It can be observed that the greed versus grievance framework is found in many cases of the Global South; however, conflicts and actors have turned into more complex structures and objectives, as well understanding the complexity itself of the new goals of states and institutions. After analysing the study cases, the greed versus grievance, the Collier and Hoeffler (2001; 2004) perspective where grievance model is less powerful as a motivation of civil wars, the Indonesian armed conflict allowed the existence of debate when justifying that feasibility overpasses the justice-seeking motivations as the grievances were the main driver in the four regions of the country. Linked to the greed concept, the grievance hypothesis supported by Frances Stewart (2008) was contradicted by the case in Sierra Leone where the contrasting new actors and the continuous natural-resource-control war ended up exemplifying a clear case of the greed perspective. Many other cases can prove that even though any of the theories of the framework could be seen, that does not mean they will function as a primary source to describe what is happening in large-scale armed conflicts, like mentioned in the case of Mexico. As the framework, or any of the factors by their own, can be very useful to understand the main drivers of new wars and their roles, it does not offer precision at the moment of analysing wars as many of the conflicts in the Global South should be studied in a specific context case, rather than fitting it in numbers and/or a theory.

To finalise; is the greed-grievance framework ultimately helpful or unhelpful when addressing conflict in the contemporary global South? In any of the cases that greed or grievance could prove that conflicts in the Global South are either motivated by wealth-seeking or social justice, the framework is not ultimately helpful to address conflicts and be the solid grounds of a whole political agenda in order to solve them, but it stands out as a participative asset, suggesting it as a complementary framework and linking it to other areas of the International Relations studies.

“The weakness of ‘greed, not grievance’ (and the political economy approach to war in general) is that it risks over-emphasis on tools. War is also ritual action. It is a ritual action that forces the solidarities apart. Restoration of peace also has to engage a ritual re-balancing of the solidarities” (R