This study asks whether residents of Mosul, Iraq, prefer power-sharing or unilateral power-grabs for local policing after the Islamic State occupation, and how personal wartime victimization shapes those preferences. Using a survey experiment that varies which factions hold policing authority, the authors compare public expectations about security under power-sharing versus power-grabbing and test whether conflict exposure moderates support. The paper documents greater public support for power-grabbing in policing and distinct patterns among victims and nonvictims of conflict.
Survey experiment in Mosul Public support for power-grabs Heterogeneous effects by victimization
Data and methods
The authors field a survey experiment in Mosul, Iraq, presenting respondents with treatments that vary the authority held by different factions of the counter-ISIS coalition for local policing. The abstract identifies the study population (residents of Mosul) and the primary tool (a survey experiment) but does not report additional measurement details, sample sizes, or analytic models in the abstract.
Main findings
According to the abstract, respondents are overall more likely to support power-grabbing than power-sharing for policing and security. The abstract emphasizes an important moderator: conflict-related victimization. Nonvictims tend to favor ingroup power-grabbing to increase local sectarian control, while victims prioritize stability and may accept outside or out-group control rather than intra-group power-sharing.
- The public favors power-grabbing over institutionalized power-sharing in policing contexts in Mosul.
- Victim status alters preferences: victims prefer stability even if it means external control; nonvictims favor ingroup control.
The authors frame these results as highlighting challenges to institutionalizing power-sharing mechanisms for durable peace after civil conflict, while the abstract preserves qualification by limiting claims to the Mosul case and the survey experiment evidence provided.
