Economics of war

I spoke with an economics professor a while ago. He was completely unfamiliar with the situation in Somalia so I gave him a summary of what is going on. He then suggested I look into how economics can explain the continuation of conflict in Somalia. To sum up his idea, he stated that logically Somalia should be stable by now, and the fact that it is not suggest key stakeholders are benefiting from the instability. He described the struggle for power between the TFG, Shabaab and other entities as a struggle to provide economic goods to the population. The primary good they attempt to offer is security.

This analysis was very interesting, but I immediately thought of a weakness in the argument. If the parties are attempting to provide a good- primarily security- and the population is the consumer being targeted, then why doesn't the population have more of a role in the developments on the ground than they currently do? Similar to the power of consumers in determining the actions of producers through the laws of supply and demand. It seems more like the goods of each faction are forced on the population that falls within their sphere of influence, and some groups even do more to decrease security than increase it. The people, particularly in Mogadishu, have little power to determine which entity they live under.

I think the economic analysis is a very valuable one, particularly when considering why other nations and entities are involved in Somali affairs, but economics certainly cannot explain everything. The situation in Somalia cannot be assessed through one lens; economic, political or otherwise. It has very much to do with political leaders, businesses, ideas, historical experience, international developments and timing, among other things. The re-stabilization of Somalia will require a more beneficial confluence of these and other factors.