This dissertation examines and provides evidence for the research question: How does infrastructure shape and influence international conflict? Chapter One begins by establishing that infrastructure is the internal network of a country that facilitates the conduct of various activities. Overall, there are six broad categories of infrastructure (transportation, communication, electrical, political, medical and sanitation, and maritime). The research in this dissertation will better improve our understanding of international conflict initiation, increase our knowledge about war outcomes, deepen the research into the role of technology in international relations, and expand our understanding of national capabilities.Chapter Two presents a theoretical foundation for the examination of infrastructure. State leaders have a variety of goals that they want to achieve, and some of these goals involve international conflict. In order to achieve their goals, states possess capabilities which shape their probability of successfully achieving their respective goals. The primary focus of previous research has been on how broad national capabilities (CINC scores and GDP in particular) affect the probability of successfully completing the states goals. However, Morgan and Palmer (1997) argue that technology is another approach to the achievement of state goals. Infrastructure is a form of technology that influences the ability of a state and its leadership to achieve its goals.When a state possesses better infrastructure, this allows the military apparatus of a state to move faster, be better supplied, and lose less strength within the borders of the state. With these potential benefits in mind, state leaders examine their infrastructure relative to other states. If state leaders find that they possess an advantage in infrastructure over another state, they should be expected to pursue more bellicose and conflictual policies because their state will possess an advantage, thereby increasing the probability of success in the conflict, when holding everything else constant. With this theoretical foundation, I put forward six hypotheses regarding the outcome of interstate wars (either victory or defeat) and twelve hypotheses regarding the initiation of militarized interstate disputes.Chapter Three presents the first cross-national data set for transportation and communication infrastructure in order to statistically test the hypotheses set forth in the Theory Chapter. Transportation infrastructure is the factor score of the number of railroads per square kilometer, the number of automobiles per square kilometer, and the number of air travel passenger kilometers per square kilometer. Communication infrastructure is a factor score of the number of telegraphs per person-kilometer and the number of telephones per person-kilometer. With this data, I then perform a number of tests to make a prima fascia case that this data is properly representing the states of the international system.Chapter Four uses this new data set measuring transportation and communication infrastructure to test the six hypotheses concerning the outcome of interstate wars. I find that advantages in relative transportation infrastructure and relative communication infrastructure after World War One improve the probability of a state winning a particular war. I also find that three other indicatorsdemocracy, development, and initiationare all insignificant after controlling for transportation and communication infrastructure.Chapter Five empirically examines the relationship between militarized interstate dispute initiation and transportation and communication infrastructure. This analysis finds that differences in infrastructure do in fact influence conflict initiation. Prior to World War One, transportation infrastructure was a dramatic influence over conflict initiation, have more than three times the effect of national capabilities during that era. In the contemporary era, communication infrastructure plays a significant role in shaping the initiation of militarized interstate disputes; however the statistical findings of this model contradict my theoretical expectations. In addition, I find that considerations of infrastructure are a generalizable finding across all the states of the international system; statistical test to see if infrastructure is limited to only Western states such as the United States and Europe are unsupported in this analysis.Chapter Six brings this project to a close by summarizing the empirical findings of this entire dissertation. The second section of this chapter discusses the important data set extensions necessary for this projects future. Third, this chapter talks about the large number of potential research questions that could be addressed with the data and theory presented in this dissertation.
