Master's Thesis Presentation

Embed Size (px)


Presentation covering my Master's Thesis that I gave to my POlitical Science Scope and Methods class in 2009.

Text of Master's Thesis Presentation

  • 1. Unleashing the Dogs of War: Examining the Impact of the Privatization ofForce on the Success of State Military Interventions in Civil Wars Haley S. Lain Midwestern State University Scope & Methods of Political Science Fall 2009

2. Research Question What effect has the modern privatization offorce had on war? 3. Prior Research-Paradigm shifts Liberalism- WW1 Locke: tabula rasa, social contract theory Kant: state of perpetual peace. These pacifistic idealsform the basis of the democratic peace theory Idealism- post-ww1 Angell & Shotwell placed emphasis on ideals and institutions, such as the League of Nations and the Kellogg-Briand Pact Realism- (WW2 & Cold War) Thucydides- History of the Peloponnesian War Niccolo Machiavelli- war is inevitable and cannot beavoided or eliminated 4. Prior Research: New Wars Debate The peaceful end of a near-nuclear war brought renewed interest inthe study of war. New War theorists v. Old War theorists New war theorists: Largely derived from liberalism Argue that war had not just undergone a shift in its character and context, but actually fundamental changes in its very nature. Kaldor 2004; Holsti 1996; Mueller 1989, 2004 Old war theorists: largely derived from realism Argue that it is not necessary to generate new categories of war because the very nature of war cannot change . Instead of fundamental changes in the nature of war, the end of the Cold War saw a shift in the character of war and international relations. Henderson and Singer 2002; Hensel 2002; Gray 2005 5. Prior Research: Privatization of Force New war theorists argument- rise in non-state actors Old war theorists argument- non-state actors have been prevalentthroughout the history of war. However, the non-state actors discussed by new war theorists aretypically insurgent groups, and little research has examined theprivatization of force and its impact on the evolution of warfare. Private military forces are increasingly characterizing modernconflict, and the privatization of force is an element which couldprovide additional support for the new wars argument. Modern Privatization began at the end of the Cold war and hasculminated in the Iraq war with Private Security Contractors. 6. Theory This project seeks to compare the validity of new wartheorists arguments against those of old war theoristsconcerning the effects of the privatization of force onstate military interventions in civil wars. The method of focus will be military interventionbecause it is the most visible form of intervention intocivil conflicts. Using the Iraq as an example, it becomes apparent thatthe success of an intervention bears not just upon theactual intervention but the characteristics of the stateand the ongoing civil conflict. 7. Hypotheses H1: Privatization increases the likelihood ofsuccessful military interventions in civil wars. U.S. used PSCs because they thought it would help them successfully fight the counterinsurgency. H2: The impact of the privatization of war isconsistent across time periods. If consistent, then validity established for old war theorists. If inconsistent and more prevalent in modern periods, then validity established for new war theorists. 8. Research Design Unit of analysis- state military interventions incivil wars. Dataset- Correlates of War (1816-1997) Intrastate Wars Intrastate War Participants-primary Sampling frame- 278 participants Sample size- 64 participants only those that intervened on side of state oropposition 9. Research Design Variables Dependent- win- dichotomous- on winning side=1, on losing side=0; COW Intrastate Wars & Intrastate War Participants Independent- Characteristics of state in civil war top-interval measured in thousands of people; COW NMDC Actual intervention stdeaths- interval measured in thousands of people; Global Policy Intrastate Wars data mindur-interval measured in days; COW Intrastate War Participants major-dichotomous: Major=1, non-major=0; COW Intrastate War Participants gov- dichotomous: on side of gov=1, on side of opp.=0; COW Intrastate War Participants priv-dichotomous: used private forces=1, no use=0; COW Intrastate Wars & Clodfelter Time Period mod-dichotomous: 1946-present=1, pre-1946=0; COW Intrastate War Participants cldwar-dichotomous: 1949-1991=1, all others=0; COW Intrastate War Participants pstcw89- dichotomous: after 1989=1, 1989 and before=0; COW Intrastate War Participants pstcw 91- dichotomous: after 1991=1; 1991 and before=0; COW Intrastate War Participants Method Logistics Regression 10. AnalysisLogit(win)=A+B1tpop+B2stdeaths+B3major+B4mindur+B5gov+B6priv+e 11. Success of Military Interventions in Civil Wars: Logistic Regression Model 1 Model 2Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 tpop -.000018**-.000016** -.000018** .180***-.000017**-.00002**(7.18e-06)(7.50e-06) (7.40e-06) (7.40e-06) (7.20e-06)(7.21e-06) stdeaths 1.69e-061.19e-06 1.75e-06 2.15e-06 1.69e-061.73e-06**(1.63e-06)(1.78e-06) (1.69e-06) (1.85e-06) (1.65e-06)(1.66e-06) major.402.064 .383 .273 .383.396A (.960)(1.004)(.967) (.977) (.963)(.966)nmindur -.00044**(.00021)-.00042**(.00021) -.00046* (.00024)-.00060**(.00031) -.00047 (.00022) -.00048 (.00023)agov1.034*(.631)1.138*(.641) 1.056* (.648)1.069*(.644) .950 (.661) .941 (.652)lpriv .322(.749).402(.766) .342 (.759).291(.752) .228 (.779) .198 (.775)ymod ------------.109 (.688)------ ------ ------scldwar------------ ------.648(.827) ------ ------ipstcw89 ------------ ------------ -.360 (.819)------sPstcw91 ------------ ------------ -------.548 (.852) N6462 64 64 6464 pseudo-R2.179.169 .180 .186 .181 .184 Note: standard errors are in parenthesis under coefficients. Asterisks denote significance in a two-tailed hypothesis test. ***p>.01;**p>.05;* p>.10 12. Analysis: Post-estimation testsSuccess of Military Interventions in Civil Wars (vif results) Variable VIF1/VIF major1.18 0.846 tpop 1.16 0.860 gov1.16 0.865 priv 1.08 0.929 stdeaths 1.07 0.932 mindur 1.06 0.947 Mean VIF1.12 13. Analysis: Post-estimation tests Figure 1: Scatter of Studentized Residuals16141210 8 6 4691 665 2 650 727 662 675 705 509509 757660 629629757 760 704 757 694704 593590 515515669 630507 629503515 519655540 0 715713 662 675 693 698600 591 702689 694713 654530 691720600 600 742 600693 713 737705 677690 713 600 612 675 738 501-2-4 0 . 14. Analysis: Post-estimation testsFigure 2: Scatter of Leverage on the Model629 .3 698629 693669654713 .2 629leverage591 705689720 612 650600690665 742693 691630655 662 691 590507 675 515 515 .1 702540713704727 593600 662 694704694 738 501503519 713 705 530 713675 515660 677757 600 675 509509 757737 760757600 6000 715 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Pr(windum) 15. Analysis: Cross-tabulationCross-tabulation of priv and win winNon-privatizedPrivatized Total Defeat 2753252.94 38.6450.00 Victory2483247.06 61.5450.00 Total5113 64100.00100.00100.00*There is not a statistically significant relationship between priv andwin. This is consistent with the findings reported in the logisticregression. 16. Analysis: Cross-tabulation Cross-tabulation of mod and privprivPre-modern ModernTotalNon-privatized 163551 66.6787.5079.69 Privatized8513 33.3312.50 20.31Total24 4064 100.00 100.00 100.00*Privatization is more prevalent in the pre-modern era which challenges the new war theorists. 17. Analysis: Predicted Probabilities Predicted Probabilities: Success of Intervention and SimulatedIraq Scenario Models (Logistic Regression) tpop stdeaths major mindur gov priv mod Iraq: Iraq:mindur stdeathsMin./0 .56 .27.32 .42 .32 .32 .32 .14 .09Max./1 . .55 .40 .41 .03.50Diff.-.55 .46.09-.33.23 .08 .09 -.11.41 Beginning with a baseline model in which the continuousvariables were set to their means and the categoricalvariables were set to zero, the impact of changes in each ofthese independent variables were examined. 18. Conclusions & Implications H1: privatization was not found to be statisticallyrelated to victory of civil war interventions H2: this lack of impact was relatively consistent acrosstime periods which is evidence that privatized militaryinterventions are not a new phenomenon of themodern era. States will likely continue to use private forces becausethey provide short-term benefits for the state. Weakness: small sample size Enlarge time period Extra-systemic & MIDs