東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

A House Divided: Civilian Defense Po...

O'Keefe, Robert E., III.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

A House Divided: Civilian Defense Policymaking in a Multiple-Principal System.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	A House Divided: Civilian Defense Policymaking in a Multiple-Principal System./
Author:	O'Keefe, Robert E., III.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2023,
Description:	176 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-01A.
Subject:	Military studies. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30490987
ISBN:	9798379896713

A House Divided: Civilian Defense Policymaking in a Multiple-Principal System.
O'Keefe, Robert E., III.

A House Divided: Civilian Defense Policymaking in a Multiple-Principal System. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2023 - 176 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--American University, 2023.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

In democracies, civilian political leaders have ultimate control over the military while the military has the coercive power to overthrow the government. Scholars tend to assume civilians behave as a unitary actor that consistently and uniformly develops defense policy for the military to execute. Yet, in the U.S., multiple civilian institutions possess distinct roles to set policy and a collective role to control the military. What explains variation in defense policy preferences among the institutions responsible for civilian control of the military? I argue that civilian homogenization obscures three salient factors that produce unique policy preferences across the institutions responsible for civilian control: multiple-principal system, party affiliation, and military experience.To answer this question, I use a nested analysis approach. First, I conduct descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using a novel dataset. I identify and assess defense policy variations across the three civilian institutions in the U.S. with civilian control responsibility: Congress, the presidency, the and defense secretary. Holding the military constant, I find that the multiple-principal system, party affiliation, and military experience of each institution affect its respective policy formulations through the annual defense budget. Second, I conduct a series of qualitative, model-building case analyses to identify omitted variables and interactions in my regression model. I find that broader, non-defense policy agendas as well as the interactions between Congress, the president, and the defense secretary their preferences to entrust foreign policy goals and their associated funding to the military.Civilian controllers are not passive observers nor blank slates subject only to military interloping. They represent various interests, perspectives, and preferences independent of their interactions with the military institution. Consequently, my research suggests that civil-military tensions are not limited to this divide, they may also be contingent upon these three institutional factors that alter civilian policy preferences. The assertion is that civilian control is an inherent civilian responsibility. Thus, the implication is that identifying the sources of policymakers' preferences is imperative to understand what drives civilian institutions' defense policy development and entrusting it to the military.

ISBN: 9798379896713Subjects--Topical Terms:

2197382
Military studies.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Civil-military relations

A House Divided: Civilian Defense Policymaking in a Multiple-Principal System.
LDR:03673nmm a2200409 4500 001 2393045
005 20231130111624.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2023 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798379896713
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30490987
035 $a AAI30490987
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a O'Keefe, Robert E., III. $3 3762487
245 1 2 $a A House Divided: Civilian Defense Policymaking in a Multiple-Principal System.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2023
300 $a 176 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Young, Joseph K.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--American University, 2023.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a In democracies, civilian political leaders have ultimate control over the military while the military has the coercive power to overthrow the government. Scholars tend to assume civilians behave as a unitary actor that consistently and uniformly develops defense policy for the military to execute. Yet, in the U.S., multiple civilian institutions possess distinct roles to set policy and a collective role to control the military. What explains variation in defense policy preferences among the institutions responsible for civilian control of the military? I argue that civilian homogenization obscures three salient factors that produce unique policy preferences across the institutions responsible for civilian control: multiple-principal system, party affiliation, and military experience.To answer this question, I use a nested analysis approach. First, I conduct descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using a novel dataset. I identify and assess defense policy variations across the three civilian institutions in the U.S. with civilian control responsibility: Congress, the presidency, the and defense secretary. Holding the military constant, I find that the multiple-principal system, party affiliation, and military experience of each institution affect its respective policy formulations through the annual defense budget. Second, I conduct a series of qualitative, model-building case analyses to identify omitted variables and interactions in my regression model. I find that broader, non-defense policy agendas as well as the interactions between Congress, the president, and the defense secretary their preferences to entrust foreign policy goals and their associated funding to the military.Civilian controllers are not passive observers nor blank slates subject only to military interloping. They represent various interests, perspectives, and preferences independent of their interactions with the military institution. Consequently, my research suggests that civil-military tensions are not limited to this divide, they may also be contingent upon these three institutional factors that alter civilian policy preferences. The assertion is that civilian control is an inherent civilian responsibility. Thus, the implication is that identifying the sources of policymakers' preferences is imperative to understand what drives civilian institutions' defense policy development and entrusting it to the military.
590 $a School code: 0008.
650 4 $a Military studies. $3 2197382
650 4 $a Political science. $3 528916
653 $a Civil-military relations
653 $a Congress
653 $a Defense policy
653 $a Defense secretary
653 $a President
690 $a 0750
690 $a 0635
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0601
710 2 $a American University. $b School of International Service. $3 2096864
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-01A.
790 $a 0008
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2023
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30490987