The Liberal Paradox and the Fluidity of Civil War Violence: Developing a Marxist-Critical Realist Framework to Investigate the Political Economy of Armed Conflict

A critical subfield of civil war studies has not yet developed and coalesced. While nascent attempts aim to develop a critical perspective based on Critical Theory inspired by the Frankfurt School, the primary aim of this article is to develop an alternative critical framework that is rooted in Marxism with critical realism acting as an underlabourer to this broader framework. The first section of this paper focuses on developing a framework from a Marxist perspective, which espouses a sceptical view of war and development and employs dialectical materialism to investigate the political economy of conflict. The paper then illustrates how critical realism can underlabour this critical framework to study armed conflict, particularly in terms of a mechanism-based understanding of causality. The second section applies this framework to a discussion on the relationship between civil war and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). A paradox has emerged within liberal studies into civil war and FDI: the evidence indicates that civil war does not deter FDI; moreover, inward flows of FDI can be higher during periods of civil war when compared to periods of peace. This paper argues that a Marxist-critical realist framework can shed light on this paradox by (1) appreciating that civil war violence can, under certain conditions, facilitate FDI flows, and (2) acknowledging that varied syntheses of violence produce different effects that can attract or deter inward flows of FDI. The paper then highlights how a given synthesis is likely to be fluid and ephemeral, with the potential to constantly change. In this context, this article discusses the concept of the fluidity of civil war violence to highlight how a Marxist-critical realist framework can provide insights into the economic impacts of armed conflict.