Which armed groups are the most likely to tax civilians? A common assumption is that armed groups only tax civilians when they lack access to other sources of revenue. However, recent insights have pointed to the fact that economic considerations are not the only influence on groups’ decisions to tax civilian populations. In this article, we argue that armed groups with a communist ideology are more likely to tax civilians than other groups because it serves as a testament to their ideological goals. We conduct a statistical analysis of armed groups operating from 1990 to 2015 and find support for our argument.
AcharyaKMuldoonOT (2017) Why “I” became a combatant: A study of memoirs written by Nepali Maoist combatants. Terrorism and Political Violence29(6): 1006–1025.
ArjonaA (2016) Rebelocracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
AsalVHRethemeyerRKSchoonEW (2018) Replication data for: “Crime, conflict and the legitimacy tradeoff: Explaining variation in insurgents’ participation in crime”. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JT6GFR, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:bpLY5IfOS7gEt8do6m+K+A== [fileUNF]
5.
AsalVHRethemeyerRKSchoonEW (2019) Crime, conflict, and the legitimacy trade-off: Explaining variation in insurgents’ participation in crime. The Journal of Politics81(2): 399–410.
6.
BenfordRDSnowDA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology26(1): 611–639.
7.
BraithwaiteJMCunninghamKG (2020) When organizations rebel: introducing the foundations of rebel group emergence (FORGE) dataset. International Studies Quarterly64(1): 183–193.
8.
BreslawskiJ (2020) The Social terrain of rebel held territory. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 0022002720951857.
9.
ChapmanW (1988) Inside the Philippine Revolution. New York: WW Norton.
10.
CollierPHoefflerA (2004) Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers56: 563–595.
11.
CroicuMCHögbladhSPetterssonTThemnérL (2011) UCDP External Support Project Primary Warring Party Dataset Codebook. Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala Conflict Data Program.
12.
CunninghamDEGleditschKSSalehyanI (2013) Non-state actors in civil wars: A new dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science30(5): 516–531.
13.
DantonJAG (2018) Insurgent Institutions: Refractory communities, armed insurgency and institution, Doctoral dissertation, University College Dublin.
14.
DonnellJCPaukerGJZasloffJJ (1965) Viet Cong motivation and morale in 1964: A preliminary report. RAND Corporation.
15.
DuffyFKlosekKCNardinLGWagnerG (2020). Rebel group protection rackets: Simulating the effects of economic support on civil war violence. In Computational Conflict Research. Cham: Springer, pp. 225–251.
el Gran SaltoI (1984) Captured Sendero document, March–May. Sendero collection, Lima, Peru.
18.
Gutiérrez-RomeroROviedoM (2018) The good, the bad and the ugly: The socioeconomic impact of drug cartels and their violence. Journal of Economic Geography18(6): 1315–1338.
19.
HegerLLJungDF (2017) Negotiating with rebels: The effect of rebel service provision on conflict negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution61(6): 1203–1229.
20.
Hoover GreenA (2016) The commander’s dilemma: Creating and controlling armed group violence. Journal of Peace Research53(3): 619–632.
21.
HorganJG (2009) Walking Away from Terrorism: Accounts of Disengagement from Radical and Extremist Movements. Abingdon: Routledge.
22.
HuangR (2016) The wartime origins of democratization: civil war, rebel governance, and political regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KalyvasSN (2006) The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
KasfirN (2015) Rebel Governance—Constructing a Field of Inquiry: Definitions, Scope, Patterns, Order, Causes. New York: Cambridge University Press, Vol. 2, pp. 21–46.
26.
KlingM (1962) Cuba: A case study of a successful attempt to seize political power by the application of unconventional warfare. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science341: 42–52.
27.
LeviM (1988) Of Rule and Revenue. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
28.
LoyleCE (2021) Rebel justice during armed conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution65(1): 108–134.
29.
LujalaP (2010) The spoils of nature: Armed civil conflict and rebel access to natural resources. Journal of Peace Research47(1): 15–28.
30.
LyallJ (2010) Are coethnics more effective counterinsurgents? Evidence from the second Chechen war. American Political Science Review104(1): 1–20.
31.
LyallJShiraitoYImaiK (2015) Coethnic bias and wartime informing. The Journal of Politics77(3): 833–848.
32.
MampillyZC (2011) Rebel Rulers: Insurgent Governance and Civilian Life during War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
33.
MampillyZ (forthcoming) Rebel taxation: Between the moral and market economy. In FassinDCosmo diNPinaudC (eds) War Economies. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
34.
MartinPPiccolinoGSpeightJ (2020). The political legacies of rebel rule: Evidence from Côte d’Ivoire. American Political Science Association Annual Conference.
35.
NorthDC (1981) Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton.
36.
OlsonM (1993) Dictatorship, democracy, and development. American Political Science Review87(3): 567–576.
37.
OppenheimBSteeleAVargasJFWeintraubM (2015) True believers, deserters, and traitors: Who leaves insurgent groups and why. Journal of Conflict Resolution59(5): 794–823.
38.
PurzyckiBGApicellaCAtkinsonQDCohenEMcNamaraRAWillardAKXygalatasDNorenzayanAHenrichJ (2016) Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality. Nature530(7590): 327–330.
39.
RevkinMR (2020) What explains taxation by resource-rich rebels? Evidence from the Islamic State in Syria. The Journal of Politics82(2): 757–764.
40.
RevkinMRMhidiA (2016) Quitting ISIS: Why Syrians are Abandoning the Group. Foreign Affairs.
41.
SaninFGWoodEJ (2014) Ideology in civil war: Instrumental adoption and beyond. Journal of Peace Research51(2): 213–226.
42.
StewartMA (2018) Civil war as state-making: Strategic governance in civil war. International Organization72(1): 205–226.
43.
SundbergRMelanderE (2013) Introducing the UCDP Georeferenced Event Dataset. Journal of Peace Research50(4): 523–532.
44.
SuykensB (2015) Comparing rebel rule through revolution and naturalization: Ideologies of governance in Naxalite and Naga India. In ArjonaAKasfirNMampillyZ (eds) Rebel Governance in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
TavoyT (2010) Peasants and revolutionary movements: The Viet Cong as a case study. War in History17(2): 217–230.
46.
ThompkinsP (2012) Casebook on Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare Volume II: 1962–2009. US Army Special Operations Command.
47.
ThompkinsPBurnettKCardonaCKirkpatrickJMirzaeiSNewtonS (2014) Case Studies in Insurgency and Revolutionary Warfare: Colymbia (1964–2009). US Army Special Operations Command.
48.
TillyC (1985) Models and realities of popular collective action. Social Research52(4): 717–747.
WalshJIConradJMWhitakerBEHudakKM (2018) Funding rebellion: The Rebel Contraband Dataset. Journal of Peace Research55(5): 699–708.
51.
WeinsteinJM (2007) Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
WoodRMThomasJL (2017) Women on the frontline: Rebel group ideology and women’s participation in violent rebellion. Journal of Peace Research54(1), 31–46.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
