The springboard for this project is a striking statistic: half of all young adults in West Africa wish to leave their own country and settle elsewhere. Yet, the vast majority never depart. This discrep-ancy raises a fundamental question: if migration is desired, but never materializes, what are the consequences? The project breaks with traditional approaches by shifting the object of study from observed migration in the present to imagined migration in the future. Although such future migration might never occur, it materializes in thoughts, feelings, communication, and behaviour at present. Young people’s priorities are informed by the futures they imagine, and their lives can thus be formed by migration that is imagined but never achieved. Framing the issue in this way renews research on the precursors of migration and opens up a new chapter about the links be-tween migration and development. The project is guided by a bold central hypothesis: Migration that is imagined, yet never takes place, decisively shapes the lives of individuals and the devel-opment of societies. This hypothesis is addressed through a research design that weaves together three streams: theory development, ethnographic fieldwork, and sample surveys. Drawing upon the PI’s proven qualifications in all three fields, the project aims for deep mixed-methods integra-tion. The project’s empirical focus is West Africa. Migration desires are particularly widespread in this region, and internal socio-economic variation can be exploited for theoretical purposes. By investing in theoretical and methodological development, attuned to a poorly understood aspect of global migration challenges, the project holds the promise of sustained impacts on migration research. The project is set within interdisciplinary migration studies, anchored in human geogra-phy and supported by related disciplines including anthropology, economics, and sociology.

Recent uprisings across the world have accentuated claims that food insecurity is an important trigger of political violence. Is the Arab Spring representative of a general climate-conflict pattern, where severe droughts and other climate anomalies are a key driving force? Research to date has failed to conclude on a robust relationship but several notable theoretical and methodological shortcomings limit inference. CLIMSEC will address these research gaps. It asks: How does climate variability affect dynamics of political violence? This overarching research question will be addressed through the accomplishment of four key objectives: (1) Investigate how food security impacts of climate variability affect political violence; (2) Investigate how economic impacts of climate variability affect political violence; (3) Conduct short-term forecasts of political violence in response to food and economic shocks; and (4) Develop a comprehensive, testable theoretical model of security implications of climate variability. To achieve these objectives, CLIMSEC will advance the research frontier on theoretical as well as analytical accounts. Central in this endeavor is conceptual and empirical disaggregation. Instead of assuming states and calendar years as unitary and fixed entities, the project proposes causal processes that act at multiple temporal and spatial scales, involve various types of actors, and lead to very different forms of outcomes depending on the context. The empirical component will make innovative use of new geo - referenced data and methods; focus on a broad range of insecurity outcomes, including non-violent resistance; and combine rigorous statistical models with out-of-sample simulations and qualitative case studies for theorizing and validation of key findings. Based at PRIO, the project will be led by Research Professor Halvard Buhaug, a leading scholar on climate change and security with strong publication record and project management experience.

This application presents a plan to explore the societal potential and financial viability of ViEWS – a political Violence Early Warning System, which has been developed as part of the ERC-AdG project no. 694640 at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, and Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). It is a rigorous and transparent prediction system of unprecedented scope and performance that is positioned at the forefront of research on theoretical and methodological foundations for high-quality forecasts of political violence. The proposal describes how the research from the AdG project, as well as research conducted as extensions to the AdG project in collaboration with the UNHCR, UN ESCWA, and UK FCDO, can be applied to maximise the usefulness of the forecasting system for individuals and organisations that are dedicated to conflict prevention and mitigation, while simultaneously strengthening the system’s focus on transparency and open-access publication strategies. Planned activities include measures to solidify ViEWS’ reputation as a high-quality open-source early-warning system, and strategies to transform ViEWS into a financially viable and self-sustaining entity. The proposal also details concerted efforts to clarify our IPR position and strategy, incorporate recent user-specified developments into the early-warning system built under the AdG project, apply a user-centric approach to evaluate the predictive performance of the forecasting system (as a complement to current evaluation metrics), and a number of activities aimed at assessing, validating, and maximising the usefulness of the project's outcomes to the full target audience.

Have humans evolved psychological adaptations to war? This question has generated major scientific debate involving anthropologists, archaeologists, economists, primatologists, psychologists, and political scientists. It has shaped popular perceptions of human nature and influenced the views of political leaders. Observing the limits of archaeological, ethnographic, and comparative evidence, I posit that only evidence of special design, obtained from an integrated program of psychological experiments, can conclusively answer this fundamental question. If humans are adapted to war, then human psychology must be equipped with specialized adaptations designed for the effective navigation of war: planning, executing, and defending against coalitional attacks. AWAR probes the existence of such adaptations. It focuses, specifically, on coalitional formidability assessment mechanisms, which likely helped ancestral humans to avoid costly fights. Such mechanisms, if revealed, likely constitute “smoking-gun” evidence that war shaped human evolution. AWAR also explores real-world implications of coalitional formidability assessment mechanisms: if they indeed exist, do they shape our attitudes and behavior today, particularly in the context of modern political violence (e.g., violent anti-government protests and armed civil conflicts)? AWAR presents the first elaborate information-processing model of a coalitional formidability assessment mechanism. In turn, it conducts an integrated program of 20 lab experiments and surveys in 40 countries. Crucially, AWAR holds the potential to reveal the existence of a psychological adaptation in humans, contributing to the growing efforts to map the universal architecture of the human mind. The project’s results will likely appear in major multidisciplinary journals, advancing scholarly debates in at least six disciplines. Most importantly, AWAR breaks new ground for a novel perspective in the study of modern domestic political violence.