"Where You Sit Matters: Diplomatic Networks and International Conflict" examines how a state's structural position within diplomatic networks influences its foreign policy behaviors, particularly in the domain of international security. Despite the established understanding in International Relations (IR) that relationships among countries matter, there is little empirical knowledge on what exactly the complicated web of those relationships looks like and how it impacts state behavior. Much IR literature tends to focus only on dyadic or multilateral relationships and treat networks as background, which has left a gap in our understanding of how the structures of international networks affect international outcomes. To address this gap, my dissertation uses network analysis and a variety of statistical methods to reveal key structures of diplomatic networks and examine their impacts on a state's foreign policy behavior. My argument extends in three directions. The first part uses a large-n, cross-sectional analysis to examine the impacts of a state's broker position within diplomatic networks on its decision to initiate and escalate militarized interstate disputes (MIDs). By using the rare events logit and Heckman selection models, I find that occupying a broker position in diplomatic networks increases a state's decision to initiate MIDs over the nearly 200-year period from 1817 to 2001; its marginal impact is nearly twice that of military capability. The second part employs a separable temporal exponential random graph model (STERGM) to examine how key structures of diplomatic networks influence a state's decision to terminate diplomatic ties. My findings show that the breakdown of diplomatic ties is not a rare event and network dynamics play a role in terminating ties: states take cues from other countries in the network to decide whether or not to terminate diplomatic ties. The last part uses a community detection method, specifically a link communities method, to reveal latent communities of the diplomatic network and identify key countries that belong to multiple communities. I find that the diplomatic network resembles a hierarchical structure in that diplomatic communities tend to overlap; only a small number of major powers simultaneously belong to multiple communities and few communities are independent from those major powers.

No description available.

Thesis advisor: Philip E. Strahan / My dissertation consists of two chapters. In the first chapter, I show that the growing trend in financial services digitalization has introduced a new dimension along which commercial banks compete, with consequences for the local economy. Small community banks (SCBs) are slow to implement mobile technologies and lose deposits to larger, better-digitalized banks following mobile infrastructure improvements. This dynamic negatively affects their small business lending, for they have historically relied on information and liquidity synergies with deposits to maintain their competitive advantage in such markets. Larger banks and FinTech firms prove to be imperfect substitutes in this setting, and the local economy benefits less from digitalization in areas where SCBs had an important presence before its advent. The second chapter, co-authored with Prof. Rawley Heimer, focuses on the outcomes of consumers' efforts to achieve restitution for disputed financial services. We find that complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from low-income and Black zip codes are 30% less likely to be resolved with the consumer receiving financial restitution. The gap in financial restitution was scarcely present under the Obama administration, but grew substantially under the Trump administration. We attribute the change in financial restitution under different political regimes to companies anticipating a more industry-friendly CFPB, as well as to the more industry-friendly leadership of the CFPB achieving less financial restitution for low-income and Black filers. The financial restitution gap cannot be explained by differences in product usage nor the quality of complaints, which we measure using textual analysis. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2023. / Submitted to: Boston College. Carroll School of Management. / Discipline: Finance.

Does a leader's psychology affect his/her likelihood of initiating a militarized interstate dispute? The study of leadership psychology has continuously found support for the central assumption that leaders matter in explaining a state's foreign policy behavior. However, many of these research projects have relied on small-sample case studies and experimental methods that have limited generalizability. In this paper, I use two variables drawn from the research program on leadership trait analysis (distrust and need for power) in a multivariate large-n study to explain the initiation of militarized interstate disputes (MIDs). 1,601 cases are drawn from the Correlates of War MID data set. First, using an ANOVA model, I demonstrate that MID initiators have higher average scores for both distrust and need for power and that this difference is statistically significant. Then, using logistic regression, I demonstrate that distrust and need for power have statistically significant positive effects on the likelihood of MID initiation. I conclude by comparing the predicted probabilities of the psychological variables of interest with territorial contiguity. All of these methods demonstrate that the psychological traits of leaders have an important effect on the likelihood of MID initiation.

The construction industry has been plagued with an increasing number of claims and high litigation costs. How do we reduce conflict and litigation in the construction process? On one hand, leaders of the construction industry in the United States (US) focused their efforts on improving alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. For instance, the American Society of Civil Engineers has introduced the Dispute Review Board (DRB) as a complementary provision to standard US construction practices. The establishment of the DRB to solve construction disputes on the job, avoid claims, and reduce project costs has proven considerable success. On the other hand, construction industry leaders in the United Kingdom (UK) have focused some of their efforts on improving general contract conditions. The Council of the Institution of Civil Engineers of the UK has introduced the New Engineering Contract (NEC) to the construction industry as an alternative to presently used contracts. The NEC proposes to be an innovative, non-adversarial mechanism to resolve disputes on the job, avoid and reduce claims, and to assuage rising litigation costs in the construction industry. It too has proven considerable success in its efforts. This research concentrates on the DRB and the NEC as attempts by construction leaders to modernize and improve construction practices. In summary, the research compares the success stories of the DRB and the NEC as approaches to combating the adversarial nature, increasing number of disputes and rising litigation costs in the construction industry. The main conclusions ascertained in this research are as follows. Despite coming from similar business environments, construction industry leaders in the US and the UK embarked on different methods to address the issues plaguing the industry and to improve construction practices. Both in the US and the UK, construction leaders were mostly influenced to proactively seek and implement change in construction practices by experts from within the engineering and construction industry vanguard. The undertaking of these changes have shown similar success stories and the results have produced substantial impacts on the construction process. In conclusion, the efforts of construction leaders to implement the DRB and the NEC have provided effective mechanisms in improving communication and relations, and managing disputes in a timely fashion at the job site level. / Master of Science

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Yes / This paper focuses on the dispute over river Cauvery in Southern India. Among the causes of river water disputes are contested property rights, difficulty in enforcing such rights, conflict of uses and a lack of willingness to compromise. A co-operative outcome in such cases depends on several factors: asymmetry of power in a triadic relationship between a federal government and two riparian states (one upstream and one downstream). Other factors influencing co-operation are the extent to which the claims of river waters can be elevated from those of immediate riparian peoples to those of an entire state; the dominance of a masculine paradigm towards 'taming' river waters using 'hard' investments rather than 'soft' and decentralised alternatives. On the basis of district level data, the importance of river Cauvery to the hydrology, economy and polity of the two contesting states is examined. This analysis helps us to appreciate why the two riparian state governments have limited room to manouvre. Drawing from two brief case studies of Murray Darling Basin and recent litigation in the USA, and other international experiences of river water treaties, the paper identifies various implications for the resolution of Cauvery and other river water disputes.