Matching Items (20)
Description
This dissertation seeks to show that the fate of emerging democracies is largely dependent upon the strategic behaviors of political militaries and their coup potential. Given the known issue of democratization's temporarily destabilizing effects, it first examines if such effects makes states vulnerable to coups. It finds clear evidence on democratization's destabilizing effects on coup risk. Such evidence is used to shed new light on the literature about the armed forces and coups in emerging democracies. To explain variation in the military's responses to democratization and consolidation against coup threats, it argues that how the armed forces were organized and controlled during the authoritarian periods influences whether emerging democracies are able to consolidate against coup risk. Second, it explores the declining coup risk and the trilateral relationship between Western democracy promotion, coup risk, and election violence in recently emerging electoral regimes, the so-called "illiberal democracies." It argues that vulnerability to Western leverage, coupled with an emphasis on multiparty elections, creates a political moral hazard problem for incumbents, permitting them to commit electoral violence during the emergence of mass electoral politics.
ContributorsCho, Yong Ouk (Author) / Sheldon, Simon (Thesis advisor) / David, Siroky (Committee member) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
What explains why governments and militaries pursue accountability against some human rights violations committed by members of their armed forces during ongoing conflicts, but not other violations? Further, what are the consequences of such prosecutions for their military and governmental objectives? The theory put forth by this study suggests that rather than only the natural outcome of strong rule of law, domestic prosecutions within a state’s security apparatus represents a strategic choice made by political and military actors. I employ a strategic actor approach to the pursuit of accountability, suggesting that the likelihood of accountability increases when elites perceive they will gain politically or militarily from such actions. I investigate these claims using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a comparative study across the United States and the United Kingdom. This project contributes to interdisciplinary scholarly research relevant to human rights studies, human rights law, political science, democratic state-building, democratic governance, elite decision making, counter-insurgency, protests, international sanctions, and conflict resolution. Particularly, this dissertation speaks to the intersection of strategy and law, or “lawfare” a method of warfare where law is used as means of realizing a military objective (Dunlap 2001). It provides generalizable results extending well beyond the cases analyzed. Thus, the results of this project will interest those dealing with questions relating to legitimacy, human rights, and elite decision making throughout the democratic world.
ContributorsSimmons, Alan James (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis advisor) / Peskin, Victor (Thesis advisor) / Lake, Milli (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
This dissertation proposes a theory of authoritarian control of the armed forces using the economic theory of the firm. To establish a “master-servant” relationship, an organization structures governance as a long-term contractual agreement to mitigate the vulnerabilities associated with uncertainty and bilateral dependency. The bargaining power for civilian and military actors entering a contractual relationship is assessed by two dimensions: the negotiated political property rights and the credible guarantee of those rights. These dimensions outline four civil-military institutional arrangements or army types (cartel, cadre, entrepreneur, and patron armies) in an authoritarian system. In the cycle of repression, the more the dictator relies on the military for repression to stay in office, the more negotiated political property rights obtained by the military; and the more rights obtained by the military the less civilian control. Thus, the dependence on coercive violence entails a paradox for the dictator—the agents empowered to manage violence are also empowered to act against the regime. To minimize this threat, the dictator may choose to default on the political bargain through coup-proofing strategies at the cost to the regime’s credibility and reputation, later impacting a military’s decision to defend, defect, or coup during times of crisis. The cycle of repression captures the various stages in the life-cycle of the political contract between the regime and the armed forces providing insights into institutional changes governing the relationship. As such, this project furthers our understanding of the complexities of authoritarian civil–military relations and contributes conceptual tools for future studies.
ContributorsZerba, Shaio Hui (Author) / Thies, Cameron (Thesis advisor) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
ABSTRACT
Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.
Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.
By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.
To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.
Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.
By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.
To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
ContributorsDavis, Christopher Todd (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Kubiak, Jeffrey (Committee member) / Wright, Thorin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
This study asks the question: does gender-based discrimination exists within Arizona State University's Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and if so, what are the effects of such discrimination? Within this study, discrimination is defined as: the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs, rather than on individual merit. The researcher predicted that this study would show that gender-based discrimination operates within the masculine military culture of Army ROTC at ASU, resulting from women's hyper-visibility and evidenced by their lack of positive recognition and disbelief in having a voice in the program. These expectations were based on background research claiming that the token status of women in military roles causes them to be more heavily scrutinized, and they consequentially try to attain success by adapting to the masculine military culture by which they are constantly measured. For the purposes of this study, success is defined as: the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence . This study relies on exploratory interviews and an online survey conducted with male and female Army ROTC cadets of all grade levels at Arizona State University. The interviews and survey collected demographic information and perspectives on individual experiences to establish an understanding of privilege and marginalization within the program. These results do support the prediction that women in Army ROTC at ASU face discrimination based on their unique visibility and lack of positive recognition and voice in the program. Likewise, the survey results indicate that race also has a significant impact on one's experience in Army ROTC, which is discussed later in this study in regard to needs for future research. ASU Army ROTC includes approximately 100 cadets, and approximately 30-40 of those cadets participated in this study. Additionally, the University of Arizona and the Northern Arizona University Army ROTC programs were invited to participate in this study and declined to do so, which would have offered a greater sample population. Nonetheless, the results of this research will be useful for analysis and further discussion of gender-equality in Army ROTC at Arizona State University.
ContributorsAllemang, Lindsey Ann (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis director) / Switzer, Heather (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
Conflict minerals are those that are taken from violent, militia controlled mines in areas like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and used in technology such as laptops, cellphones, and computers. They are then sold to fund bloody wars that have been raging for years. The issue of conflict minerals continue to rise as technology advances. To combat the issue, the Dodd-Frank Act was implemented in the U.S. in 2010. The act requires companies listed on the stock exchange to report information on possible conflict mineral usage. However, there is a large discrepancy in the compliance levels between many similar technology companies subject to the Dodd-Frank Act. This paper addresses the factors driving compliance through the use of a theory testing method known as pattern matching, and attempts to answer why such similar companies have such different compliance levels. The pattern matching technique looks to test the applicability of theories based on what they theorize will happen and what actually happens in a given scenario. In this instance, the theories know as general deterrence, institutional, and stakeholder theory were put to the test in order to identify the factors driving compliance levels with conflict mineral policies. Both general deterrence and stakeholder theory were able to adequately match their theorized outcomes of conflict mineral compliance with actual observed outcomes. However, general deterrence theory more adequately explained the differences in compliance levels between similar companies. This information has implications on the policy side of the issue, as it reveals a way to more effectively drive up compliance levels by increasing disincentives and penalties in accordance with general deterrence theory.
ContributorsMeyer, Matthew Jacob (Author) / Kull, Thomas (Thesis director) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Department of Supply Chain Management (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
This honors thesis proposes a hypothetical solution to the political problems facing the modern nation of Afghanistan. Using the model of the Roman Republic as presented by the political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli, I explain what institutions are necessary for the survival and success of a republic. These include a citizen militia composed entirely of equal citizens; “political class tension,” or political compromise between the elite and the common people of a republic through observance of the rule of law; and civic virtue, which stems from participation in these two institutional aspects of a republic and assists in bolstering them.
After this examination of necessary republican components, I describe the institution of constitutional dictatorship, which I devised based on the ideas of Machiavelli and the legal theorist Carl Schmitt. I then use all the institutions and ideas discussed within the framework of a thought exercise to examine possible recommendations for action by a constitutional dictatorship operating in Afghanistan, which are to bolster the Afghan National Army and neutralize the corrupting influence of Afghanistan’s “gentlemen,” or selfishly-motivated partisan leaders. Although the recommendations attempt to be as close to feasible policy as possible, they are not written with the goal of actual implementation in mind due to their lack of empirical basis.
I conclude by examining possible domestic and strategic implications of these hypothetical recommendations. This portion is also not empirically-based, merely concluding the examination of the thought exercise. An appendix uses visual aids to demonstrate the composition of the resulting Afghan government.
After this examination of necessary republican components, I describe the institution of constitutional dictatorship, which I devised based on the ideas of Machiavelli and the legal theorist Carl Schmitt. I then use all the institutions and ideas discussed within the framework of a thought exercise to examine possible recommendations for action by a constitutional dictatorship operating in Afghanistan, which are to bolster the Afghan National Army and neutralize the corrupting influence of Afghanistan’s “gentlemen,” or selfishly-motivated partisan leaders. Although the recommendations attempt to be as close to feasible policy as possible, they are not written with the goal of actual implementation in mind due to their lack of empirical basis.
I conclude by examining possible domestic and strategic implications of these hypothetical recommendations. This portion is also not empirically-based, merely concluding the examination of the thought exercise. An appendix uses visual aids to demonstrate the composition of the resulting Afghan government.
ContributorsBrunner, Jordan Alexander (Author) / Simhony, Avital (Thesis director) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-12
Description
This paper explains what factors influence mental health issues and what type of care is provided in various countries. The countries in this study will include the United States, Japan, Ethiopia and South Africa, all of which have varying degrees of ethnic diversity, economic status and understanding of mental health issues. It discusses the specific healthcare systems in each country, as well as the attitudes and problems associated with depression and schizophrenia, two prevalent mental health disorders. This paper examines the different ways that a diagnosis is reached for schizophrenia and major depression in these different countries, as well as what methods are used for treating individuals with these disorders. It will also examine the prominent notion that schizophrenia has better outcomes in developing countries than in places that have wider medical care available. It then discusses what treatments are available in each country, as well as social constructs that exist regarding those treatments in order to understand the ways that treatments can be expanded to improve outcomes. This paper will then examine the different outcomes of these mental health disorders that are common in each country, and conclude with ideas on how to make global mental health a reality.
ContributorsOlsen, Rachel Lindsay (Author) / Gaughan, Monica (Thesis director) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Human Evolution and Social Change (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
While the negative humanitarian effects of sanctions are widely known, scholars and policymakers often assume these costs are geographically localized. This research questions these assertions by examining the relationship between economic sanctions and refugee flight. I argue that the imposition of sanctions produces refugees for two reasons. First, in the face of rising prices and stagnant wages, people are forced to leave in order to survive. Second, sanctions increase the level of state-sponsored repression, forcing refugees to flee political violence. The empirical results offer initial support for this theory and suggest that sanctions may promote a contagion effect that could have negative consequences for regional economic and political stability.
ContributorsTruax, Timothy Christian (Author) / Thies, Cameron (Thesis director) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
Abstract
The Shining Path, or Sendero Luminoso, is peculiar among Latin American revolutions for a multitude of reasons, ranging from the intensity of its violent tactics to the group’s muddled Maoist ideology. Analyses of the group tend to label it a mystery or an enigma. The purpose of this thesis is to offer the charismatic nature of the authority wielded by Abimael Guzmán, the energetic leader of the group also known as Presidente Gonzalo, as an explanation for some of the Shining Path’s idiosyncrasies, particularly their relentlessly bloodthirsty rise and sharp decline. Although much of the previous literature on the Shining Path uses the word “charismatic” to describe Guzmán, very little work has analyzed the particular implications of the successful creation of a charismatic leader-follower dynamic as a key part of senderismo. Using the framework established by German sociologist Max Weber, this paper analyzes a number of major characteristics of charismatic leaders and applies them to Guzmán. Not only did he exhibit many of the typical features of a charismatic leader, but it may have been is successful development of this particular style of authority which led to both the bloodthirstiness of Sendero’s military arm and the group’s struggle to find an identity after Guzmán’s capture. The Shining Path followed the power arc expected of a charismatic leader-follower relationship, allowing Guzmán to exploit the peasant population to create chaos and fear in the Andes in his effort to bring about a “popular revolution.” The purpose of this paper is not to discredit other theories regarding Sendero, as it was largely a sui generis movement, but to argue several of its particular qualities can be attributed to the charismatic nature of Presidente Gonzalo’s authority.
The Shining Path, or Sendero Luminoso, is peculiar among Latin American revolutions for a multitude of reasons, ranging from the intensity of its violent tactics to the group’s muddled Maoist ideology. Analyses of the group tend to label it a mystery or an enigma. The purpose of this thesis is to offer the charismatic nature of the authority wielded by Abimael Guzmán, the energetic leader of the group also known as Presidente Gonzalo, as an explanation for some of the Shining Path’s idiosyncrasies, particularly their relentlessly bloodthirsty rise and sharp decline. Although much of the previous literature on the Shining Path uses the word “charismatic” to describe Guzmán, very little work has analyzed the particular implications of the successful creation of a charismatic leader-follower dynamic as a key part of senderismo. Using the framework established by German sociologist Max Weber, this paper analyzes a number of major characteristics of charismatic leaders and applies them to Guzmán. Not only did he exhibit many of the typical features of a charismatic leader, but it may have been is successful development of this particular style of authority which led to both the bloodthirstiness of Sendero’s military arm and the group’s struggle to find an identity after Guzmán’s capture. The Shining Path followed the power arc expected of a charismatic leader-follower relationship, allowing Guzmán to exploit the peasant population to create chaos and fear in the Andes in his effort to bring about a “popular revolution.” The purpose of this paper is not to discredit other theories regarding Sendero, as it was largely a sui generis movement, but to argue several of its particular qualities can be attributed to the charismatic nature of Presidente Gonzalo’s authority.
ContributorsEnglese, Daniel James (Author) / Hinojosa, Magda (Thesis director) / Humphrey, Ted (Committee member) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2013-05