|
EconStor >
Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA), Bonn >
IZA Discussion Papers, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA) >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/62403
|
| | |
Full metadata record
| DC Field | | Value | | Language |
| dc.contributor.author | | Rendon, Silvio | | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | | 2012-09-11 | | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | | 2012-09-14T11:05:36Z | | - |
| dc.date.available | | 2012-09-14T11:05:36Z | | - |
| dc.date.issued | | 2012 | | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | | http://hdl.handle.net/10419/62403 | | - |
| dc.description.abstract | | I discuss the application of capture-recapture methods to estimating the total number of deaths in armed conflicts, and propose an alternative method based on a trivariate discrete choice model. Data come from the 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' (TRC) of Peru, around 25000 deaths, classified by three sources of information, geographical strata, and perpetrator: the State and the Shining Path. In these data many killings have been only documented by one source, which makes a projection of killings unfeasible. TRC consultants Ball et al. (2003) tried to overcome this problem by means of a 'residual estimation,' consisting of merging data for different perpetrators. I show theoretically and empirically that this method over-estimates the number of deaths. Using a conditional trivariate Probit I estimate the total number of deaths in around 28000, 60% by the State, 40% by the Shining Path. This number is substantially lower and has a different composition than the around 69000 deaths, 30% by the State, 46% by the Shining Path, and 24% by 'other perpetrators,' calculated by Ball et al. | | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | | eng | | en_US |
| dc.publisher | | IZA Bonn | | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | | Discussion Paper series, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit 6827 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.jel | | D74 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.jel | | C35 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.jel | | C4 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.jel | | O54 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.jel | | P16 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.ddc | | 330 | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | armed conflict | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | capture-recapture | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | count data | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | discrete choice | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | human rights | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | maximum-likelihood estimation | | en_US |
| dc.subject.keyword | | Poisson regression | | en_US |
| dc.title | | A discrete choice approach to estimating armed conflicts' casualties: Revisiting the numbers of a "Truth Commission" | | en_US |
| dc.type | | Working Paper | | en_US |
| dc.identifier.ppn | | 72541152X | | en_US |
| dc.rights | | http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen | | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | | IZA Discussion Papers, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA)
|
Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
|