Co-authored by Professor Ravi Bhavnani from the International Relations/Political Science Department, “Group Segregation and Urban Violence” has been named the best article to appear in the prestigious American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) in 2014. The AJPS Best Article Award was presented at the recent meeting of Midwest Political Science Association (MPSA) in Chicago on April 18th, 2015.

The article explores the relationship between residential segregation and intergroup violence in contested urban spaces, addressing whether nominal rivals should be kept separate or instead more closely integrated. We spoke to Professor Bhavnani about the article.

The originality of your work seems to be related with the model you used to analyse violence. Is this correct?

We developed an empirically grounded agent-based model to understand the sources and patterns of violence in urban areas, employing Jerusalem as a demonstration case and seeding our model with micro-level, geocoded data on settlement patterns.

A key advantage of using evidence-driven computational models is the ability to conduct counterfactual experiments that reflect changes in the demographic composition of communities, political conditions, policing practices and other variables of interest. By specifying the model on a realistic geographical topology, seeding it with empirical data, and explicitly optimizing the fit with the empirical patterns of violence, we sought to achieve a high degree of empirical validity—an innovative methodological technique.

What do your conclusions suggest?

We used the calibrated model to estimate how alternative arrangements for dividing the city—the status quo (or “Business as Usual”), a “Return to pre-1967 Borders”, the “Clinton Proposal”, and a “Palestinian Proposal”—are likely to impact patterns of violence.

Broadly speaking, our results underscore the notion that the level of intergroup contact alone is insufficient to explain patterns of violence; that arrangements conducive to reducing the extent of intergroup interactions—including localized segregation, limits on mobility and migration, partition, and differentiation of political authority—can be expected to dampen violence, although their effect depends decisively on intergroup relations or what we label social distance.

Could your model be concretely applied to Jerusalem?

Ha’aretz was the first to publish what may only be described as rather scathing critique of our approach and findings. Given our conclusion that under the present, heightened levels of tension a return to the city’s borders of 1967 would most significantly mitigate violence, this was rather unsurprising. Also overlooked was our suggestion that in lieu of further segregation, policies leading to a moderate improvement in intergroup relations would significantly mitigate violence. 

Subsequent reviews of our work have been more favorably inclined, though it seems implausible that our findings will be entertained, let alone implemented in the current political environment, characterised by an outright refusal to negotiate the future status of Jerusalem.

Full reference: Ravi Bhavnani, Karsten Donnay, Maayan Mor, Dirk Helbing. 2014."Group Segregation and Urban Violence". American Journal of Political Science, Volume 58, Issue 1, p. 226–245.