Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: States Within States: The Social Contracts of Armed Groups

所有反叛组织都需要资源。他们不仅必须作为战斗力量生存下来，而且他们越强大，他们与国家谈判的政治交易就越好。在没有可掠夺的资源的情况下，叛军通过与平民支持者共生交换或从平民人口中强制开采来获得资源。叛军如何以及为什么以不同的方式构建与平民的关系还没有得到很好的理解。在这种模式下，叛军被视为寻求政策的组织，他们对自己的意识形态目标和组织需求进行了优化。在这方面，他们面临着许多与国家相同的挑战，叛军如何应对这一挑战对叛军与平民的关系产生了影响。叛军可以呼吁外部势力--外国势力、散居海外的人、跨国宗教运动--或当地公民获得资源。平衡目标和需求是一个艰难的政治现实。叛军可能被迫妥协他们的一些目标，以增加他们的资源。这些最终目标越接近平民的偏好，叛军的统治者就会越好。善政可以包括政治/意识形态代表性，以及一些公共服务--包括保护，甚至包括国家通常提供的各种社会服务。总体而言，国内支持的反叛组织预计将提供最好的治理，那些得到宗教/种族散居支持的团体次之，其次是外国国家赞助者，最后是极端的跨国运动。该项目利用棉兰老岛(菲律宾南部)自然准实验的相对力量，概述了叛军如何在国内外建立关系契约，以及他们如何塑造叛军在当地的治理模式。该项目使用定性和定量数据来比较棉兰老岛的三个分离主义运动如何应对不同的战略环境，以及叛军的行为如何随着时间的推移以及从一个村庄到另一个村庄的变化。这项研究利用了对棉兰老岛受冲突影响地区的广泛调查以及广泛的定性访谈，以比较和概述反叛团体如何提供治理。现有的关于反叛团体治理的研究未能充分解释团体之间的差异，和(或)限制国际或民事行为者的作用。该项目通过开发一种包括国内和国际行为者的偏好和行动的模型，在理论上促进了对叛乱的研究。从经验上讲，这个项目在世界上持续时间最长、研究最少的叛乱事件之一中使用了案例内变异。利用案件内部的差异保持不变的一系列社会经济和文化变量，这些变量经常困扰着对叛军当地行为的跨国比较。更好地了解叛军如何建立和建立治理不仅可以为更适当的安全和人道主义计划提供信息，还可以提出政治解决方案可能纳入并使现有基础设施更加透明的方法--使和平更有可能在当地持续下去。从历史上看，许多和平协议都未能付诸实施。查明并行的治理形式、它们如何运作、它们提供了什么好处以及它们为什么不同，可以使它们更有效地融入冲突后稳定努力。

All rebel organizations need resources. They must not only survive as fighting forces, but the stronger they are, the better the political bargain they can negotiate with the state. In the absence of lootable resources, rebels acquire resources either through symbiotic exchange with civilian supporters or coercive extraction from civilian populations. How and why rebels structure their relations with civilians differently is not well understood. In this model, rebels are treated as policy-seeking organizations that optimize over their ideological goals and organizational needs. In this, they face many of the same challenges as states, and how rebels meet this challenge has ramifications for rebel-civilian relations. Rebels can appeal to external parties -- foreign powers, diasporas, transnational religious movements -- or local citizens for resources. Balancing goals and needs is a difficult political reality. Rebels may be forced to compromise some of their goals in order to increase their resources. The closer these resultant goals are to civilian preferences, the better governors rebels will be. Good governance can comprise political/ideological representation, as well as some public services -- including protection, and up to and including the full range of social services normally provided by states. Overall, rebel groups with domestic sponsorship are expected to provide the best governance, those with religious/ethnic diasporic support to be next-best, followed by foreign state sponsors, and finally extreme transnational movements.Leveraging the comparative power of a natural quasi-experiment in Mindanao (in the south of the Philippines), this project outlines how rebels forge relational contracts at home and abroad, and how they shape the pattern of rebel governance on the ground. This project uses qualitative and quantitative data to compare how Mindanao's three separatist movements respond to different strategic environments, as well as how rebels' behavior shifts over time, and from village to village. The study utilizes an extensive survey of Mindanao's conflict-affected areas, as well as extensive qualitative interviews to compare and outline how rebel groups provide governance.Existing studies of rebel governance fail to adequately explain variation among groups, and/or limit the role of either international or civilian actors. This project contributes theoretically to the study of insurgency by developing a model that includes the preferences and actions of both domestic and international actors. Empirically, this project uses within-case variation in one of the longest-running and most under-studied rebellions in the world. Leveraging within-case variation holds constant a range of socioeconomic and cultural variables that often bedevil cross-national comparisons of rebels' local behavior. A better understanding of how rebels build and establish governance not only can inform more appropriate security and humanitarian programs, but also can suggest ways that political settlements might incorporate and make more transparent existing infrastructures--making peace more likely to last on the ground. Historically, many peace agreements have failed to percolate to the ground. Identifying parallel forms of governance, how they work, what benefits they provide, and why they vary can allow more effective integration into post-conflict stabilization efforts.