States' Responding Behavior in Conflict: Asymmetric Response and Strategic Conflict Avoidance

State responses to external threats and aggression are studied with focus on two different rationales: (1) to make credible deterrent threats to avoid being exploited, and (2) to minimize the risk of escalation to unwanted war. Given external aggression, the target state's responding behavior has three possibilities: concession (under-response), reciprocation, and escalation. This study focuses on the first two possibilities and investigates how the strategic nature of crisis interaction can explain the intentional choice of concession or avoidance of retaliation. I build a two-level bargaining model that accounts for the domestic bargaining situation between the leader and the challenger for each state. The model's equilibrium shows that the responding behavior is determined not only by inter-state level variables (e.g. balance of power between two states, or cost of war that each state is supposed to pay), but also the domestic variables of both states. Next, the strategic interaction is rationally explained by the model: as the responding state believes that the initiating state has strong domestic challenges and, hence, the aggression is believed to be initiated for domestic political purposes (a rally-around-the-flag effect), the response tends to decrease. The concession is also predicted if the target state leader has strong bargaining power against her domestic challengers \emph{and} she believes that the initiating leader suffers from weak domestic standing. To test the model's prediction, I conduct a lab experiment and case studies. The experimental result shows that under an incentivized bargaining situation, individual actors are observed to react to hostile action as the model predicts: if the opponent is believed to suffer from internally driven difficulties, the subject will not punish hostile behavior of the other player as severely as she would without such a belief. The experiment also provides supporting evidence for the choice of concession: when the player finds herself in a favorable situation while the other has disadvantages, the player is more likely to make concessions in the controlled dictator game. Two cases are examined to discuss how the model can explain the choice of either reciprocation or concession. From personal interviews and fieldwork in South Korea, I find that South Korea's reciprocating behavior during the 2010 Yeonpyeong Island incident is explained by a combination of `low domestic power of initiating leader (Kim Jong-il)' and `low domestic power of responding leader (Lee Myung-bak).' On the other hand, the case of EC-121 is understood as a non-response or concession outcome. Declassified documents show that Nixon and his key advisors interpreted the attack as a result of North Korea's domestic political instabilities (low domestic power of initiating leader) and that Nixon did not have difficulties at domestic politics during the first few months of his presidency (high domestic power of responding leader).

Why Does Employment Discrimination Persist against People with Mental Illness? Effects of Negative Stereotypes, Power, and Differential Discrimination

Mental illness affects a sizable minority of Americans at any given time, yet many people with mental illness (hereafter PWMI) remain unemployed or underemployed relative to the general population. Research has suggested that part of the reason for this is discrimination toward PWMI. This research investigated mechanisms that affect employment discrimination against PWMI. Drawing from theories on stigma and power, three studies assessed 1) the stereotyping of workers with mental illness as unfit for workplace success, 2) the impact of positive information on countering these negative stereotypes, and whether negatively-stereotyped conditions elicited discrimination; and 3) the effects of power on mental illness stigma components. I made a series of predictions related to theories on the Stereotype Content Model, illness attribution, the contact hypothesis, gender and mental health, and power. Studies tested predictions using, 1) an online vignette survey measuring attitudes, 2) an online survey measuring responses to fictitious applications for a middle management position, and 3) a laboratory experiment in which some participants were primed to feel powerful and some were not. Results of Study 1 demonstrated that PWMI were routinely stigmatized as incompetent, dangerous, and lacking valued employment attributes, relative to a control condition. This was especially evident for workers presented as having PTSD from wartime service and workers with schizophrenia, and when the worker was a woman. Study 2 showed that, although both war-related PTSD and schizophrenia evoke negative stereotypes, only schizophrenia evoked hiring discrimination. Finally, Study 3 found no effect of being primed to feel powerful on stigmatizing attitudes toward a person with symptoms of schizophrenia. Taken together, findings suggest that employment discrimination towards PWMI is driven by negative stereotypes; but, stereotypes might not lead to actual hiring discrimination for some labeled individuals.

Who Governs Educational Change? The Paradoxes of State Power and the Pursuit of Educational Reform in Post-Neoliberal Ecuador (2007-2015)

This study identifies and compares competing policy stories of key actors involved in the Ecuadorian education reform under President Rafael Correa from 2007-2015. By revealing these competing policy stories the study generates insights into the political and technical aspects of education reform in a context where state capacity has been eroded by decades of neoliberal policies. Since the elections in 2007, President Correa has focused much of his political effort and capital on reconstituting the state’s authority and capacity to not only formulate but also implement public policies. The concentration of power combined with a capacity building agenda allowed the Correa government to advance an ambitious comprehensive education reform with substantive results in equity and quality. At the same time the concentration of power has undermined a more inclusive and participatory approach which are essential for deepening and sustaining the reform. This study underscores both the limits and importance of state control over education; the inevitable conflicts and complexities associated with education reforms that focus on quality; and the limits and importance of participation in reform. Finally, it examines the analytical benefits of understanding governance, participation and quality as socially constructed concepts that are tied to normative and ideological interests.