3 risk, but one that is determined, jointly with conflict risk, by other factors. The discussion here emphasizes that capacity is a function of organizational choices that leaders make, which are independent of financing. The constraint on capacity is not budgetary, in this case, but the threat that capacity (a better organized public administration or military) might pose to leader tenure.

The conjectures developed here justify a closer examination of current strategies to minimize conflict risk. For example, in view of their finding that rainfall (and, therefore, income) shocks trigger conflict in Africa, Miguel et al. (2004) propose the adoption of crop insurance and safety net payments. The donor community has begun to focus on improved service delivery in post-conflict settings as a way to reduce tensions and build up state legitimacy. However, if conflict is most likely in countries where leaders are reluctant to allow citizen collective action, these strategies may be least likely to succeed precisely where they are most needed. Leaders who do not allow collective action are less likely to provide services effectively, to target safety net payments appropriately, or to enforce insurance contracts.

# **Credible commitment, collective action and conflict**

Most of the conflict literature examines the effects of political institutions on conflict from the perspective of the credibility of inter-group agreements. As Garfinkel and Skaperdas (2007) observe, scholars tend to assume that antagonists are unitary actors and abstract from problems of intra-group collective action, regardless of whether they use bargaining models that focus on the inability of antagonists to make credible commitments, or contest functions that examine the sacrifices that groups make in terms of productive activity in the pursuit of conquest.

There are exceptions to this rule. Kaplan (2010) uses evidence from Colombia to support his argument that villages with greater ability to organize collectively are better able to resist the pressures placed on them by armed forces (insurgent or government). Garfinkel (2004) analyzes decisions governing group size. Larger groups are more likely to prevail in conflict, but individuals in larger groups have to devote more resources to protect their share from other group members. Larger groups are therefore more likely to emerge when institutions of conflict management, exogenously determined, are better established within a group, attenuating intra-group conflict. The focus here is: To what degree do leaders of insurgent or government forces encourage collective by citizens and armed forces, and how do the efforts of group leaders to remain in power shape group institutions?

In particular, the next section describes leader decisions to allow collective action by supporters and examines the consequences of these decisions for the ability of leaders to wage the battle for “hearts and minds”. The section following considers the decision to limit collective action by armed forces, even if this degrades military effectiveness. The final sections of the paper then outline the likely implications of variation in intra-group institutional arrangements for the role of income and income shocks in precipitating conflict, predation on civilians, reliance on child soldiers, state capacity, and improved service delivery as a strategy for defusing conflict.

# **Collective action and the battle for hearts and minds**

Berman, Shapiro and Felter (2009a) point to a consensus among prominent practitioners of insurgency and counterinsurgency, from Mao Tse-Tung to David Petraeus,