This document summarizes a presentation on analyzing social unrest from a systemic risk perspective. It provides a framework for describing and analyzing social unrest by outlining how unrest can cause, be caused by, manifest, and promote other risks. It defines social unrest and proposes a "ladder of social unrest" to classify the intensity. Key drivers that can escalate or deescalate unrest are identified. The framework is intended as a diagnostic and heuristic tool to facilitate comparative study and identify triggers. Future work aims to apply the framework to specific cases and substantiate claims with more empirical evidence.

1. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY ISSUES
INTERNATIONAL FUTURES PROGRAMME
OECD International Futures Project on
Future Global Shocks
Social Unrest :
A Systemic Risk Perspective
International Disaster Reduction Conference
Davos, August 27, 2012
O. Renn, A. Jovanovic, R. Schröter
EU-VRi
European Virtual Institute for
Integrated Risk Management
Stuttgart, Germany

2. Overall objective: Provide an overall framework for
describing and analyzing social unrests
In the context of global systemic risks social unrest can:
 cause other risks (such as explosions, infrastructure failure,
economic losses)
 be a consequence of experiencing risk (famine, technological
disaster)
 be a manifestation of risk (violence caused by social unrest)
 be a promoter of “other” risks (such as war, famine, economic or
political collapse)
Particularly important for analysis of
 Socioeconomic resilience
 Risk governance structures and processes

3. Definition of social unrest
 Social unrest denotes an expression of
collective dissatisfaction with the political
system and can manifests itself in
unconventional forms of protest behavior
 Which actions are regarded as
unconventional depends on the political
culture and the dynamic evolution of
social values
 There is no clear definition between the
boundaries of legitimate and illegitimate
expression of dissent

4. Ladder of social unrest
Degree of social unrest
Possible
Possible de-escalation
de-escalation
Possible
de-escalation
Actions of
political
Mobilization violence
Organization
Communication of
dissatisfaction
Type of action

5. Ladder of social unrest –
different possible views
HIGH 

Degree of unrest
 
MEDIUM

LOW

Communication
Political
of Organization Mobilization
violence
dissatisfaction
Phase
(a hypothetic) Cycle of an unrest: - initiation of the crisis -
spontaneous protests - trade unions involved - riot police
involved - casualties - protest calmed – "resignation"

6. Factors, drivers and indicators
Important Drivers:
 Stage 1: relative deprivation of resources (gap between expectations and
perceived reality) and social amplification processes within society
 Stage 2: availability of organizational capacity to form protest groups
(interest articulation)
 Stage 3: Resources and opportunities for mobilizing people
 Stage 4: Sufficient frustration to legitimize violence
Potential for deescalating social unrest:
 monitoring drivers
 early inclusion of protest movement organizations in policy articulation and
decision making
 involvement of neutral and highly respected institutions and individuals for
facilitating an agreement between protesters and public authorities

7. Factors, drivers and indicators

8. Transitions in Agent-Based Modeling: Egypt

9. Conclusions
Components of the structural framework
 The escalation ladder (escalation/de-escalation mapped as a
function of social and political context)
 Adaptive to diversity in norms, values and political culture
 Analytic methodology to prevent arbitrary or subjective results
The framework as a diagnostic tool - enables comparative
research beyond the idiosyncratic treatment of single cases
The framework as a heuristic tool -identifying triggers and
causes that lead to escalation and de-escalation
At this point in time, many of the proposed variables that tend to
escalate or de-escalate are still speculative and lack empirical
verification (“state of ignorance”, complexities and
uncertainty)

10. © The Financial Times Limited, 2010
Conclusions – Future work
 Concentrate and apply the framework onto
cases like
 pandemics (swine flu?)
 financial crises (Greece?)
 cyber security (infrastructures, cyber
attacks/cyberwars - Latvia, Georgia,
China, “global cybercorruption” …?) © news.scotsman.com, 2010
 Triggers of social unrest, evolving/drift of China blames US cyber attack for Iran
unrest
other events into social unrest, social unrest
as trigger of other risks, interconnections … Published Date: 25 January 2010 …
CHINA'S Communist Party mouthpiece has
 Adjust priorities & interact with other working accused the United States of mounting a cyber
army and a "hacker brigade", and of exploiting
parties social media such as Twitter or YouTube to
foment unrest in Iran.
 Substantiate claims and provide more © Bangkok Post, 2010
refined explanations. The unrest in Bangkok and several other provinces
nationwide last week raised concerns that cyber security
 Ideas: e.g. an early warning system and has become of paramount importance to the kingdom.
… attacks … against critical infrastructure, government and
options in place that could help de-escalate communications systems….
.
situations with high unrest-potential