DISSERTATION BOOK PROJECT
Thinking Fast and Slow in Alliance Politics
Abstract: Why do some US allies join US-led military operations that lack any international institutional authorization to use armed force? I build on the ideational explanation by examining strategic beliefs at two levels of analysis: a) the policy reference group level, and b) the individual decision-maker level. I focus on three strategic beliefs: the effectiveness of 1) bilateralism with the United States, 2) multilateralism through international organizations, and 3) the use of force, in achieving national security objectives. Essentially, I build a typological theory of alignment choice, where there are multiple solutions to the puzzle. I test the multi-level ideational theory against its alternatives by zooming in on a new central dependent variable: the cognitive process generating the alignment choice. I draw on a large body of work on dual-process theories and experimental methods from the cognitive sciences as well as from the parallel, logics of action debate in IR theory to first typologize, and then operationalize, the cognitive processes behind alignment choice. Specifically, I typologize four cognitive processes—1) non-motivated, 2) motivated, 3) socially constrained, and 4) taken-for-granted—and use several standard measures, while developing an inductively uncovered text classification scheme, to operationalize the cognitive process. I take a trans-regional within-case research design, and compare two US allies: the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea. Using mixed methods, ranging from survey experiments, process tracing, text analysis, to elite interviews, I find robust support for the multi-level ideational theory.
WORKING PAPERS
1. “What exactly is the logic of habit in IR theory, how would one know it, and why does it matter?”
Abstract: The recent decade has seen much ambiguity and confusion over the logic of habit in International Relations (IR) theory. Yet, an accurate grasp of the logic of habit is paramount, because contrary to common misconceptions of its exaggeration, it offers a nuanced set of explanations of international politics. The aim of this paper is three-fold. First, it aims to clarify the logic of habit, by focusing on the cognitive characteristics of the different logics of action. Second, I draw from several experimental research traditions in the cognitive sciences to offer three concrete methods to measure and operationalize the logic of habit. Finally, I explicate how differently the logic of habit explains foreign security policy choices, using the examples of the US and the UK responses to the Syrian regime’s alleged uses of chemical weapons.
2. “Who takes strategic cooperation with the United States for granted, and why? Survey experimental evidence from the ROK.”
Abstract: Neorealist accounts of alliance dependence and the resolution to the alliance security dilemma are based on relative material capabilities or regional threats. But ideational accounts rooted in strategic culture or value-based ideology also predict the same decision outcomes and justifications—all within the bounds of ensuring national security and interest. In this paper, I build on the ideational approaches by merging the strategic cultural and individual levels of analysis and propose a multi-level ideational theory of strategic cooperation with the United States. Arguing that South Korea (Republic of Korea or ROK) is an ideal case to test the materialist and ideational approaches against each other, I employ the survey experimental method to conduct the critical tests in two different issue areas. I find statistically significant and robust support for the multi-level ideational theory. I also find cross-scenario differences, suggesting that ideational factors are also shaped by the contemporaneous discourse.
3. “Who supports US military actions to maintain the global order and why? Survey experimental evidence from the UK.”
Abstract: Who supports US actions to preserve the global order, and why? The conflict joining literature informs that actors with high levels of threat from the operation’s target would likely join. But what is a threat? Although the materialist approach takes threats as more or less self-evident, the ideational approaches argue that threats are contingent on ideational understandings at either the strategic cultural or individual levels of analysis. In this paper, I build on the ideational approaches and propose a multi-level ideational theory of threat perception. Arguing that the UK participation in US-led order-keeping operations offers an ideal case to test the materialist and ideational approaches to threat, I employ the survey experimental method to conduct the critical tests in two different issue areas: 1) US requests for participation in US-led operation against chemical weapons facilities, and 2) US requests for troop deployment to train local forces in West Africa. I find statistically significant and robust support for the multi-level ideational theory across the two scenarios.
4. “One system, Varying control: Explaining the variation in support for US-led operations in Iraq (2003-2008) in the Asia-Pacific.”
Abstract: Higher US influence in the form of the hub-and-spokes alliance system expects the US allies in the Asia-Pacific to uniformly and consistently support the “go-it-alone” unilateral actions taken by the United States. However, author interviews with key decision-makers, responsible for state participations in the US-led operations in Iraq (2003-2008), reveal substantial variations in support not only across-individuals but also within-individuals over-time. Employing a quasi-experimental design, I use three concrete measures—1) response decoupling, 2) memory accuracy, and 3) cognitive process—to operationalize the different levels of support from the interview data. The analysis supports the multi-level ideational theory of strategic cooperation with the United States.
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
1. “Regime dynamics: Changes in taken-for-granted "regime understandings"."
2. “Global norms, strategic identity understandings, and trade policy choices.”
3. “Case study: Over-time DPRK threat assessments in the ROK.”
Thinking Fast and Slow in Alliance Politics
Abstract: Why do some US allies join US-led military operations that lack any international institutional authorization to use armed force? I build on the ideational explanation by examining strategic beliefs at two levels of analysis: a) the policy reference group level, and b) the individual decision-maker level. I focus on three strategic beliefs: the effectiveness of 1) bilateralism with the United States, 2) multilateralism through international organizations, and 3) the use of force, in achieving national security objectives. Essentially, I build a typological theory of alignment choice, where there are multiple solutions to the puzzle. I test the multi-level ideational theory against its alternatives by zooming in on a new central dependent variable: the cognitive process generating the alignment choice. I draw on a large body of work on dual-process theories and experimental methods from the cognitive sciences as well as from the parallel, logics of action debate in IR theory to first typologize, and then operationalize, the cognitive processes behind alignment choice. Specifically, I typologize four cognitive processes—1) non-motivated, 2) motivated, 3) socially constrained, and 4) taken-for-granted—and use several standard measures, while developing an inductively uncovered text classification scheme, to operationalize the cognitive process. I take a trans-regional within-case research design, and compare two US allies: the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea. Using mixed methods, ranging from survey experiments, process tracing, text analysis, to elite interviews, I find robust support for the multi-level ideational theory.
WORKING PAPERS
1. “What exactly is the logic of habit in IR theory, how would one know it, and why does it matter?”
Abstract: The recent decade has seen much ambiguity and confusion over the logic of habit in International Relations (IR) theory. Yet, an accurate grasp of the logic of habit is paramount, because contrary to common misconceptions of its exaggeration, it offers a nuanced set of explanations of international politics. The aim of this paper is three-fold. First, it aims to clarify the logic of habit, by focusing on the cognitive characteristics of the different logics of action. Second, I draw from several experimental research traditions in the cognitive sciences to offer three concrete methods to measure and operationalize the logic of habit. Finally, I explicate how differently the logic of habit explains foreign security policy choices, using the examples of the US and the UK responses to the Syrian regime’s alleged uses of chemical weapons.
2. “Who takes strategic cooperation with the United States for granted, and why? Survey experimental evidence from the ROK.”
Abstract: Neorealist accounts of alliance dependence and the resolution to the alliance security dilemma are based on relative material capabilities or regional threats. But ideational accounts rooted in strategic culture or value-based ideology also predict the same decision outcomes and justifications—all within the bounds of ensuring national security and interest. In this paper, I build on the ideational approaches by merging the strategic cultural and individual levels of analysis and propose a multi-level ideational theory of strategic cooperation with the United States. Arguing that South Korea (Republic of Korea or ROK) is an ideal case to test the materialist and ideational approaches against each other, I employ the survey experimental method to conduct the critical tests in two different issue areas. I find statistically significant and robust support for the multi-level ideational theory. I also find cross-scenario differences, suggesting that ideational factors are also shaped by the contemporaneous discourse.
3. “Who supports US military actions to maintain the global order and why? Survey experimental evidence from the UK.”
Abstract: Who supports US actions to preserve the global order, and why? The conflict joining literature informs that actors with high levels of threat from the operation’s target would likely join. But what is a threat? Although the materialist approach takes threats as more or less self-evident, the ideational approaches argue that threats are contingent on ideational understandings at either the strategic cultural or individual levels of analysis. In this paper, I build on the ideational approaches and propose a multi-level ideational theory of threat perception. Arguing that the UK participation in US-led order-keeping operations offers an ideal case to test the materialist and ideational approaches to threat, I employ the survey experimental method to conduct the critical tests in two different issue areas: 1) US requests for participation in US-led operation against chemical weapons facilities, and 2) US requests for troop deployment to train local forces in West Africa. I find statistically significant and robust support for the multi-level ideational theory across the two scenarios.
4. “One system, Varying control: Explaining the variation in support for US-led operations in Iraq (2003-2008) in the Asia-Pacific.”
Abstract: Higher US influence in the form of the hub-and-spokes alliance system expects the US allies in the Asia-Pacific to uniformly and consistently support the “go-it-alone” unilateral actions taken by the United States. However, author interviews with key decision-makers, responsible for state participations in the US-led operations in Iraq (2003-2008), reveal substantial variations in support not only across-individuals but also within-individuals over-time. Employing a quasi-experimental design, I use three concrete measures—1) response decoupling, 2) memory accuracy, and 3) cognitive process—to operationalize the different levels of support from the interview data. The analysis supports the multi-level ideational theory of strategic cooperation with the United States.
RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
1. “Regime dynamics: Changes in taken-for-granted "regime understandings"."
2. “Global norms, strategic identity understandings, and trade policy choices.”
3. “Case study: Over-time DPRK threat assessments in the ROK.”