| Summary/Abstract |
A core function of contemporary states is to ensure the security of their citizens. Yet in many post-conflict settings, non-state actors provide security alongside the state, typically prioritizing their own ascriptive groups and potentially undercutting a sense of national political community. When do citizens prefer group-specific versus national security? While most studies focus on individual psychological factors, we argue that group-level characteristics also shape political preferences. Based on a conjoint experiment in Lebanon, we explore the relative appeal of group-specific versus national pledges to assure protection. We find that respondents view national security provision quite positively, while members of communities with stronger group-specific security simultaneously favor private provision. Individuals with closer ties to credible group security providers are also more likely to prefer those services. Citizens therefore do not see a clear trade-off between private and public protection, while group-specific legacies mediate heterogeneity in support for pluralist security provision.
|