Introduction
Civil unrest events, driven by factors like inequality and political polarization, have surged in both frequency and intensity in recent years, resulting in a 3000% increase in claims under so-called Strikes, Riots, and Civil Commotion (SRCC) coverages[1]. This sharp rise has pushed the insurance industry to refine their risk assessments to better anticipate losses. However, traditional risk models often fall short of capturing the evolving nature of civil unrest. This article explores how advancements in analytics can improve the prediction of riots and civil unrest, enhancing risk management strategies to reduce financial impacts.
Underlying patterns
While riots may sometimes seem spontaneous, research suggests they are often influenced by underlying factors. Key predictive indicators include:
Economic inequality
Countries with stark income inequality tend to experience more civil unrest. The two costliest episodes since 2020 occurred in the first and third most unequal countries by Gini index[2]: South Africa suffered $1.7 billion in insured losses during the 2021 riots[3], while Colombia faced claims well into the hundreds of millions of dollars in the same year.
As inequality rises, the likelihood of civil unrest may increase[4].
Political representation gaps
Government distrust and political disillusionment drive growing grievances and unrest. The 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer shows government is distrusted in 17 of 28 countries, and over half of young people support hostile activism, including violence. This disconnect increases the likelihood of protests and extreme actions[5].
Digital connectivity
Urban centers with high social media penetration see faster protest mobilization, amplifying unrest. The 2019 Chilean riots illustrate this, as calls to action spread rapidly online, turning a subway fare protest into nationwide demonstrations[6].
According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), over 150 countries have experienced significant civil unrest since 2017, highlighting global trends of social and political unrest across various political systems and cultures, thus providing a rich dataset for identifying patterns[7]. These observed patterns suggest that insurers could enhance risk assessment models by considering factors beyond traditional geographic boundaries.
Common patterns and geographic concentration
While each outbreak of civil unrest is unique, identifiable patterns can often be observed. By analyzing historical incidents, certain high-risk conditions can be identified and protest epicenters predicted.
For instance, the 2020-2021 Black Lives Matter protests in the U.S., sparked by George Floyd’s killing, were centered in urban hubs and culturally significant locations[8]. In Portland, protests focused on the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse, while in Washington D.C., they concentrated around Lafayette Square[9]. These spaces were strategically chosen to draw media attention and highlight issues like police brutality and systemic racism.
The causes of civil unrest often influence its geographic concentration:
- Ethnic or racial unrest may emerge in neighborhoods with larger populations from affected communities.
- Political protests often focus on administrative centers, challenging power structures directly.
- Economic protests may target financial districts or symbols of commerce.
Although unrest may initially spread unpredictably, its geographic reach is often influenced by law enforcement responses. The effectiveness of security forces can play a significant role in limiting the escalation of unrest, while disorganized or delayed responses could potentially allow it to spread. Protesters’ willingness to face arrest or injury also influences how events unfold.
State of the art SRCC models, such as the Synthetik SRCC Quantum Tool, use spatial risk indicators, or ‘target points,’ to classify locations based on their role in civil unrest, including government buildings, financial institutions, or religious sites. This spatial approach allows insurers to assess SRCC risks with greater precision and nuance[10].
For example, according to Synthetik in 2020, only 3% of Minneapolis was classified as high-risk for an SRCC event. The model identified key target points across economic, religious, and political categories, allowing for a more precise mapping of risk distribution.








