Master Thesis University of Amsterdam
Conceiving Corporate and
Community Conflicts
The role of concentration of power, isolation, content of
conflicts and stakeholders in predicting conflict outcomes
between multinational enterprises and indigenous
communities.
Institution: University of Amsterdam - Amsterdam Business School Program: MSc. Business Administration - International Management Supervisor: Dr. I. Haxhi
Second reader: Drs. E. Dirksen Name: Jasper van der Zwaag Student ID: 10189556
Final draft
June 24, 2016
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to dr. I. Haxhi, professor of the Amsterdam Business School at the University of Amsterdam for providing me with guidance, support and supervision during the whole process of conducting this research. After several rounds of valuable feedback, I am proud to present the final results of this study. I would also like to thank my second reader, Drs. E. Dirksen. Additionally, I would like to thank my research group for the productive data collection. Special thanks is expressed towards Ms. L. Homan for her motivational feedback and valuable recommendations during the writing of this thesis.
Statement of Originality - This document is written by student Jasper van der Zwaag who declares
to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely
Abstract
Conflicts between multinational enterprises (MNEs) and indigenous communities often lead to financial and cultural damages for both the MNE and the community. Key in the understanding, solving and preventing these conflicts is comprehension of the relationship between characteristics of the indigenous communities and MNEs and the relationship between these characteristics and conflict outcomes. By exploring this relationship, stakeholder characteristic can eventually be used to predict conflict cause and course, eventually leading to less affected stakeholders.
In this quantitative multiple case study, MNE and community characteristics are included in a predictive model. In the context of stakeholder theory, it was expected that differences in concentration of power, isolation of communities and mining and extraction industry conflict content related to longer and more violent conflicts. Also, the quantity of stakeholders involved was expected to be of influence on the outcome and course of conflicts. The constructed hypotheses were tested with a linear and ordinal regression, including 706 conflict cases. The results partly supported the hypotheses. The concentration of power, one form of isolation, several content categories and the amount of stakeholders involved were able to significantly predict the conflict length and the degree of violence in the conflicts.
These results contribute the existing theory by illustrating that a more in-depth analysis of stakeholder characteristics lead to more generalizable predictions of conflict outcomes. Practically, this research assists stakeholders in their efforts for earlier resolution and prevention of future conflicts which is in line with the ultimate goal of conflict themed studies: conflict prevention.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ... 3
Abstract ... 4
Table of Contents ... 5
List of Tables and Figures ... 7
1. Introduction ... 8 2. Literature review ... 14 2.1 Culture ... 14 2.2 Land ... 15 2.3 Self determination ... 16 2.4 Community characteristics ... 17 2.4.1 Community governance ... 17 2.4.2 Community isolation ... 18 2.5 Conflicts ... 20
2.5.1 Reasons for conflicts ... 22
2.5.2 Conflict resolution ... 25
2.6 Community characteristics in conflicts with MNEs ... 26
2.6.1 Community governance ... 26 2.6.2 Isolation ... 27 2.6.3 Stakeholders involved ... 29 2.6.4 Content ... 30 3. Theoretical framework ... 32 3.1 Stakeholder theory ... 32 3.2 Governance systems ... 36 3.3 Geographic isolation ... 38 3.4 Cultural isolation ... 40 3.5 Content ... 41 3.6 Stakeholders ... 43 4. Methods ... 48 4.1 Data collection ... 48 4.2 Sample ... 48 4.3 Explanation of variables ... 49
4.3.1 Dependent variables ... 49 4.3.2 Independent variables ... 50 4.3.3 Moderator ... 52 4.3.4 Control variables ... 53 4.3.5 Overview of models ... 54 4.4 Method ... 54
5. Results and analysis ... 57
5.1 Data screening ... 57
5.1.1 Normal distribution ... 58
5.1.2 Outlier analysis ... 59
5.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations ... 60
5.3 Hierarchical linear regression analysis ... 64
5.4 Ordinal regression analysis ... 68
5.5 Binary logistic regression analysis ... 69
5.6 Moderator ... 69 5.7 Multicollinearity ... 72 6. Discussion ... 74 6.1 Theoretical implications ... 79 6.2 Practical implications ... 82 6.3 Limitations ... 84 6.4 Further research ... 86 7. Conclusions ... 88 8. References ... 90
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Amount of stakeholders and possible contrasts. ... 44
Figure 2: Conceptual model ... 47
Table 1: Summary of models for dependent variable Length of Conflict ... 54
Table 2: Summary of models for dependent variable Degree of Violence ... 54
Table 3: Frequencies, minima, maxima, means, modes and medians ... 57
Table 4: Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients ... 62
Table 5: Correlation coefficients for environmental categories ... 63
Table 6: Results of the linear regression ... 67
Table 7: Results of the ordinal regression ... 71
Table 8: Multicollinearity statistics ... 73
1. Introduction
As the global population increases to almost 7.4 billion people in 2016 (Global Reference Bureau, 2016), more people belong to a wide variety of communities, cultures and societies. The diversified nature of these societies and cultures is most clearly illustrated by a specific population subgroup: indigenous people. Often organized in communities, these indigenous communities receive considerable attention in scientific literature but also raise public concerns regarding their involvement in global conflicts. That is, indigenous communities are known for their distinct cultures, unique knowledge and traditional manners but also for their violent interactions with multinational enterprises (MNEs), other communities and related population groups (Davis & Franks, 2011; Ballard & Banks, 2003). An in-depth examination of indigenous communities and their role in conflicts requires a working definition of indigenous communities. Previous research shows that it is challenging to precisely define indigenous communities (Sanders, 1999) but Coates (2004) provides a comprehensive and inclusive definition. According to Coates (2004: p.12) indigenous communities are ‘’those groups especially protected in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory, and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other populations’’. This definition has several elements which are of importance for comprehending the concept of indigeneity which are discussed later. The definition also illustrates that indigenous communities provide the world with cultural diversity (Coates, 2004; First People Worldwide, 2016). This cultural diversity is globally spread since indigenous communities are present in over 90 countries with numbers totaling over 240 million people worldwide (United Nations, 2009; Hall & Patrinos, 2010).
As numerous studies assessing various topics related to indigenous peoples and communities illustrate, academics show interest in the subject of indigenous communities.
Examples are studies on specific cultural elements (Abbink, 1999), apologizing towards communities (Corntassel & Holder, 2008), conservation (Dowie, 2011) and land rights (Göcke, 2013). However, much remains unknown about indigenous characteristics, their specific roles in society and what causes and affects possible conflicts indigenous communities have with MNEs (Kovach, 2009). Previous studies on these topics focus mostly on the outcome of the conflicts. Conflicts are shown to be damaging for both communities and MNEs since MNEs are required to invest resources to maintain their position and prevent conflict escalation while communities are mostly culturally affected (Davis & Franks, 2011; Wahlquist, 2015). Besides financial losses and cultural damage, loss of image for the MNE, delays in projects and time consuming and expensive legal struggles are common outcomes of such conflicts (Calvano, 2008; Buckles, 1999).
This lack of understanding leads to several theoretical and practical issues. A first issue is the low level understanding of actual conflicts between MNEs and indigenous communities (Blaser et al., 2004; Oltremari & Jackson, 2006). It is unknown what sparks these conflicts, what the usual course of these conflicts is, what commonalities exists between different conflicts and how politics matter in these sometimes long lasting and violent conflicts (Blaser et al., 2004).
A related issue resulting from the limited understanding of communities is a lack of academic research regarding the precise roles of indigenous communities and their specific characteristics in these conflicts. It is for example unknown how important concepts of indigeneity such as self-determination, land rights and other unique cultural elements interact with other stakeholders, such as commercial companies and governments. These stakeholders also have their unique methods and cultural habits (Blazer et al., 2004). Previous case studies on conflicts provide insight into the functioning of single communities and their relationship to i.e. MNEs, and regional studies provide valuable information for
understanding regional conflicts, but both do not contribute to the merging of the current theoretical fragments, resulting in a lack of a holistic theory or framework (Oltremari, 2006; Magallanes, 1998). To increase overall understanding of both indigenous communities and their role in conflicts with MNEs and other stakeholders, a more elaborate, multiple case study, is of great value.
Another knowledge gap encompasses the role of the actual subject of the conflict in the outcomes of the conflict. Case studies on the topic of indigenous conflicts have only provided insight in single underlying causes (i.e. natural resources, land exploitation) but have not been able to provide a theoretical framework regarding the impacts of differing contents on conflict course, resolving or prevention. This study aims to provide theoretical and practical insight into the effects of certain contents of conflicts on conflict outcome. Lastly, this study contributes to overall understanding of the role of different actors in a conflict. These actors, or stakeholders, are important in conflicts and especially important in their resolution (Castro & Nielsen, 2001). In the current literature, stakeholders and possible interactions between stakeholders are often marginalized by focusing on a limited amount of stakeholders such as solely the MNE and the community (i.e. Hilson & Yakovlev, 2007; White, 2007). In practice, MNEs in conflicts usually interact with a broader set of stakeholders such as the communities, environmental organizations, NGO’s, social justice organizations and governments on local, regional and national level. The impact of the quantity and roles of different stakeholders in a conflict is unknown and scientific literature has payed limited attention to the concept of stakeholders and stakeholder interaction (Visser, 2004). Recent theory provides acceptable grounds for assuming the influence of stakeholders in the sense that conflicts differ greatly depending on the nature and amount of stakeholders involved (Calvano, 2008). Therefore, this study aims to generate insight into the
The just illustrated theoretical gaps pave the way for a research question which aims to comprise all the missing theoretical concepts. By in-depth analyzing detailed stakeholder characteristics and relating them to the outcome of conflicts, underlying theory is enhanced and both conflicts solution and prevention gain increased momentum. The main research question is therefore:
How do indigenous community characteristics, MNE characteristics and the involved amount of stakeholders predict the length and degree of violence of conflicts between
indigenous communities and MNEs?
Since the stakeholders in the conflict make up the actual conflict, it is assumed that their characteristics strongly influence the outcomes. This is most certainly the case when the key characteristics that define the nature of the stakeholders are compared which show to be important in conflict causes. The answer to this research questions leads to more in-depth insight into important concepts in these conflicts which eventually contributes to the greater purpose of this research. This purpose is to increase understanding and therefore earlier solvation or prevention of conflicts. This results in less financial damage for the MNEs and in less cultural damage for indigenous communities. Resolution of existing conflicts and the prevention of further conflicts is a valuable and practical purpose which will is beneficial for all the stakeholders in the conflicts, but also for parties which are not directly involved but are influenced by conflicts in another fashion (i.e. governmental institutions, public welfare organizations).
To explore this complex relationship, indigenous communities are analyzed by using multiple case studies. Using this method, both the characteristics of indigenous communities and the reasons for their involvement in conflicts are explained by referring to conflicts that have ended already or are currently ongoing. Also, additional characteristics are assessed that have not received empirical attention in earlier case analysis and are not yet regarded
as important characteristics but might have an important role in understanding conflict involvement and conflict course. Since the complex nature of conflicts is difficult to grasp in a one single concepts, in the current study conflict outcome is assessed by looking at two independent concepts elements: the degree of violence in the conflict and the duration of the conflict. Both duration and degree of violence are assumed to be important in defining conflict outcome and conflict progress. The additional concepts that are examined include the content of the conflict and the amount of stakeholders involved. In the literature review it is explained how these concepts are expected to assert their influence and the concepts are individually explained later (see section 4.3). To establish this relationship in a theoretical sense, standardized data from multiple cases is analyzed. In contrast to previous research on indigenous communities not a single case or selected cases are used but a database is constructed in which multiple cases (n=706) are standardized. This is the basis for the analysis and provides structured insight into the assessed cases.
By exploring these cases, several theoretical and practical advantages are achieved. Theoretically, this study contributes on three levels. The first level is the understanding of ongoing conflicts. By assessing multiple cases, this research provides insight into overall characteristics of indigenous communities and the influence of these characteristics on conflicts with MNEs. This complements previous theoretical developments regarding the role of different stakeholders and the influence of their similarities and differences. Secondly, on conflict management level, more specific, theoretical outcomes are in reach for MNEs to govern and manage conflicts in which they are involved. Castro and Nielsen (2001) sparked theory development regarding conflict management by MNEs by illustrating the effect of co-management of conflicts. Co-co-management refers to the process of makings joint decisions to facilitate preferred outcomes. On the other hand, they explain that the current conflict
understood what factors contribute to successful or unsuccessful conflict management. By relating stakeholder specifics to conflict outcomes, these management methods are most likely improved. Lastly, the most important theoretical contributions are made in the field of conflict prevention. Current theories relate several theoretical concepts to conflict prevention, such as self-determination (Colchester, 2000), conservation (Dowie, 2011) and stakeholder management (Calvano, 2008) but there is no inclusive framework which in a specified manner relates stakeholder characteristics to conflict prevention and conflict outcomes. The lack of this framework leads to theoretically ungrounded decisions by MNEs or communities, resulting in conflicts between these stakeholders. In contrast, this study aims to develop such insights by incorporating key characteristics of all the stakeholders, including the ones just mentioned.
In practical sense, increased understanding of community characteristics, conflict content, and stakeholders leads to earlier conflict resolution, conflict prevention and possibly a lesser degree of intensity in future conflicts since stakeholders are more knowledgeable. These outcomes are favorable for every stakeholder in the conflicts since the disadvantages related to conflict involvement are reduced. MNEs can increase financial performance by having less expenses for conflict management and their resolutions, governments can invest less in solving or preventing the conflicts and indigenous communities themselves benefit through being less or not involved in conflicts at all. Benefits for other stakeholders such as environmental organizations, human welfare and indigenous supporting organizations can range from financial savings to lower workload due to less involvement. Also, deterioration of MNE and government image is prevented when MNEs are not involved in conflicts.
In the next section literature is discussed which provides more context on the concept of indigeneity as a whole, including the role of this characteristics in conflicts. After this, a theoretical framework is developed and hypothesis are provided.
2. Literature review
To do fully right to the complexity and diversified nature of the concept of indigeneity, three central elements of indigeneity are discussed and relevant literature is provided. These elements are culture, land and self-determination and are argued to be key elements characterizing indigenous communities (Coates, 2004). Additionally, literature concerning conflicts and the role of community characteristics within the context of these conflicts is discussed.
2.1 Culture
Firstly, it should be noted that indigenous communities provide the world with a great amount of cultural diversity by having a broad and distinctive variety of languages, habits and methods (First People Worldwide, 2016). Indigenous cultures often have their own way of governing daily life which is fundamentally different from governance methods modern societies are adapted and used to. Culture is broadly defined as the complex of meanings, symbols and assumptions about good versus bad and legitimate versus illegitimate that underlie practices and norms in societies (Haxhi & Van Ees, 2010). As a defining characteristic of every society, culture also has its specifics for indigenous communities. A broad variety of aspects is influenced by culture and key elements of culture which distinguish indigenous communities from western societies are ‘religion, living under a tribal system, being recognized as a member of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood and lifestyle’ (United Nations, 2009). On all these cultural elements, indigenous communities deviate strongly from practices we are familiar with in highly modernized, capitalist, societies. So, in many aspects indigenous cultures differ from dominant cultures in MNEs. Another fundamental difference besides elements such as language and religion is
their formal governance methods, or so-called concentration of power. While western societies in Europe and North America are mostly familiar with democratic principles in the majority of aspects of their daily lives, indigenous communities do not always embrace or recognize this guiding democratic principle as the dominant one (Brock-Utne, 2001; White, 2007). This cultural element is just as defining for an indigenous community as democracy is for European or North American societies. So besides the social cultural distinctive features, it is stated that indigenous communities also have their own formal cultural elements. When evaluating the richness of this cultural variation it is clear that this cultural differentiation is highly valuable: we can only learn from things that are different. However, the more negative implication of indigenous culture should not be underestimated. Research points out that inhabitants of indigenous communities strongly negatively deviate from positive scores on socio-economic factors explaining general health and healthy functioning in society (Cooke et al., 2007). The causes of these relatively low scores are widespread but are to a certain degree related to the absence of modern healthcare methods (King, Smith & Gracey, 2009).
2.2 Land
Secondly, a key element of indigenous communities is their connection to land and their principles of land ownership. Indigenous communities often have ancestral ties with the grounds they have inhabited for a long time (Borrini et al., 2004; Göcke, 2013). This historical or native connection is the basis for the notion of ‘land rights’. Land rights are simply the rights to possess and inhabit a piece of land (Göcke, 2014). However, this claim to land is based not only one religious and cultural rationales, but also rooted in the economic value which is undeniably associated with the ownership of these lands (Bouma et al., 2010). Besides their inherent ancestral rights to these lands, indigenous communities also emphasize their excellence in guarding and biologically managing these lands due to their
long historical and cultural experience in governing these lands (Barsh, 1993).
When reviewing historical events, land ownership is a well-known cause of conflicts between indigenous communities aiming to secure their lands for historical, cultural and economic values and other actors wishing to pursue differing goals with those areas (e.g. commercial exploitation or mineral extraction). Historical examples moreover exemplify the grief associated with conflicts over land and efforts to prevent or develop peaceful solution for these conflicts deserve a prime position in nowadays research.
2.3 Self determination
Thirdly, an important element in describing indigeneity is self-determination. Lutz (2005) defined self-determination as ‘’the possession of the political authority and legitimacy, as well
as the enforcement power necessary to take effective, practical actions to fully materialize their rights to their lands, resources, cultural heritage, and religious practices, and to secure and protect their autochthonous institutions.’’ Or, more summarized, self-determination is having
the possibility to make your own choices. Self-determination is relevant in two ways.
In first instance, self-determination applies to indigenous communities who have historical and cultural ties with lands and wish to pursue their own methods and goals with these lands. If these methods and goals divert from national common or legal practice, governmental institutions might imply barriers to this cultural and practical self-determination. An example is provided by Barsh (1993) who explores the demand of indigenous communities to maintain and govern their own land while on the other hand institutions aimed at securing the land for environmental health purposes.
Secondly, self-determination also has a strong presence in the expression of cultural norms and values. As referred to earlier, indigenous communities might have unique ways of
nature of the indigenous communities. The fact that this does not have to match with for example national legislation or national healthcare standards is still a relevant and moreover important point of discussion. For example, Cooke et al. (2007) and King, Smith & Gracey (2009) point out that this indigenous culture is related to lower quality of life and lower overall health. The question if self-determination should be limited for health reasons is a complex and very sensitive one where hardly any author has touched upon. Overall, self-determination is of great importance for indigenous communities. While the struggle for cultural and practical self-determination continues, positive developments are also starting to show. For example, self-determination has been argued by the United Nations to be a fundamental right for indigenous people and is therefore included in the UN draft Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (Karlsson, 2001). This recognition increases the chances for indigenous
communities to maintain and protect their defining cultural elements.
2.4 Community characteristics
As examples in earlier paragraphs point out, indigenous communities differ from modern communities in a multiplicity of aspects. Two moreover important characteristics that inherently make indigenous communities distinct from certain modern societies resolve around the subject of their internal governance and their cultural and geographical isolation. The characteristics are not easily grouped under an earlier defined category but span the indigenous nature as a whole due to their overarching nature since they affect the culture, are related to land issues and are determined by the degree of self-determination. Their importance must therefore not be underestimated.
2.4.1 Community governance
In the modern western world democracy is, or is supposed to be, the main governance structure. In a democracy, leaders of a society are chosen on the basis of a public vote and are
representatives of the community they lead. In indigenous societies, this form of democracy is not always present: the concentration of power is distributed in a variety of ways. In a paper by Brock-Utne (2001) examples of governance methods diverting from this democratic principle are given (i.e. governance through elders), but there are also cases in which strict hierarchies exists and the power is concentrated in the form of one person. Such an example is provided by White (2007) who addresses indigenous communities in which one ‘chief’ is in control of power. These power-hierarchies can be based on several characteristics such as on the bloodlines running from a person to the native inhabitants of the lands or as Tonkinson (2016) shows, be based on gender or age. While it is logically a fundamental characteristic of a society, in the case of indigenous communities, a lack of research on this topic exists. Moreover, research examining the influence of these different concentrations of powers on conflict outcomes and societal functioning is absent while the possible influence of these variation is arguably high. In a later section the role of this differentiating governance methods in conflicts is explained.
2.4.2 Community isolation
Another key element in defining indigenous communities is their degree of isolation. Isolation is referred to in two forms: geographical isolation and cultural isolation.
From a geographical point of view, a significant variation in community isolation is observed. In a recent example Pringle (2014) illustrates an indigenous community which avoids all contact with outsiders. Such an uncontacted community sharply contradicts examples in which indigenous communities are embedded in urban areas and closely interact with other communities (Dahl & Jensen, 2002). Strong geographical isolation is usually a voluntary choice of these communities, since modernization is experienced as a threat to their native customs and cultures and geographical isolated limits communication with other
communities (Tang & Tang, 2001). Thus, as Pringle (2014) explains, this geographical isolation is key in preserving cultural elements. This cultural element in isolation refers to the second interpretation of isolation: cultural isolation.
As the earlier definition of Haxhi & van Ees (2010) points out, culture is a defining element in our existence and a powerful guiding force in our daily lives. This is also the case for indigenous communities whose culture have been in the center of attention for a decent amount of time now. The distinctiveness and therefore cultural isolation of indigenous cultures is based on two elements: the belonging to a broader ethnicity as a broad indicator of cultural isolation and the language of the indigenous communities as a specific form of cultural isolation.
Firstly, the broader ethnicity to which an indigenous culture belongs is a strong driver of (the lack of) cultural isolation. When a community is related to a broader ethnic group it is assumed that the cultural isolation is low. For example, the cultural heritage of indigenous people in Australia is clearly described by Tonkinson (2006) and Reynolds (1982) who point out that Aboriginals can all relate to a common culture and a common ethnic heritage. In this case the cultural isolation is relatively low. On the other hand, cultural isolation is high when the ethnicity of an indigenous community is not clearly related to other ethnicities. The earlier example by Pringle (2014) is a community who is geographically isolated, but also culturally isolated since the assessed sources point out that they have no recognized or well-known ethnic overlap with other communities.
A second, more concrete element of culture is the language that the community communicates in (Blaser, 2004). Language is a defining element of culture and linguistic overlap leads to cultural intermingling but also to cultural isolation when there is no shared language (First People Worldwide, 2016). Indigenous communities who have a unique and unshared language are therefore considered more culturally isolated than indigenous
communities who speak or understand a language shared with other communities.
How these characteristics of indigenous cultures interact in different situations is explored in the next section, since indigenous communities are also known for their frequent involvement in conflict situations (Blaser et al., 2004; Oltremari & Jackson, 2006).
2.5 Conflicts
Indigenous communities are simply not always known for their peaceful interaction with other communities or MNEs. A multiplicity of cases exists in which indigenous communities are involved in conflicts with other stakeholders which are usually MNEs searching for economic benefits at specific lands. Conflicts are defined as ‘’any relationship between opposing forces whether marked by violence or not (Deloges & Gauthier (1997) cited in Castro & Nielsen (2001)). Striking examples of conflicts which have had significant attention in academic context and are also well known in public setting are the examples of native Americans in North America (Dowie, 2011). While it might seem that these conflicts are long passed, there are tragically enough numerous examples of conflicts between indigenous communities and commercial firms (Hilson, 2007), indigenous communities and governments (Canessa, 2014) and indigenous communities and other indigenous communities (Brock-Utne, 2001) that have taken place in recent times or are even going on. The uniqueness and complexity of causes and stakeholders involved in these conflicts makes a comparison of conflicts a toilsome task, hence the academic focus on single case studies. In this context several valuable case studies regarding indigenous communities and conflicts have been conducted which are mostly focused at conflicts between indigenous communities and MNEs. For example, native Americans and their struggle with corporate invasion (Dowie, 2011) is explored intensively, but also Australian and Canadian aboriginals in relation to exploitation
1981). These case studies are of great value in assessing cultural processes within the stakeholders, but remain single shots in the overall understanding of indigenous conflicts with MNEs since no clear theoretical relationships between factors in the conflict and the outcomes of the conflicts can be assessed from single case studies.
In contrast to this downside, there is a great global effort being made to incorporate, develop and increase welfare for indigenous communities. Especially global organizations such as the United Nations have had a great share in the development of the wellbeing of these communities by initiating projects that support both the social and economic welfare of indigenous communities. A powerful example is the ‘World Conference for Indigenous People’, organized by the United Nations (2014), which aims to ‘’share perspectives and best practices on the realization of the rights of indigenous peoples, including pursuing the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’’. Since the 370 million indigenous people constitute almost 5% of the global population, their role in society may and cannot be neglected. Despite these efforts, indigenous communities are still frequently the subject of conflicts. These conflicts should receive a great deal of attention in academic context for two reasons. Firstly, as Castro and Nielsen (2001) point out, these conflicts hurt both the cultural and economic status of all participants. These participants can be indigenous communities gaining cultural damage but also MNEs who experience financial losses due to these conflicts. Besides this, human wellbeing overall is likely to be affected in a negative way. This is something to be prevented at all times. Secondly, academic attention might provide guidance for practical resolutions of these conflicts, leading to less escalation or duration of conflicts. In the following section the sources for these conflicts are explained. Also, to understand the specific nature, certain key characteristics of these conflicts are elaborated on.
2.5.1 Reasons for conflicts
Lutz (2005) states that the main reason for conflicts between indigenous communities and MNEs is twofold. Firstly, the rights-to-land discussion is a major source of conflict. This discussion is grounded in the fact that indigenous communities ‘have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired’, as stated by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in 2007. Thus, while these lands and their indigenous ownership should be respected, there are MNEs which are striving to occupy the land for other purposes than protecting these indigenous communities and their land. Besides the exploitation of lands, landownership itself also has various forms and can be traced back to the reasons for several conflicts. Examples of conflicts related to land ownership and the maintenance of land quality are provided by Colchester (2000) who illustrates cases in which indigenous environmental rights are violated by mining companies, but also Brock-Utne (2001) and Corntassel & Holder (2008) provide examples of land conflicts such as cattle rushing and deforesting. Additionally, conflicts about exploitation of natural resources is a common source of conflicts (Brush & Stabinsky, 1996). In the case of natural resources, a great deal of attention is directed at conflicts arising from mining activities on lands where indigenous communities reside. Mining activities are usually associated with a great disruption of the natural state of the land and also require a significant amount of new transportation infrastructure, logistics and facilities for employees. Overall, the exploitation of mining results in significant environmental damage but is still attractive for MNEs due to the economic benefits of resource exploitation. Furthermore, as Hilson (2002) notes, these mining activities are usually seen as greatly disturbing by indigenous communities who have been the guardians of these lands for sometimes several thousands of years. Besides the environmental impact, also the cultural impact for indigenous
communities is something not to be overlooked. An overview of the causes and consequences of the expansion of the mining industry is provided by Ballard and Banks (2003). While land can be seen as a natural resource, in this context it is seen as a loose asset, making itself distinct from natural resources because natural resources can be maintained while there is no land ownership. The actual possession of land is, regardless of the natural resources, a very valuable asset in both cultural and economic sense (Inter-Agency Support Group of Indigenous Peoples’ Issues, 2014). An example of conflicts about landownership was provided earlier in which the native inhabitants of Australia only recently have started with reclaiming ‘their’ lands from the corporates who exploit the lands for economic purposes. Another very relevant example is provided by Dowie (2011) who illustrates the reduction of landownership of native Americans after the European settlers set afoot in the nowadays United States. Also, in an interesting paper, Jostad, McAvoy and McDonald (1996) describe the complex and ongoing conflicts about landownership between Native Americans and third parties. Especially the spiritual angle included in this paper is of added value. The authors state that ‘Traditional Native American beliefs concerning the environment appear to spring from a
spiritual context rather than the scientific-utilitarian context more prevalent in the dominant Euro-American culture’. These two examples provide clear reasons for possible conflicts
between indigenous communities and third parties such as MNEs on the other hand. Landownership is something very fundamental for every stakeholder in the conflict, but a cultural-spiritual meaning towards land intensifies efforts to maintain land. The recognition of these cultural-spiritual ties with landownership can be the reason for efforts of so-called decolonization, the giving back of lands to indigenous communities (Ugarte, 2014). This decolonization process is directly related to the entrance of British settlers in Australia in 1787, which quickly led to a sharp decline in land owned by the original land owners (Hill, 1995). As these examples point out, land is a very important asset for indigenous communities
and commercial organizations.
A second important reason for these conflicts are grounded in the fact that most indigenous communities strive for self-determination for their own community but also want to be able to govern the lands of which they are the acclaimed owners (Corntassel & Holder, 2008). As stated earlier, self-determination is seen as a fundamental right by the United Nations (2014) and is important for both the social and economic welfare of indigenous communities. A distinction is made between external and internal self-determination. External self-determination refers to be able to choose your own situation and position. While some indigenous communities are free to do so, other communities are restricted in the external self-determination because of the power of other stakeholders such as MNEs or governments. The other form, internal self-determination refers to the possibility to choose your own governance methods and methods of living (Daes, 1993). Since this a process that takes more place within the community itself, this is less often restricted. Both forms of self-determination are equally important, even more for groups who are challenged on these freedoms on a regular basis.
While landownership and self-determination are two important grounds for the existence of conflicts, there are also other reasons for potential conflicts between communities and MNEs or other communities. These reasons might appear less fundamental since they usually not positioned as the main cause for the conflicts but the parties involved may actually see these themes as very fundamental for conflicts. In 2001, a paper was presented by Brock-Utne (2001), describing the conflicts about cattle in Africa. In this example it is explained that conflict in certain parts of Africa is due to the high valuation of cows. In these African communities, cows have a significant asset value since they provide the community with both living supplies and trading possibilities. For these communities, the mutual stealing, or
not and will never be exhaustive due to specifics of cultures but it is clear that most conflicts indigenous communities experience are related to the presence of MNEs and their sometimes disturbingly influence on among other factors land rights and self-determination.
2.5.2 Conflict resolution
Besides this downside of conflicts, there is also an academic interest in conflict resolution and conflict management. Since conflicts damage the stakeholders, research into the optimal way for conflict resolution has emerged to a significant extent. In these resolution strategies, negotiations have an important role. As Castro and Ettenger (1996) note in their paper, negotiations have several benefits. They are relatively cheap, mostly lead to settled outcomes and are also a form of co-management. An example of a negotiated outcome is the conflict between the large scale mining corporate BHP Billliton and the indigenous Banjima People (Wahlquist, 2015). The outcome resulted in discussed benefits for all the stakeholders. Castro and Nielsen (2001) describe the nature and practice of conflicts between indigenous communities and other parties and also investigate the effects of co-management of these conflicts. Co-management of conflicts refers to the joint decision making by conflicting parties about i.e. natural resources, in this case forests. An important upside of this co-management is the increased stakeholder participation. Besides these consensus tactics, also more coercive methods can be used in which usually results in one stakeholder not getting a preferred outcome. This is for example the case when governmental institutions use enforced legislation to gain their ultimate interest at the price of the interests of other stakeholders. An example of such a conflict is given by Hoover (2001) who shows that the government and commercial organization favor the economic benefits of a large scale hydro dam over the wellbeing of the indigenous communities who are directly affected by the project.
always lead to preferred outcomes for the stakeholders. What additional factors influence the outcome of these conflicts is related to the unique characteristics these communities have. In the next section, the previous described key characteristics are related to conflict outcomes, forming the basis of the theoretical framework.
2.6 Community characteristics in conflicts with MNEs
Decent academic attention is directed at the factual existence of conflicts and tactics for resolution. Yet, a shortage of literature and academic research is found in the field of key characteristics contributing to the existence of conflicts and their outcomes. The key elements of indigenous communities are discussed in relationship to conflicts with MNEs.
2.6.1 Community governance
Firstly, as introduced in the beginning of this paper, an important characteristic of conflicts and their outcomes is the governance system in indigenous communities. The earlier mentioned cattle rushing conflict was partly solved by elders in the community instructing youngsters to abandon the violent raiding (Brock-Utne, 2001). This form of elder-council has played a role in conflict resolution and prevented escalation. In this case, youngsters were ‘warned’, because when an individual defies the word of an elder, he or she mostly is banned from the community (Brock-Utne, 2001). While this authority may come from the age of the elderly, White (2007) illustrates a case in which this authority is based on personal reputation. This is the case in the indigenous community of Melanesia, where personal achievements lead to the authoritarian position of ‘the big man’. In this community the ‘big man’ has formal authority while the other community members live according to utilitarian principles, sharing every possession in the group. In the earlier discussed case considering the hydro dam, the indigenous community involved also had a high concentration of power
having a degree of democracy dependent on the power of the chief. A powerful chief therefore results in monarchical-like concentration of power. Until now it is unknown how this fundamental community characteristic is related to the negotiated outcome with MNEs. How this different concentration of power in indigenous communities leads to differing conflict outcomes has only been studied in a case wise manner and by accumulating multiple cases, an overall influence of these differences in concentration of power on the outcomes of conflicts is determined.
2.6.2 Isolation
Secondly, an important factor in conflict outcome is the geographical and institutional isolation indigenous communities experience. As introduced in the first part of this paper, there is a wide variety of isolationism possible. From a geographical angle, there are communities who largely live in urban areas, so called urban communities (Peters & Andersen, 2013). This is in contrast with the common misconception that indigenous people only live in isolated locations in rainforests at a great physical and cultural distance from urbanization. While this is indeed sometimes true, there are also numerous communities who largely live in urbanized areas and fully participate in modernized societies. However, the choice to move from native lands to an urban area is also not always voluntary. Examples of this involuntary movements are the Masaai in Tanzania. In 2002, almost 90% of the Masaai men moved from their native lands to the capital in order to find jobs aiming to improve their living conditions and economic status. Indigenous Affairs (2002) showed that these efforts only yielded limited results: Masaai people usually ended up with a very low quality of life. Such inhabitants of urban indigenous communities are challenged even more to find the delicate balance between their indigenous culture and the pressures of modernized society. On the other side, there is also a share of indigenous communities who maintain their
preferred position on their native lands. They sometimes live in very remote areas in for example the midst of Australia, making communication harder and welfare overall lower when compared with other societies in these countries (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). Since the degree of geographical isolation is a key characteristic of indigenous communities, the role of this characteristic in conflicts with MNEs is most likely substantial.
The second interpretation of isolation refers to cultural isolation. As described earlier, the differences in cultures define different societies. In the context of conflict, different cultures logically do not provide much common ground to refer to. As Dowie (2011) notes: polarization occurs when cultures differ. More precisely, diverting cultural values can be a catalyzer for conflicts since different rules apply to different stakeholder in conflicts such as MNEs. Indigenous communities with different languages, social systems and hardly any other connections to the largest other society or ethnic group closest by, could be considered strongly culturally isolated. In contrast, a community which shares a common language and has a comparable social system with the largest nearby society, is considered less isolated. Besides only contradicting cultures, cultures of stakeholders in a conflict are sometimes not even be accepted by the other stakeholder. An even worse situation is illustrated by Altman (2004) who shows that it is possible that whole cultures get challenged by other stakeholders with different cultures. In this paper, most of the previously described conflicts may be caused by fundamentally conflicting cultures and other forces in a society such as legal rules and property legislation. Again land ownership is a suitable example: while indigenous communities claim lands based on their native heritage as a part of their culture, companies with a commercial point of view approach these lands from the cultural rules of modern economics and financial benefits. In the end, what is right or wrong rests only in the eye of the beholder.
2.6.3 Stakeholders involved
The third important factor in conflicts is the amount of stakeholders involved in conflicts. As illustrated earlier, a broad set of players can be involved in a conflict: MNEs, governmental organizations, NGO’s, but also other indigenous communities are commonly involved in conflicts with other indigenous communities. Deloges & Gauthier (1997, cited in Castro & Nielsen (2001)) describe these different stakeholders as the ‘opposing forces’, since stakeholders have different outcome interests. An overarching study on how these stakeholders interact and what differences and similarities exist between conflicts with different sorts and quantities of stakeholders, has not been conducted yet. The literature concerning case studies does provide insight into stakeholders and their role in conflicts, but usually only one case is examined and sound methodology is lacking. For example, Banerjee (2000) describes a conflict in the mining industry where a company wants to extract uranium minerals from lands on which indigenous communities have resided for decades. The author also notes that a large amount of stakeholders is involved: not only the community and the MNE, but also political parties and environmental protection organizations. Resolution of these kinds of conflicts is significant harder if several aim to get their preferred outcomes of want to prevent other stakeholders to get their preferred outcomes; i.e. environmental protection organization do not always aim at claiming the lands but aim at preventing the company from getting it. Inequality between the power of stakeholders complicates the conflict even further, while some stakeholders also a mediating role (Calvano, 2008). Hilson (2002), earlier cited because of the impact of mining, states that it is ‘not realistic to assume that that agreements are reached in which all parties are satisfied’. This is a statement that somewhat contracts the successful examples provided by Castro and Nielsen (2001) in which co-management did led to certain success for all the involved parties. Overall, it is seen that
the number of stakeholders involved strongly influences the dynamics in conflicts and this changing dynamic is most likely to influence the outcome of such conflicts. Therefore, the amount of stakeholders in an important element to consider when analyzing and examining relationships between stakeholder characteristics and conflict outcomes.
2.6.4 Content
The actual content of the conflict is discussed as a last possible influence on conflict outcomes. While various community characteristics might be influential in conflict outcome, the mere reason for the conflict is also expected to have this predictive value. While the aforementioned examples of conflict have various natures, a common cause of conflict is distillable from the literature on conflicts. Especially conflicts about land ownership, environmental damage and resource extraction are prevalent (Oltremari & Jackson, 2006; Ballard & Banks, 2003; Banerjee, 2000; Colchester, 2000; Lutz, 2005). While it seems intuitively logical to bundle these specific categories due to their apparent overlap, it must be noted that conflicts can be about environmental damage without land rights being damaged. An example of such a conflict is the recent attempt of the Dutch oil company Royal Dutch Shell to exploit oil resources in Alaskan territory (The Guardian, 2015). While indigenous communities were involved, this was because of their concerns for environmental wellbeing and not for affected land rights. The main stakeholders in these kinds of conflicts can also be environmental protection organizations and companies, without much involvement of the indigenous communities. Special attention should be given to conflicts with an extractive nature. An extractive nature conflict refers to mining conflict and other conflicts which have a long and severe impact on land and land quality. This category deserves special attention since most of the documented cases are related to this kind of causes (Ballard & Banks, 2003)
developed by Lutz (2005) who states that conflicts, no matter the content, are mainly caused by power disparity between governmental forces and commercial organizations on one hand and indigenous communities who strive to maintain their lands and the quality of the lands on the other hand. Interestingly, this land affective nature of conflicts also has much historical roots since the majority of the conflicts before the official acknowledgement of indigenous people and their rights was related to colonization and the loss of land resulting from this (Göcke, 2014). Overall, this content also matches with the literature underlining the importance of land for indigenous communities and their identification with ancestral lands (Borrini, 2004; Göcke, 2014) (See 2.1 Culture).
All three described key characteristics of indigenous conflicts and the additional content element have hardly gotten any academic attention when relating their influence on conflict outcome. The attention indigenous communities have gotten is merely based on single cases studies. These case studies are valuable but do not lead to overarching insight into the whole range of indigenous conflicts and other stakeholder involvement in conflicts. Besides the lack of a study in which multiple cases are integrated, there are hardly case studies to be found where a quantitative analysis is used to assess the data. The qualitative nature of case studies might not provide much room for such an approach but a multiple-case analysis with a quantitative angle would be more suitable to accurately assess relationships between the earlier described key characteristics, content and conflict outcomes. Also, when earlier discussed cases are included in the quantitative analysis, the previous observed effects can be re-established and therefore increase in academic added value. This method is explained in more detail after the construction of the theoretical framework which is used to generate hypotheses about the relationship between stakeholder characteristics, content and conflict outcomes.
3. Theoretical framework
3.1 Stakeholder theory
The theoretical framework is developed in this section. A theory is provided which is suitable to explain why the described concepts of Concentration of Power, Isolation, Content, and
Amount of Stakeholders are related to the conflict outcomes: Length of Violence and Degree of Violence.
Conflicts were earlier defined as relationships between opposing forces (Deloges & Gauthier (1997) cited in Castro & Nielsen, 2001)). These forces are considered stakeholders in conflicts, since they wish to gain a positive outcome for themselves. They have a stake in the outcome of the conflict. Stakeholders are a defining element in stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; 2010). This stakeholder theory is originally a management theory which treats a commercial firm as an entity which is dependent on the relationship with all its stakeholders. Examples of these stakeholders for such a commercial MNE are customers, employees, shareholders, management, governments, suppliers and other partiers who are to a certain extent involved with the company. According to Freeman (1984) successful management of all these stakeholders is required to be a successful and prosperous firm. If stakeholders are not managed well, these stakeholders feel left out and stop behaving in a beneficial way for the MNE which eventually decreases MNE performance.
An important notion in stakeholder theory is the notion of homogeneity between stakeholders. As Carney, Gedajlovic and Sur (2011) explain, stakeholders are usually seen as having different roles in a firm which ultimately have the same objective, say a homogenous objective such as healthy financial performance of a company. However, they also explain that Freeman (1984) already pointed out the dangers of assuming homogeneity of
for sound financial performance of the firm, underlying interests can be fundamentally different. A traditional example of such a contrast in stakeholder interest is the employee-management contrast. While employees usually aim for increased financial benefit resulting from employment at the firm, management strives to increase financial performance by increasing income and reducing (employee) costs. Both employees and managers are a major stakeholder to the firm but both still have different interests since they both wish for a different outcome. These contrasts in stakeholder interests lead to tensions between stakeholders.
This tension is also illustrated in a study by Carney, Gedajlovic and Sur (2011) who state that ‘’firms are the arenas for conflicts among rival stakeholders’’. This study analyzes contradicting stakeholder interests depending on the authority structure in the company. When the authority in a company is based on managerial influence, conflicts arise between equity investors and professional executives, since the managers have the ultimate power to make decision while the investors are a stakeholder which has a large stake in the company but no actual influence. When the authority structure is based on every stakeholder, a great amount of input from different stakeholders leads to a somewhat average governance of the company. According to Carney, Gedajlovic and Sur (2011) this leads to less high-risk projects and therefore to lower financial outcomes. Consequently, this contradicts the interests of the investors who expect to get high financial returns on their investments. Lastly, when the authority structure is based on family governance, conflicts arise between family related employees and ‘outsider’ employees. This study shows that at multiple levels conflicts between stakeholders exist, so-called inter-stakeholder conflict. Jensen (2000) builds further on this idea by assuming that it is impossible to satisfy every single stakeholder and still maximize value in the company. In this study it is argued that the focus on a select group of stakeholders ultimately leads to more generated value and therefore Jensen assumes general
stakeholder theory not to be suitable for generating high value practice. This line of reasoning is agreed upon by Hilson (2002) who explained the difficulty in satisfying all the stakeholders in conflicts related to mining and extraction. Simply put, stakeholder differ in their nature and interests and these differences lead to tensions between stakeholders.
When applying this framework to situations in which a MNE is involved in a conflict with other stakeholders, this stakeholder heterogeneity is highly visible. For example, in a conflict between a MNE and an indigenous community, several diverse stakeholders can be involved. Examples are the MNE which is aiming for profits (Castro & Nielsen, 2001), the indigenous community aiming for cultural preservation (Blaser et al., 2004), social justice organization aiming for community wellbeing (Ugarte, 2014), environmental protection organizations striving for nature conservation (Dowie, 2011), and different governmental organizations who are involved on multiple levels (Visser, 2004). These stakeholders differ sharply in their roles, intentions and preferred outcomes. Besides differences in roles more fundamental ideological differences also arise. As Calvano (2008) explains, the MNEs usually have an economic focused rationality and technology focused ideology which they assume to be essential for successful development of the company. On the other hand, the communities as the other key stakeholder have more post-modern values such as a focus on increasing quality of life, protection of the environment and protection of their culture. This leads to ideological heterogeneity and not seldom to feelings of injustice at mostly the community side. Other stakeholders such as NGO’s and environmental organizations embrace even other values and ideologies leading to increased heterogeneity between all the stakeholders. Besides differences in roles and ideologies there are more factors influencing heterogeneity such as culture (Banerjee, 2001), power (Calvano, 2008) and the degree of self-determination in an indigenous community (Dowie, 2011). This list of sources of heterogeneity is far from
interests of the involved stakeholders.
As mentioned earlier, the preferred outcome for different stakeholders is most likely also heterogeneous. The significant contrast between these preferred outcomes is clearly illustrated by Liu et al. (2010) who compared the interests of four different stakeholders in a conflict between a MNE and an indigenous community and showed that the interests of i.e. government staff and business persons are fundamentally contrasting. Thus, stakeholders are heterogeneous entities with differing interests, especially in conflict situations. This differing interests and tensions is expected to lead to additional complexity and misunderstanding in conflicts. This consequently leads to longer and more violent conflicts. In 4.3 Explanation of variables the reasoning for choosing the length and the degree of violence is provided.
Another important element in stakeholder theory is the amount of stakeholders involved in such a conflict, whether they are homogenous or not (Banerjee, 2000). As explained earlier, the minimum amount of stakeholders in a conflict is two, otherwise no conflict can arise. Yet, it is interesting to see how conflicts are affected and how the dynamics possibly changes if more stakeholders get or are involved in the conflict. More stakeholders logically lead to more possible tensions since there are more stakeholders having a stake in the outcome and fight for their cause. This is also the basis of classic stakeholder theory: more stakeholders prove a greater challenge for companies since more interests have to be managed and solutions are only the result of balanced incorporation of all the stakeholders’ needs. The same line of reasoning is applied in conflict situations. More stakeholders involved lead to more required management and leads to complex conflicts. This complexity is even more increased when stakeholder heterogeneity becomes more evident as is the case when more stakeholders enter (Banerjee, 2000).
more complex conflicts. This heterogeneity is determined by comparing key characteristics of the stakeholders which are involved. By exploring these characteristics and examining their role in the existence of heterogeneity, their predictive power for conflict outcomes is established.
3.2 Governance systems
As two key stakeholders, increased heterogeneity between MNEs and indigenous communities is likely have great influence on the outcome of the conflict. When examining the key characteristics of indigenous communities in relationship to other stakeholders, especially MNEs, several predictions can be made. It is expected that a very distinctive governance method of indigenous communities compared with other stakeholders provides little common ground for a positive outcome for all the stakeholders, since heterogeneity increases between the stakeholders (Hilson, 2002). Both the MNE and the indigenous community have a stake in solving the conflict, but the outcome of this solving corresponds to the different interests of the different stakeholders.
This heterogeneity is emphasized by a fundamental characteristic of both MNE and indigenous communities: concentration of power. While the concentration of power in indigenous communities was firstly forced to correspond with governance methods in other populations (Dowie, 2011), recent developments have brought upon change. Quite recent indigenous communities have gotten their distinctive law and governance systems more formally acknowledged. When indigenous communities gained increasing rights to exert their own methods and governance systems, they developed systems that deviate strongly from the systems other stakeholders have (Yashar, 1998). Examples of this are governance by elders (Brock-Utne, 2001) or governance by a single monarch-like chief who exerts all the influence
implying the total lack of an authoritarian structure in a community. Such a governance method leads to decreased decision speed and slower processes in a community (Hendricks, 2000). In contrast, commercial firms usually are highly structured, are built on a clear authority structure and have a powerful decision maker which guides the company with a senior management team. This authority structure increases decision speed since responsibilities are more clearly assigned to specific persons (Galinsky et al., 2008).
The contradicting governance systems between indigenous communities and MNEs might itself be a reason for conflicts but it can also go deeper than just governance methods; non- or over-democratic principles and values are also inherent in for example education and can on that grounds also be a reason for contradicting visions about what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. This increases the heterogeneity and the tensions between stakeholders. In an exemplary paper Lomawaima and McCarty (2002) illustrate differences between indigenous communities and other societies. For example, the authors explain the struggle for many Americans to see Native Americans as ‘real’ Americans due to their distinctive methods and their constant battle for sovereignty and also describe how indigenous communities in South America diverted from classic neoliberal democracy by including economic equality and social justice as parts of their form of democracy. These methods and interpretation lead to heterogeneity and tensions since fundamental difference emerge. Additionally, indigenous communities can have a different way of giving substance to democracy. An example of this is the ultimate focus on democracy as a group process and not giving enough importance to possible positive outcomes on sublevel such as smaller groups, generating an acephalous community (Van Cott, 2007).
Overall, it is expected that large commercial firms enter conflicts with a set of powerful managers (such as an executive team) with one final decision maker, usually a responsible senior manager or even the CEO (Menz, 2012) This corresponds to a high concentration of
power, since ultimately one or a couple of persons have the power to influence decisions. It is predicted that when the concentration of power in indigenous communities deviates from this (low concentration of power) increased heterogeneity is the result. This then leads to increased tensions between stakeholders which is expected to result in longer and more violent conflicts. Therefore, the following hypotheses are constructed.
Hypothesis 1a: A low concentration of power in indigenous communities is related to longer lasting conflicts.
Hypothesis 1b: A low concentration of power in indigenous communities is related to a higher degree of violence in conflicts.
3.3 Geographic isolation
Besides this differing concentration of power, other factors also lead to less homogeneity between stakeholders and can therefore influence conflict outcomes in a negative sense. In this section the influence of geographic isolation is explored. As illustrated in the discussion of the literature, geographical isolation has several causes and consequences (Pringle, 2014). One of the main reasons for this geographical isolation is isolation because of fear for modern influences on the traditional culture these communities have (Pringle, 2014). These modern societies influence indigenous culture by bringing in new technologies, carry diseases unknown to the unprotected communities and leave indigenous communities traumatized for several other reasons (Pringle, 2014; Lawler, 2015). An example is provided by Tang & Tang (2001) who describe the situation of a remote rural village, Shan-Mei in Taiwan, which gradually opened up to outsiders. To sustain, the remote community used to catch fish under the restriction of controlling rules to sustain the fish population for future survival. When the village allowed outsiders to enter the area, modern fishing methods were brought to the
