Frontier rule and conflict

Colonial powers often governed the frontier regions of their colonies differently from non-frontier regions, employing a system of “frontier rule” that restricted access to formal institutions of conflict management and disproportionately empowered local elites. We examine whether frontier rule provides a more fragile basis for maintaining social order in the face of shocks. Using the arbitrarily defined historical border between frontier and non-frontier regions in northwestern Pakistan and 10km-by-10km grid-level conflict data in a spatial regression discontinuity design, we find that areas historically under frontier rule experienced significantly higher violence against the state after 9/11. We argue that 9/11 represented a shock to grievances against the state which, in the absence of formal avenues of conflict management, escalated into sovereignty-contesting violence. A key strategy employed by insurgents in this escalation was the systematic assassination of tribal elites, which undermined the cornerstone of frontier rule’s social order.