A DYADIC THEORY OF CONFLICT: POWER AND INTERESTS IN WORLD POLITICS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Kevin J. Sweeney, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Brian M. Pollins, Adviser Professor Randall L. Schweller _______________________ Adviser Professor Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier Political Science Department ABSTRACT Power is perhaps the most important concept in political science, and this is no different in the field of international relations. In particular, one ‘power question’ has dominated theoretical and empirical work: is it balances of power or preponderances of power between states that are more pacific? Seemingly distinct theoretical arguments have grown up around each of the two positions and the bulk of the recent empirical literature has found that it is preponderances of power that are more pacific. This dissertation re-examines the balance-preponderance question at the level of the interstate dyad, and argues that in order to arrive the correct answer we must take state interests into account – something that most empirical work on the subject fails to do. This is surprising because most of the classical literature on power and conflict, particularly work within the Classical Realist tradition, argues that the effect of power on conflict is conditioned by state interests. Operating at the level of the interstate dyad gains us tremendous empirical leverage with which to re-examine the classical literature on the ‘balance-preponderance’ question. Not only am I able to show that the foundations of the two main schools of thought are remarkably similar, but I am able to demonstrate an important shortcoming in the classical arguments. They do not allow for independent and conditional effects for ii power and interests on conflict. These shortcomings prompt me to develop a dyadic theory of conflict that does allow for these two key variables to have independent and conditional effects on severe military conflict. The dyadic theory of conflict has four main hypotheses. First, dyadic balances of power are more peaceful than dyadic preponderances of power. Second, dyads with similar interests will experience less conflict than dyads with dissimilar interests. Third, there is a significant conditional relationship between power and interests when determining dyadic conflict. Finally, interests have a greater effect on dyadic conflict than power. After carefully conceptualizing and operationalizing ‘power’ as relative power and ‘interests’ as dyadic interest similarity, these four hypotheses are tested using descriptive and multivariate statistical techniques on four sets of dependent variables which encompass the definition of severe military conflict: conflict occurrence, conflict severity, conflict timing, and inter-conflict (de)escalation. I find strong support for hypothesis one, and very strong support for hypotheses two, three, and four; even in the face of numerous competing hypotheses. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ph.D. candidates often begin their list of acknowledgements with members of their dissertation committee. I began accruing debts long before this committee was formed. In particular, I would like to thank Professors Paul Beck and Donald Sylvan for helping me through a tumultuous time. At the start of my second year in graduate school my graduate career almost foundered on the rocks of a trying family emergency that required me to spend most of that year, and parts of the next two, away from Columbus. Professor Beck, the departmental Chair, assured me that I would always have a place in the department. His invaluable assurance enabled me to focus on what I needed to do at home without worrying what was going to happen with my career. Professor Sylvan, the IR field coordinator, helped me engineer a program of study that fulfilled requirements, despite my lengthy absences, and got me to where I am today. I hope this dissertation justifies the confidence they had in me. This particular project benefited from an amazingly diverse, and just plain amazing, dissertation committee. Jan Box-Steffensmeier offered timely and insightful comments and encouragement on all aspects of this project, but her indelible mark is most obvious on its methodological sections. I consider myself very fortunate to be trained by one of the foremost political methodologists in the country, and hope my work meets her lofty standards. I did well if I came close, and could not have even come close iv without her help. Those who are familiar with international relations theory will easily be able to discern that the largest impact on this dissertation was made by Randy Schweller. Randy is a brilliant international relations theorist, whose 1998 book had a tremendous influence on how I think about international politics. He gave consistently incisive comments on all parts of this project. I took as much of his advice as a mere mortal could have, and this project is all there better for it. Brian Pollins, the Chair of my dissertation committee, has been a friend and confidant throughout my years in graduate school. He has been the ideal Chair in that he gave me just enough rope so that I couldn’t hang myself. While his contribution to this project has been substantial, his contribution to me as a scholar has been even greater. In several classes, and a myriad of one on one conversations, he taught me how to do ‘political science.’ This dissertation marks my first attempt at such an undertaking. If I am successful here it is because of him. Regardless I’m sure I am more likely to be successful in the future because of the lessons he has taught me. I owe many debts to my graduate student colleagues here at OSU. In a very real sense you learn more from fellow graduate students than you do from faculty. Thanks to David Bearce, Bridget Coggins, Paul Fritz, Yoav Gortzak, Yoram Haftel, Brian Harpuder, Pat McDonald, Greg Miller, Steve Mockabee, Quin Monson, Amy Oakes, Jon Pevehouse, Kathy Powers, and Brent Strathman for their helpful comments and advice along the way. I hope we continue to learn from each other. In particular, Pat deserves v to be singled out for special credit. He has read and commented on virtually everything I have written since I got to graduate school, which is a good thing, because he is smarter than me. If I could have all of the time Pat and I spent talking about political science back, I would have the four or five months I’m sure I’m going to need to turn this project into a book. I wouldn’t want it, however; his insights have been too valuable. There are a few people to whom this dissertation could be dedicated. My father, Charles, passed away in 1997, and I wish he could be there to see me finally graduate. My mother, Kathleen, suffered a debilitating brain injury in 1997, and her courage and perseverance since then have been a true inspiration. My cousin, Port Authority Police Officer Alfonse Niedermeyer, died a hero on September 11, 2001 and left behind a wife and two small children. Most importantly my wife, Kelly, has shown unbelievable patience and given unconditional support to me during my time in graduate school. She has more confidence in me than I have in myself, and I am very fortunate to have the love of such a wonderful person. If this dissertation becomes a book, I will dedicate it to her, because I am going to need more of that patience and support to get it there. The dedication for this dissertation, the first significant work I have completed, however, was sown up before I came to graduate school. vi Dedicated to the Memory of Matthew James Arroyo June 12, 1974 - August 21, 1991 Since he left this world, Matt has always been with me. Writing this dissertation has been a long and difficult journey, at least I was not alone. My Guide and I crossed over and began to mount that little known and lightless road to ascend into the shining world again. He first, I second, without thought of rest we climbed the dark until we reached the point where a round opening brought in sight the blest and beauteous shining of the Heavenly cars. And we walked out once more beneath the Stars. -Dante Alighieri The Inferno Canto XXXIV, Lines 136-143 vii VITA July 30, 1974….………………………….Born, Levittown, New York 1996………………………………………B.A. Political Science, B.A. History The University of Rochester 1996-present……………………………..Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Sweeney, Kevin J. 2003. “The Severity of Interstate Disputes: Are Dyadic Balances Really More Pacific?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 47:728-50. 2. Sweeney, Kevin J. 2004. “Heteroskedasticity.” In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (Vol. 2, pp. 458-459). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 3. Sweeney, Kevin J. 2004. “Regression Coefficient.” In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (Vol. 3, pp. 938-939). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 4. Sweeney, Kevin J. 2004. “Regression Toward the Mean.” In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (Vol. 3, pp. 945-946). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science Minor Field: International Relations viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Dedication vii Vita viii List of Tables xiii List