The Indirect Effects of Mediation: A Dynamic Model of Mediation and Conflict Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ezra Schricker, A.B., M.A. Graduate Program in the Department of Political Science The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Alexander Thompson, Advisor Bear Braumoeller Christopher Gelpi c Copyright by Ezra Schricker 2016 Abstract The existing literature on conflict management through mediation tends to rely on static models that measure the characteristics of a conflict once, at the onset, and assume that they do not change over time. Yet our qualitative knowledge suggests that the severity of a con- flict fluctuates based on the cooperative or conflictual actions of belligerents during the conflict. Moreover, mediators monitor conflicts and decide to intervene based on changes that occur after conflict onset. I build on these intuitions to create a dynamic model of me- diation into ongoing disputes. I argue that mediation has an indirect effect on settlement, specifically through its ability to increase cooperative behavior. These indirect causal path- ways are ignored in traditional models of conflict, leading scholars to base their conclusions on only the direct effect of mediation. To test my argument, I create weekly event data for 43 conflicts from 1991 to 2008 that capture the timing of mediation and the ebb and flow of conflict severity. I use a marginal structural model to account for both the direct and indirect effect of mediation. The empirical findings demonstrate that the indirect effect of mediation is a primary component of its effectiveness as a tool of conflict resolution. ii Acknowledgments Over the last six years, I have accumulated a large number of debts to many intelli- gent people. Much of this dissertation emerged from the patchwork of course work and critical discussion during my first three years in the program. I want to thank a num- ber of professors who influenced my development as a scholar, including Marcus Kurtz, who sparked my interest in quantitative research design; Alex Wendt, who challenged my beliefs about the reasoned basis for scientific inquiry; Bear Braumoeller, for countless in- sights into model thinking, causal inference, and applied statistics; Alex Thompson, who introduced me to rationalism, bargaining theory, and the work of Kenneth Shepsle, Terry Moe, and Armen Alchian; John Mueller, who kindly loaned me a trove of books on the dissolution of Yugoslavia, and whose contrarian sensibilities are invaluable to the field; Jan Box-Steffensmeier, for introducing me to the world of time series and event history anal- ysis; Irfan Nooruddin, who crystallized a semester-worth of OLS in a single lecture; Luke Keele, for encouraging me to learn statistics, strictly speaking; and the political science faculty and staff at Ohio State, who were kind enough to give me their support over the years. My dissertation committee—Alex Thompson, Bear Braumoeller, and Chris Gelpi— deserve special thanks for their help on this project. Bear and Chris were instrumental in the construction of the research design, which is much improved thanks to their methodological insights. Furthermore, it is safe to say that this project would never have been completed iii without Alex Thompson, my chair, who was a persistent source of thoughtful feedback, advice, and encouragement from the earliest stages of the prospectus to the final version. I am also indebted to the graduate students at Ohio State, many of whom I am fortu- nate to call good friends. I am especially grateful to Marina Duque and Raphael Cuhna, whose positive attitude and constructive criticism helped keep things in perspective; Loren Goldstein, Steven Beale, and Andrew Dombrowski, who were largely responsible for keep- ing me sane during much of this process; and Aisha Bradshaw, who was an indispensable sounding board for half-formed ideas and grad school frustrations. I want to thank my team of undergraduate data collectors: Ryan Thayer, Chris Doarn, Chris White, Phillip Price and Chen Nan Wilson. This team worked on a variety of ex- tremely technical tasks related to the creation of the event data, and all served with distinc- tion. This research was made possible with funding from the Smith Richardson Foundation Dissertation Fellowship and the Mershon Center for International Security Studies. Many people provided helpful comments and suggestions on different versions of the project, including participants at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Political Sci- ence Association, the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, the 2015 Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, and the Research in In- ternational Politics Workshop at Ohio State University. The dissertation is much better for all of their help. In my personal life, I want to thank Audrey for her friendship and persistent support in all things; and Lily, our dog, who spent countless hours looking out the window or sleeping on the couch, waiting patiently for me to stop writing and take her for a walk. This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, George and Michele, whose indirect effect on the project was both formative and existential. iv Vita June 30, 1987 . Born. Plymouth, Indiana 2010 . A.B. Political Science, University of Chicago 2012 . M.A. Political Science, Ohio State University 2010 - present . Graduate Research Associate, Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Political Science Studies in: International Relations Quantitative Methodology v Table of Contents Page Abstract......................................... ii Acknowledgments.................................... iii Vita...........................................v List of Tables...................................... ix List of Figures......................................x Chapter 1. Introduction...............................1 1.1 The Argument...............................6 1.1.1 The Natural Progression of Conflict................7 1.1.2 Theory of Intervention.......................8 1.1.3 Causal Mechanisms........................9 1.1.4 Putting it all together........................ 12 1.2 Research Design.............................. 13 1.3 Limitations and Qualifications....................... 16 1.4 The Purpose of This Dissertation..................... 19 1.5 Plan of the Dissertation........................... 20 Chapter 2. The Limitations of the Static Approach................. 23 2.1 The State of Mediation Research...................... 23 2.2 What is the Static Approach?....................... 25 2.3 The Consequences of the Static Approach................. 28 2.3.1 Static Data Proxies and Analytic Ambiguity........... 30 2.3.2 The Lack of a Time-Varying Cause................ 33 2.3.3 Immortal Time Bias........................ 36 vi 2.3.4 Time as a Nuisance........................ 40 2.3.5 Confounding Variables....................... 45 2.4 Wrap-up.................................. 49 Chapter 3. Toward A Dynamic Approach to Conflict and Mediation........ 50 3.1 Thinking about Conflict Dynamics..................... 50 3.1.1 The Rationalist View........................ 50 3.1.2 The Conflict Processes Literature................. 55 3.1.3 “Never the twain shall meet”................... 58 3.2 My Model................................. 60 3.2.1 The Progression of Conflict.................... 60 3.2.2 The Sequence of Mediation.................... 64 3.2.3 Time-Varying Confounding.................... 72 3.3 Wrap-up.................................. 74 Chapter 4. Research Design and Data........................ 76 4.1 Statistical Model.............................. 76 4.1.1 Observable Implications...................... 80 4.2 Data..................................... 82 4.2.1 Unit of Analysis.......................... 82 4.2.2 Cases................................ 88 4.2.3 Static Data............................. 92 4.2.4 Event Data Construction...................... 93 4.2.5 Conflict Severity.......................... 99 4.2.6 Mediation............................. 101 4.3 Conflict Graphs............................... 104 Chapter 5. Empirical Analysis............................ 111 5.1 Establishing the Baseline.......................... 111 5.1.1 Baseline Estimates......................... 112 5.2 Marginal Structural Model......................... 113 5.2.1 First Stage - Predicting Mediation................. 113 5.2.2 Weights.............................. 119 5.2.3 Second Stage - Predicting Settlement............... 120 5.3 Discussion................................. 122 5.4 The Next Step: Causal Mechanisms.................... 123 vii Chapter 6. Looking Inside the Black Box...................... 127 6.1 Mediation in the Yugoslav Wars: A Qualitative View........... 130 6.1.1 Analytic Groundwork....................... 131 6.1.2 A Process View of Effectiveness................. 136 6.2 Origins of the Yugoslav Wars - Irreconcilable Differences........ 140 6.2.1 The War in Slovenia........................ 146 6.2.2 The War in Croatia......................... 151 6.2.3 The War in Bosnia......................... 155 6.2.4 Lessons Learned. What Do These Conflicts Tell Us?....... 170 6.2.5 Bargaining Dynamics and the Mechanisms of Mediation..... 172 6.3 Mediation in the Yugoslav Wars: A Time Series Approach........ 175 6.3.1 Hypotheses............................. 179 6.3.2 Data................................ 182 6.3.3 Time Series Properties of the Data...............