CORRIGENDUM to ‘How (wo)men rebel: Exploring the effect of gender equality on nonviolent and armed conflict onset’

Author note

My article uses GDP per capita from the World Bank as a control variable when assessing the impact of gender equality on nonviolent campaigns and armed conflict. Unfortunately, I made a mistake when joining the data sets leading to the inclusion of GDP rather than GDP per capita. I apologize for this mistake.

To assess the implications of this error, I retrieved the correct measure from the World Bank and subsequently re-ran the analyses (see Table 1–2, Figure 1–2 below). As in the article, increases in gender equality are, on average, associated with an increased likelihood of nonviolent conflict onset. The main results are, in other words, robust, and the main hypotheses in the article remain supported.

The article has several by-findings. Relevant for this correction is that it asserts: ‘An additional observation is that the models (…) replicate earlier findings on the relationship between armed conflict and no conflict onset (…). Results also indicate that GDP per capita is not significantly related to armed conflict onset (…)’ (Schaftenaar, 2017: 770). In contrast to these statements, the relationship between female-to-male primary school ratio and armed conflict onset is not significant when including the corrected ln GDP per capita (Table 1, model 2 and Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table I.

Multinomial logit estimates of conflict onset, base category: no onset. With corrected GDP per capita

	Model 1		Model 2
	Nonviolent campaign onset	Armed conflict onset	Nonviolent campaign onset	Armed conflict onset
Fertility rate, total (births per woman)	−0.412**	0.160**
	(0.098)	(0.061)
Ratio of female to male primary school enrolment (%)			0.032**	−0.008
			(0.011)	(0.008)
Ln urban population	0.511**	0.274*	0.578**	0.247
	(0.198)	(0.139)	(0.171)	(0.173)
Ln military personnel	−0.142	0.022	−0.05	0.001
	(0.183)	(0.109)	(0.156)	(0.135)
Ln GDP per capita	−0.228	−0.206*	−0.167	−0.297*
	(0.127)	(0.093)	(0.138)	(0.121)
Polity2	−0.113**	0.017	−0.100**	0.016
	(0.024)	(0.016)	(0.026)	(0.018)
Polity2 squared	−0.011*	−0.005	−0.015**	−0.004
	(0.005)	(0.003)	(0.006)	(0.004)
Constant	−8.020**	−5.332**	−14.472**	−2.512
	(2.447)	(1.621)	(2.477)	(2.098)
Observations	5118		3667
AIC	2699.203		1942.431
BIC	2954.283		2184.509

Standard errors in parentheses. Cubic polynomials are included in the estimations. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table II.

Multinomial logit estimates of conflict onset, base category: armed conflict. With corrected GDP per capita

	Model 1	Model 2
	Nonviolent campaign onset	Nonviolent campaign onset
Fertility rate, total (births per woman)	−0.572**
	(0.128)
Ratio of female to male primary enrollment (%)		0.040**
		(0.015)
Ln urban population	0.237	0.331
	(0.199)	(0.212)
Ln military personnel	−0.164	−0.051
	(0.183)	(0.184)
Ln GDP per capita	−0.022	0.13
	(0.147)	(0.183)
Polity2	−0.130**	−0.116**
	(0.028)	(0.031)
Polity2 squared	−0.006	−0.011
	(0.006)	(0.007)
Constant	−2.688	−11.960**
	(2.605)	(3.011)
Observations	5118	3667
AIC	2699.203	1942.431
BIC	2954.283	2184.509

Standard errors in parentheses. Cubic polynomials are included in the estimations. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The impact of fertility rates on the probability of nonviolent and armed conflict onset

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The impact of the ratio of female-to-male primary school enrolment on the probability of nonviolent and armed conflict onset

In addition, while ln GDP had no significant effect on armed conflict onset, GDP per capita (corrected) has a negative effect on armed conflict onset (Table 1, model 1–2).