ne of the theoretical basis of greed versus grievance dichotomy can be found in the document called Beyond Greed and Grievance: Feasibility and Civil War (Collier, Hoeffler, Rohner, 2008), where it suggests some trends that conflicts in the contemporary global south commonly have, especially when analysing their causes focusing on the exploitation of resources and economies of looting. The first trend is their economies; an economy based on primary commodities exports in natural resources like oil and timber, to mention some examples. The limited economic growth and consequently the low average income in the country exacerbate the second and third trend, the latter exposing a reasonable motivation for people to have a justified sense of fight, and try to seek justice by their own hand. Moreover, they argue that pointing out people´s grievances and addressing them are not a good motive to end conflict; leading conflict into what is called a conflict trap in the contemporary Global South (Collier et al. 2008).

On the other hand, many other academics challenge the greed model and remark that pointing at grievances of a society play an important but unsteady factor in order to find the ‘why’ of armed conflict. In the Global South, the lack of control in their roots’ image and identity could be seen as a captive grievance that saw its re-emergence after the decolonisation process. Grievance theory is supported by the relative deprivation of Ted Gurr (1970), and the horizontal inequalities by Frances Stewart (2008).

The horizontal inequalities refer to the “inequality of economic, social or political dimensions or cultural status between culturally defined groups” (Stewart, 2008, page 3) as the main driver of conflict. Also, it remarks the ethnic differences and class displacement to “discourage outright rebellion” (Keen, 2012, page 761). Complementing the grievance ideology, as analysed in the book Why Men Rebel (Gurr, 1970), the ‘theory of relative deprivation’ shows how people’s grievances are represented by unmet expectations and their way to proceed against them are unsuccessful -this means that whether the authority or the non-state actors are unhelpful to respond to their needs, their frustration will be reflected in violent reactions (O’Gorman, 2011, page 29). Elite groups controlling economic and political accesses is a way to benefit certain groups and, therefore, creating a feeling of despair, showing many inequalities that reinforce the motivation of violent acts through seeking justice by their own hand.