| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
174419
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International efforts to reconstruct weak states after war have increased in recent years. These endeavors often focus on rebuilding militaries given the importance of strong and professional militaries in preventing conflict relapse. What explains variation in military-building outcomes in post-conflict states? The literature on statebuilding and security sector reform suggests a number of factors that are thought to ameliorate statebuilding dilemmas. This article identifies three central mechanisms from the literature and evaluates them using evidence from a case study of post-conflict army-building in Liberia. The findings show that the voluntary nature of cooperation matters strongly for the successful outcome in Liberia, as does donor identity, albeit differently than as predicted by theory. The role of local ownership receives somewhat weak support, however, which is surprising in light of its importance in the literature. These results have significant implications for theories of statebuilding and security assistance policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
173781
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The literature on economic statecraft has long focused on the effectiveness of foreign aid and trade as tools of inducement. However, existing scholarship largely neglects the role played by government procurement. By choosing to purchase goods or hire labor in foreign states, governments can provide economic benefits for strategic ends. The United States in particular leverages its defense procurement as a foreign policy tool. We introduce a new data set of US government procurement using information on all contracts executed overseas from 2000 to 2015. We develop a typology of how states use procurement to achieve foreign policy goals—power projection, counterinsurgency, and development—and provide descriptive statistics to explore variation in spending across countries and over time. We illustrate the power of the contract data by using it to code US military access in Africa, assess the relationship between spending and economic growth, and test whether economic inducements can buy influence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
186183
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States regularly seeks to promote the liberal norms of respect for human rights and deference to civilian authority in the militaries that it trains. Yet norm-abiding behavior often does not follow from liberal foreign military training. Existing explanations ascribe norm violations either to insufficient socialization or to interest misalignment between providers and recipients. One reason violations occur is because liberal training imparts conflicting norms. How do militaries respond when they confront the dilemma of conflict between the liberal norms of respect for human rights and civilian control of the military? The U.S. policy expectation is that trained militaries will prioritize human rights over obedience to civilian authorities. But when liberal norms clash, soldiers fall back on a third norm of cohesion, which refers to the bonds that enable military forces to operate in a unified, group- and missionoriented way. Cohesion functions as both a military norm (particularly at the individual level) and an interest (particularly at the institutional level). If a military prioritizes cohesion, then it will choose the path that best serves its organization, which may entail violating human rights, civilian control, or both. An exploration of the effects of norm conflict on military attitudes among the Armed Forces of Liberia uses an experiment embedded in a survey to probe the theory. Results provide preliminary evidence that norm conflict weakens support for human rights and democracy. Results are strongest among soldiers with more U.S. training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|