Rebel institutions and negotiated peace

Abstract

Civil wars are difficult to resolve through negotiated settlements. Rebel institutions are thought to make negotiations more successful. I show, however, that this positive association does not hold. Rather, rebel service provision is negatively correlated with successful negotiated settlements. The well-established literature on commitment problems suggests that negotiated settlements are not reached because governments end negotiations amidst fears of rebel growth from civilian support derived from service provision. I offer an alternative explanation—strategic stalling—based on rebel incentives to realize the full long-term benefits of service provision. Qualitative evidence shows that observable implications of strategic stalling are observed in the cases surveyed.