A Human Ecological Analysis of the Causes of Conflict and Cooperation Between Nations Over Freshwater Resources
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SHARING WATER: A HUMAN ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF CONFLICT AND COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONS OVER FRESHWATER RESOURCES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Brian E. Green, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2002 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Kazimierz M. Slomczynski, Adviser Professor J. Craig Jenkins _____________________________ Adviser Associate Professor Edward M. Crenshaw Department of Sociology ABSTRACT The politics of fresh water in international contexts are becoming increasingly contentious. This study analyzes the effects of development, demographics and ecological factors on international disputes over water. From a human ecology approach, I develop a model of water conflict that examines the extent to which population growth and density, urbanization, water scarcity and degradation, social organization, inequitable distribution of water, social inequality, and trade affect the likelihood of conflict over water. Using water event data from the Basins at Risk section of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (Wolf 1998; Yoffe 2002) and ordinary least squares regression modeling, I tested hypotheses that specified predictors of international water conflict and cooperation. Field notes from a case study of the international dispute between Slovakia and Hungary were also analyzed. The results of the analysis indicate that, of demographic predictors, population density has the clearest and most consistent association with international water conflict and cooperation. Countries with higher population densities have more frequent international water interactions of a more conflictual nature. Population growth and urbanization are also found to be associated with water conflict in various predicted ways. Indicators of development tend to be associated with reduced levels of international water conflict, however, in the case of international inequality of development, water conflict is ii more likely. Among environmental factors, several indicators of water degradation and depletion were associated with an increase in the level of international water conflict, however these findings were somewhat inconsistent. Inequality in terms of the amount of internally available water was consistently associated with higher levels of conflict. A surprising and counterintuitive finding is that countries that sign international water treaties continue to have water events of a conflictive nature after the treaty is signed. In the case study of Hungary and Slovakia, environmental degradation and depletion was found to increase environmental activism, which had the effect of destabilizing the national government of Hungary. After regime changes in both Hungary and Slovakia, international conflict increased due to the new political openness associated with democracy. Institutional mechanisms have since been established to reduce the intensity of the earlier dispute. iii For my daughter, Hannah J. Green iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the people who helped me in big and small ways to successfully complete the Ph.D. program at Ohio State University. First and foremost I must thank my advisor, Dr. Maciek Slomczynski. Maciek worked with me and supported my studies for the five years during which I was in the program at Ohio State. Maciek’s expertise in comparative research methods and social change, and his willingness to meet with me many times over many years, made this entire project possible. More than his specific knowledge of my research areas, Maciek’s overall mentoring and consistent interest in my academic and personal development helped me to want to strive for success at all levels. I thank my dissertation committee members Drs. Craig Jenkins and Edward Crenshaw. Through the classes I took with them and the many hours spent in offices and writing e-mail, I learned tremendously from both men. Craig and Ed provided crucial comments, letters of recommendation, and other support during my years at Ohio State and through the process of writing this dissertation. The quality of their scholarship is an inspiration to me. There are many others who deserve recognition and thanks for their support in this project. Drs. Aaron Wolf and Shira Yoffe, both of Oregon State University, truly helped v to make this entire project through academic support and especially by sharing the data from the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. Both Aaron and Shira, along with their colleagues, have paved the way for the kind of quantitative analysis of freshwater disputes presented in this dissertation. Among others who helped directly with the completion of this study, Matt Moffitt of the Sociology Research Lab deserves the most thanks for helping me to write the programs that imported my data into a usable format. Colin Odden, also of the SRL, deserves thanks for his help in that area. Financial support for this dissertation study was provided by the Phyllis J. Krumm Memorial Scholarship fund, the Graduate Student Alumni Research Award, and the Department of Sociology at Ohio State. I thank all of these organizations for their assistance. Tony Vigorito was a great friend during my time in graduate school. Together we went through the process of writing our dissertations and looking for academic jobs. I thank Tony for his companionship and emotional support during the past years. Other friends who supported me both personally and professionally during work on this dissertation include Jack Selig and Dagmar Ruskova. Jack helped me through many difficult times and always inspired me to keep going and do my best. Dagmar wrote to me nearly every day and always reminded me “you can do it.” Finally, my parents, Steve and Joyce Green, have always supported me in so many ways. Without them I could never have made this achievement. vi VITA April 9, 1970 .................................... Born – Baltimore, Maryland USA 1992 ................................................. B.A. Sociology, Pennsylvania State University 1996–1997 ..................................... Graduate Teaching Assistant, Kent State University 1998 ................................................. M.A. Sociology, Kent State University 1997 – present ................................ Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 2000–2001 ..................................... Program for the Enhancement of Graduate Studies Dissertation Fellow PUBLICATIONS 1. Green, Brian E. and Christian Ritter 2000. “Marijuana Use and Depression.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41 (March): 40-49. 2. Gregory, Stanford, Brian E. Green, Robert M. Carruthers, Kelly A. Dagan, and Stephen Webster. 2001. “Verifying the Primacy of Voice Fundamental Frequency in Social Status Accommodation.” Language and Communication 21(1): 37-60. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Sociology Studies in: Comparative Social Change, Environmental Sociology vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .............................................................. ii Dedication ........................................................... iv Acknowledgments ...................................................... v Vita................................................................. vii List of Tables......................................................... xi List of Figures ........................................................ xii Chapters: 1. Introduction ......................................................1 2. Theoretical Background ............................................5 The Social Science of Natural Resource Competition ............... 7 Classic Theoretical Perspectives on Natural Resource Distribution and Conflict....................... 8 Contemporary Ecological Positions.......................11 The Roles of Population, Organization, Environment and Technology ............................................12 Population Dynamics ................................. 13 Social Organization.................................. 14 The Environment.................................... 17 Technology ......................................... 18 Conclusion............................................... 20 3. Conflict and Cooperation Over International Freshwater as a Research Problem............................................ 21 Current Locations Where Water is Disputed..................... 21 viii The Effects of Human Ecological Variables on International Water Conflict ................................. 26 Population Dynamics ................................. 26 Social Organization.................................. 27 The Environment.................................... 28 Technology ......................................... 29 Conclusion............................................... 30 4. The General Model and Hypotheses ................................. 31 The Causes of International Freshwater Conflict.................. 32 Demographic Impacts on International Water Conflict....... 33 Development and Economic Effects on International Water Conflict...................................... 34 Ecological Effects on International Water Conflict.......... 36 Geo-political Effects on International Water Conflict ........ 36 5. Methods and Data ............................................... 40 Data Sources ............................................. 41 Freshwater Conflict.................................. 41 Independent Variables...............................