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，他们就越能与国家谈判达成更好的政治协议。在没有可掠夺的资源的情况下，反叛分子通过与平民支持者的共生交换或强制从平民人口中榨取资源。反叛分子如何以及为什么以不同方式构建与平民的关系，人们还不太清楚。在这个模型中，反叛者被视为寻求政策的组织，优化他们的意识形态目标和组织需求。在这方面，他们面临着许多与国家相同的挑战，而叛军如何应对这一挑战对叛军与平民的关系产生了影响。反叛分子可以向外部政党-外国势力、侨民、跨国宗教运动-或当地公民寻求资源。平衡目标和需求是一个困难的政治现实。 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，叛乱者就越好。善政可包括政治/意识形态代表性，以及一些公共服务-包括保护，直至并包括通常由国家提供的全部社会服务。 总体而言，预计国内支持的反叛团体将提供最佳治理，其次是宗教/族裔散居支持的反叛团体，其次是外国支持的反叛团体，最后是极端的跨国运动。（在菲律宾南部），这个项目概述了叛乱分子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统治模式。 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，以及叛乱分子的行为如何随着时间的推移和从一个村庄到另一个村庄。该研究利用棉兰老岛的受冲突影响的地区进行了广泛的调查，以及广泛的定性访谈，比较和概述反叛团体如何提供government.Existing研究反叛治理未能充分解释团体之间的差异，和/或限制的作用，无论是国际或民间行为体。 该项目通过开发一个包括国内和国际行为者的偏好和行动的模型，在理论上有助于叛乱研究。 从经验上讲，这个项目在世界上持续时间最长、研究最少的叛乱之一中使用了案例内变异。 利用案例内的差异，可以保持一系列社会经济和文化变量不变，而这些变量往往会影响对叛乱分子当地行为的跨国比较。更好地了解反叛分子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方案提供信息，而且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-使和平更有可能在实地持续下去。从历史上看，许多和平协定都未能落实。确定并行的治理形式、它们如何运作、它们提供什么好处以及它们为何不同，可以更有效地纳入冲突后稳定努力。

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.