Editing Civil war (section)

=== Criticism of the "greed versus grievance" theory ===

David Keen, a professor at the Development Studies Institute at the London School of Economics is one of the major critics of greed vs. grievance theory, defined primarily by Paul Collier, and argues the point that a conflict, although he cannot define it, cannot be pinpointed to simply one motive.<ref name="complex">David Keen. "Complex Emergencies: David Keen Responds" African Arguments: Royal African Society.</ref> He believes that conflicts are much more complex and thus should not be analyzed through simplified methods. He disagrees with the quantitative research methods of Collier and believes a stronger emphasis should be put on personal data and human perspective of the people in conflict.

Beyond Keen, several other authors have introduced works that either disprove greed vs. grievance theory with empirical data, or dismiss its ultimate conclusion. Authors such as Cristina Bodea and Ibrahim Elbadawi, who co-wrote the entry, "Riots, coups and civil war: Revisiting the greed and grievance debate", argue that empirical data can disprove many of the proponents of greed theory and make the idea "irrelevant".<ref>Christina Bodea. "Riots, coups and civil war : revisiting the greed and grievance debate." Policy Research 1 (2007).</ref> They examine a myriad of factors and conclude that too many factors come into play with conflict, which cannot be confined to simply greed or grievance.

Anthony Vinci makes a strong argument that "fungible concept of power and the primary motivation of survival provide superior explanations of armed group motivation and, more broadly, the conduct of internal conflicts".<ref>Anthony Vinci. "Greed-Grievance Reconsidered: The Role of Power and Survival in the Motivation of Armed Groups." Civil Wars "8(1)" (2007): 35.</ref>