Overall, our results offer new evidence on how local maize prices affect social unrest and explain why the same price change can have diverging effects. [9/9]

Using the same Afrobarometer survey data, we show that these effects are tied to changes in perceived well-being—especially relative well-being—in the wake of price shocks. [8/9]

We check suggested mechanisms with geo-located data from Afrobarometer surveys.
– Higher maize prices amplify concerns about political instability and ethnic tensions only where there is little maize agriculture or high production inequality.
– In maize-producing regions, the effect reverses. [7/9]

We then examine mechanisms.
– At or immediately after harvests, protests weaken—plausibly due to higher opportunity costs.
– Following (presumably) poor harvests, riots subside—likely due to less resentment and, possibly also, less to fight over. [6/9]

Some numbers:
– In locations with no maize agriculture, a 10% increase in prices reduces unrest (protests) by 7.5%;
– In areas with average maize cropland (relative to none), riots fall by 5.5%;
– In areas with high ethnic inequality in maize production, riots rise by 6.6%. [5/9]

To test this, we develop an index capturing maize production inequality across historical ethnic boundaries. Price increases raise unrest—especially riots—in areas with high inequality, but reduce it in more homogeneous areas. [4/9]

Grievances can be understood through the lens of relative deprivation: people feel worse when others around them seem better off. Commodity price changes create precisely such distributional effects—benefiting net producers and hurting consumers. [3/9]

Our baseline finding may appear to contradict the common perception but is hardly counterintuitive. Farmers’ grievances are typically linked to plummeting prices: e.g., “The government has let us down. The market price ... is very low …” (shorturl.at/NFNpG). [2/9]

In that order? That's bad editorship :)

7/ Our study builds on and contributes to the literatures on the agricultural roots of conflict, specifically in Southeast Asia, and the seasonality of conflict. These findings highlight the need to account for seasonal dynamics in conflict research and policy.

6/ The most robust result is an increase of up to ten percent in violence against civilians in rice-producing regions during harvest season. We also show that this effect is driven by rural areas with rainfed agriculture.

5/ Generally, we find that political violence by organized groups increases, while social unrest by unorganized groups decreases during the harvest season. These findings align with the rapacity and opportunity cost mechanisms, respectively.

4/ We analyze 86,000+ violent incidents across 8 Southeast Asian countries over the 2010–2023 period.

3/ Since agricultural employment and income are seasonal, conflict stemming from them may also be seasonal. Seasonality of agrarian conflict is the key focus of this research.

2/ Small changes to household income can trigger conflict in low- and middle-income countries. This can happen in urban and rural contexts. In the rural context, agriculture is often the key mechanism linking climate shocks to conflict.

There is also a chance, that we have the case of (AI induced) plagiarism. In any case, what you can do is to alert the editor of your observation, and point them to the editor of the other journal. They will sort it out between each other then.