First, the risk of conflict is Likely to be high in the post-Conflict because unless the country is very unlucky, it will presumably have risk factors which make it typically prone to conflict. These risk factors are Likely to have persisted and indeed, the conflict will have changed the consequence of a given set of pre-conflict risk factors which have different effects on the post-conflict situation than pre-conflict they also will identify
some structural factors such as the size of the population and geographical concentration (16).
Secondly, high dependence upon natural resources and absence of economic alternatives strongly increase the risk of conflict. The peak danger level is when natural resources exports constitute around 25-30% of GDP. Natural resources rents attract both quasi-criminal rebel activity in which the rebel organization is directly predatory on the rents, and political rebellion, in which a political leader mobilize the quantity of resources, rich region to secede, analogous to tax exodus by the rich.
The final risk factor is if society is characterized by ethnic dominance. When the largest ethnolinguistic group has between 45% and 80% from the whole of the population of a given country. Both the lower bound of 45% and the upper bound of 80% are empirically determined but are consistent with predictions of analytic models of political economy. The lower bound of 45% is likely to be sufficient to give the ethnic group a stable, winning coalition even in a democracy and is indeed close to the 50% lower bound which would be predicted by simple voting models. The upper bound of 80% inconsistency with the prediction that is subject to constituting a winning coalition, the smaller is the group, the more likely it is to exploit minorities, even if this is at the expense of the general good. Approximately 40% of post-conflict societies are characterized by ethnic dominance so defined. (CH) estimate that ethnic dominance almost doubles the risk of conflict (17).