholarships, language rights, development allocations and services are all benefits
that individuals and groups sought to attain. Whether finite in supply or not, all such resources
are scarce and thus competition and struggling between individuals and organized groups lead to
ethnic violence.
In spite of the scarcity of resources other ethnic groups have access more than other groups and
this often lead to ethnic conflict because the have-not groups will try to question or change the
status quo of the haves to help them benefits. Meanwhile, the haves will also try to protect
their territory and prevent the have not from taking away their potentials. These struggles and
strategies employed by the two groups most often lead to severe ethnic clash. Over here, political
entrepreneurs take advantage and tend to side with the warring majority group in the clash just to
gain favour during political elections and win power since winning election is about majority

votes. The basic thinking here is that competition and struggle over scarce resources between and
among ethnic groups is the underlying cause of violent ethnic conflicts.
Institutions according to the institutional theories play a crucial role in regulating the
levels of conflict potential of ethnicity. Institution plays a major role in regulating social actions
of ethnic groups. This means the inability of institutions to function right may affect other social
structures and social behaviours. According to Lake and Rothschild, (1996) ethnic conflict is a
sign of a weak state or a state whose institutions are embroiled in ancient loyalties. In this case,
states institutions act with bias to favour a particular ethnic group or region, and behaviours such
as preferential treatment fuel ethnic conflicts. Institutions define inter-ethnic relationships by
either facilitating or obstructing intergroup cooperation. Institutions may constrain behaviour and
provide incentives for cooperation and compliance in norms, rules, and procedures for allocation,
participation, representation, accountability (Crawford, 1998). The failure of institutions to play
its role provides other opportunist like the political entrepreneur the suitable platform to instigate
violence. Conflict entrepreneurs are able to operate perfectly in the event where institutions fail
to function well. Large ethnic groups tend to dominate the smaller ethnic groups because of
institutional malfunctioning. Also, where institutions which are supposed to ensure free and
equal treatment of citizens tend to operate along ethnic lines may cause ethnic divisions and
hence ethnic violence.
Enloe (1981) argue that if the state administrative structures and institutions distribute
resources base on ethnic identity will encourage political mobilization along ethnic lines which
can lead to violent ethnic conflict. Crawford (1998) further explained that countries whose
political institutions politicises cultural and ethnic identity are more prone to cultural and ethnic
violence than countries whose political institutions promotes social integration of diverse cultural
groups. The basic underlying causes of ethnic conflict according to the institutional theories is
the failure of institutions to function right, failure of institutions to operate neutral and the failure

10

of institution to promote ethnic integration in all matters of socio-cultural, political and economic
development.

Converging factors and conditions that cause ethnic conflict

There is no single causative agent of ethnic conflict. For ethnic violence to be manifested,
a number of factors and conditions must meet. This means that, all the major early theories on
causes of ethnic conflict is just a simplistic explanations of ethnic violence. A comprehensive
understanding of causes of ethnic conflict should be the one that see ethnic conflict occurring
when a particular set of factors and conditions emanating from a major structural crisis; presence
of historical memories of inter-ethnic grievance; institutional factors that promote ethnic
intolerance; manipulation of historical memories by political entrepreneurs to evoke emotions
such as fear, resentment and hatred; and an inter-ethnic competition over resources and rights
converging together.

A conceptual framework of factors and conditions that converge to cause ethnic conflict
Decades after the recognition that ethnicity is a powerful force in the politics of many
countries, with profound effects on prospects for democracy Horowitz (1993), and for economic
development and the distribution of public goods, Easterly and Levine (1997), there is less
agreement than ever on the causes of ethnic conflict. The disagreements relate less to the facts
surrounding ethnic conflict than to varying ways of interpreting those facts. However, a more
comprehensive framework for understanding and interpreting the cause of ethnic conflict which
encompasses a particular set of factors and conditions that converge before ethnic conflicts are
manifested is the one proposed by Blagojevic in 2009.

11

CONTEXT

MAJOR
STRUCTURAL
CHANGE:
Uncertainty,
Instability, Fear

PRESENT FACTORS

Historical memories
of grievances
Political entrepreneurs
Institutional / political
system factors
facilitating intolerance

OUTCOME

COMPETITION
INTOLERANCE

VIOLENT
ETHNIC
CONFLICT

The above diagram depict that each ethnic conflict has its unique feature and in most
cases some of the factors will be more influential than the others. However, all of them are the
common causative agents necessary for ethnic conflict to occur. From the diagram it is obvious
that, the Primordalist approach helps explain the role of emotions and the conflict potential of
ethnicity. The institutional, political entrepreneurs and competition over resources theories
explains how the interaction of institutions and political factors with ethnic emotions leads to
ethnic intolerance, and eventually violent ethnic conflict.
Diverse ethnic societies carry various degrees of conflicts potential. Ethnic emotions,
rooted in historical memories of grievances, are at the core of conflict potential. An embodied
element of emotional intensity that can be readily aroused when groups interests are thought to
be at stake according to Horowitz (1985) is known as ethnicity. A sudden, major structural
change upsets previous political and institutional arrangement. When these institutional
mechanisms are no longer in place, countries face a period of political and economic transition in
which the old no longer works while the new will not yet function and social damage and costs
tend to increase (Brunner, 1996). This event creates a context of instability and uncertainty about
the political, social, and economic future of the communities. Such a situation facilitates a
manifestation of emotional antagonisms among ethnic groups. Political entrepreneurs, in the
strategy for power, mobilise ethnic constituencies by promoting inter-ethnic animosities using

12

the rhetorical weapons of blame game, fear, panic and hate. This results in an inter-ethnic
competition over resources and rights, which is accompanied by a reconstruction of social
categories of inclusion and exclusion and ethnic intolerance.

Using Blagojevic (2009) framework to explain the causes of Dagbon ethnic conflict
The origin of present day intra-ethnic conflict in Dagbon between the Abudus and
Andanis go back to 1948. This means the ethnic conflict between the two groups have a part to
be blame on hatred from past memories of the killings in the Gbewaa palace in 1969 where more
Abudus were killed. It is obvious that ethnic emotions in Dagbon crisis are rooted in animosity
role of historical memories of grievances. Before and after the 2000 presidential and
parliamentary elections in Ghana where the New Patriotic Party (NPP) for the first time took
over power from the National Democratic Congress (NDC), some political entrepreneurs played
a strategic role along ethnic lines for their quest for power, mobilised ethnic constituencies by
promoting ethnic historical memories of grievances in Dagbon.

Finally,

the

change

of

government presented a major structural crisis that influenced the context for the development of
the Dagbon ethnic conflict. Memories of past injustices committed by others of the killings in
the Gbewaa palace in 1969 were revived by some political entrepreneurs thereby evoking
uncertainty, fear, resentment, hate, rage and instability.
Meanwhile, institutions which were supposed to have promoted ethnic tolerance and
national integration lost their ability and capacity to regulate the social actions as well as the
effort in keeping the expression of emotions of both the Abudus and Andanis. Nevertheless,
competition over resources and who has the legitimate right to collect land revenues and other
royalties in Dagbon is another factor that converged with the other conditions to cause the ethnic
conflict leading to the murder of Ya Na Yakubu Andani II in March 2002. It succeeded by

13

political entrepreneurs who evoked memories of the killings in the Gbewaa palace in 1969
(Tsikata & Seini, 2004).

Conclusion
The social identity theory, primordalist theory, institutional theory, political entrepreneur
theory, and competition over resource theory independently explain the causes of ethnic conflict.
However, independently, these theories fails to appreciate the fact that ethnic conflict is not
caused by a single factor rather it is caused when a particular set of factors and conditions
(presence of historical memories of inter-ethnic grievance; institutional factors that promote
ethnic intolerance; manipulation of historical memories by political entrepreneurs to evoke
emotions such as fear, resentment and hatred; and an inter-ethnic competition over resources and
rights converges before violent ethnic conflict is manifested (Blagojevic, 2009).
The conceptual framework which explains the causes of ethnic conflicts proposed by
Blagojevic in 2009 best expatiates the fact that, ethnic conflicts around the world are not caused
only be a single factor but a number of factors and conditions meeting before violent conflicts
leading to destructions and loss of lives are manifested. It was evident using Blagojevic
framework in explaining the Dagbon ethnic conflict.

14

References

Bates, R. H. (2003). Political Instability Task Force Report: Phase IV Findings.

Blagojevic, B. (2009). Causes of ethnic conflict: A conceptual framework. Journal of Global
Change and Governance. Vol. III, No. 1. Division of Global Affairs. Rutgers University.
Brukum, N.J.K. (1995). Ethnic conflicts in the northern region of Ghana: A study of the conflict
resolution in Ghana. Accra: Gold-Type Publications.
Brunner, G. (1996). Nationality problems and minority conflicts in Eastern Europe, Guterslor:
Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.
Bujra, A. (2002). African conflict: Their causes and their political and social environment.
Development Policy Management Forum (DPMF) Occasional Paper, No. 4
Bukari, N.K. (2011). Conflict and development in the Bawku Traditional Area. Unpublished
Thesis Submitted to the Institute for Development Studies, Ghana, U.C.C,
Coleman, P. T. (2000). Intractable conflicts. In M. Deutch & P.T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook
of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp.428450). San Francisco:
Coser, L. (1956). The functions of social conflict. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.
Cox, F. (1974). Strategies of community organisation: A Book of Readings, Peacock Publishers
Inc, Itasca, Illinois, USA
Crawford, B. (1998). The cases of cultural conflict: An Institutinal Approach in Beverly
Crawford and Ronnie D. Lipschutz, eds., The myth of Ethnic Conflict, International
and area studies research series/No. 98, Berkeley: University of California.
Easterly, W., Levine, R. (1997). Africas Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4): 120350.
Enloe, C. (1981). The growth of the state and ethnic mobiliation: The American experience,
Ethnic and racial studies. Boston Academic Press
Fearon, J.D., Laiting, D.D. (1996). Explaining interethnic cooperation. The American Political
Science Review, Vol.90, No. 4.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books: New York
Horowitz, D. L. (1997). Self-Determination: Politics, Philosophy, and Law. NOMOS 39: 421
63.
Horowitz, D.L. (1985). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California press.

15

Irobi. E.G. (2005). Ethnic conflict management in Africa: A comparative case studying of
Nigeria and South Africa.
Johnson, R. (1991). Conflict Management Training Materials. (No publication information
available).
Kaufman, S.J. (1996). Spiraling to ethnic war: Elite, masses and Moscow in Moldovas civil
war. International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2, Fall
Kendie, S.B. (2010). Conflict Management and Peace Building for Poverty Reduction. Tamale:
GILLBT Press.
Kendie, S.B., Kuffour, O. P. (2014). Spatial Analysis of Violent Conflicts in Ghana: 2007-2013.
Faculty of Social Sciences. UCC.
Kendie, S.B., Tuffour, A. K. (2014). Spatial Analysis of Violent Conflicts in Ghana: 2007-2013.
Faculty of Social Sciences. UCC.
Kuffour, P.O., Boakye, K. A., Mensah, E. A. (2014). Spatial Analysis of Violent Conflicts in
Ghana: 2007-2013. Faculty of Social Sciences. UCC.
Lakes, D. A., Rothschild, D. (1996). "Containing fear: The origins and management of Ethnic
Conflict," International Security, vol. 21, no. 2:41-75
Mzvondiwa, C.N. (2007). The role of women in the reconstruction and building of peace in
Rwanda: Peace prospects for the Great Lakes Region, Africa Security Review, 16:199106, DOI: 10.1080/10246029.2007.9627637
Nyalemegbe, V. A. (2011). Intra-ethic conflict: A case of the Peki-Avetile and Tsito Awudome.
Unpublished Masters Thesis Submitted to the Institute for Development Studies, U.C.C.
Oyeniyi, A. (2011). Conflict and violence in Africa: Causes, sources and types. TRANSCENT
Media Service
Sadowski, Y. (1998). Ethnic Conflict. Foreign Policy 111(Summer):12 - 23.
Suny, R.G. (2002). Why we hate you: The passions of religious and ethnic violence. A talk for
Purdue University.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Studies in social psychology,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsikata, D., Seini, W. (2004). Identities, inequalities and conflicts in Ghana. Working paper 5.
Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
Zaur, I. (2006). Agriculture and conflict: A conceptual framework for development. Thesis
Submitted to the Fletcher School, Tufts University.

16