Posted by Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn, guest-blogging:
Social Networks during War Time:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_01_11-2009_01_17.shtml#1231910436


   In our new Princeton University Press book, [1]Heroes and Cowards: The
   Social Face of War, we examine the war experience for Union Army
   soldiers. We weave a single narrative from the life histories of
   41,000 Union Army soldiers, diaries and letters, and government
   documents. Our core questions are not those typically asked in a
   military history. When are men willing to sacrifice for the common
   good? What are the benefits to men of friendship? How do communities
   deal with betrayal? And what are the costs and benefits of being in a
   diverse community?

   In this post and our next post, we would like to provide an overview
   of some of our key findings. For readers who enjoy applied
   econometrics, we encourage you to go Dora Costa�s UCLA [2]website
   where you can download our key academic papers.

   Desertion

   A soldier who sought to survive the U.S Civil War should have deserted
   and roughly 200,000 Union Army soldiers did (about a tenth of the
   army). Out of the roughly 80,000 men who were caught, 147 were
   executed. Those who stayed faced a death rate of 14 percent, with half
   of the deaths from wounds and half from disease. In contrast, during
   World War II, Stalin�s armies had special detachments that formed a
   second line to shoot at any soldiers in the first line who fled and
   the families of all deserters were also arrested. Out of the roughly
   35,000 German soldiers tried for desertion by the Third Reich, about
   22,750 were executed. Democracies cannot inflict such punishments.
   Lincoln recognized that �you can�t order men shot by the dozens or
   twenties. People won�t stand it.�

   Given these facts, is it surprising that only a tenth of men actually
   deserted? We argue that desertion is a great measure of �community
   participation�. In a group of 100 men, if one man deserts the army he
   raises his probability of survival but puts his fellow men at risk to
   be crushed by the enemy. Unlike in the modern corporation with bonus
   pay and pay for performance, the diaries these men left makes clear
   that they were fighting for each other.

   We use our unique longitudinal data to document several facts about
   the determinants of desertion. Here we focus on our most salient
   findings. We encourage you to read our book to learn all! In what
   follows, please keep in mind that these findings are based on
   multivariate statistical analysis so we are holding all other factors
   constant and varying one explanatory variable at a time. When the
   Union Army was winning battles, desertion rates declined. Just like in
   professional sports, everyone loves a winner. Desertion probabilities
   were higher in more diverse war companies. Turning this statement
   around, men who fought in more homogenous war companies (based on
   occupation, age, and place of enlistment) featured lowered desertion
   probabilities. A generalization of this finding is that people are
   better citizens in social settings when their community looks like
   them. In our next post, we will relate this finding to ongoing social
   science research on the costs of living in a diverse community.

   Surviving POW Camps

   Many of us have enjoyed watching Hogan�s Heroes on television. While
   Bob Crane outwitted Clink and Sgt. Schultz in his WW2 Nazi POW camp,
   U.S Civil War soldiers sent to Andersonville had a lot less fun. An
   estimated 211,411 Union soldiers were captured during the Civil War.
   Seven percent of all U.S. Civil War soldiers were ever imprisoned
   compared to 0.8 percent for World War II.

   Civil War POWs suffered from poor and meager rations, from
   contaminated water, from grounds covered with human excrement and with
   other filth, from a want of shoes, clothing, and blankets (having
   often been stripped of these by needy Confederate soldiers), from a
   lack of shelter in the open stockades that constituted camps such as
   Andersonville and Millen, from the risk of being robbed and murdered
   by fellow prisoners, and from trigger-happy guards. Our data show that
   at [3]Andersonville, the most notorious of the POW camps, roughly 40
   percent of all men of who passed through the camp died, and half of
   the deaths occurred within three months of entry. The chief causes of
   death were scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery.

   How did men survive such horrific conditions? The accounts of
   survivors provide some clues, as do the accounts of survivors of Nazi
   concentration camps, the Soviet gulag, and Japanese and Vietnamese POW
   internment camps. But some accounts conclude that death is random;
   others emphasize psychological defense mechanisms; others emphasize
   the importance of leadership; and still others emphasize the role of
   friends. We can use our longitudinal data and a data set on almost the
   entire population of Andersonville put together by the Park Service to
   examine the effects of age, social status, rank, camp population, and
   the presence of own officers on survival.

   The single most important determinant of camp survival was how crowded
   the camp was. Another important determinant of camp survival was age.
   Those of higher rank fared better, as did those with useful skills.
   Men with officers from their own companies were more likely to survive
   than those without or with fewer officers.

   Holding these factors constant, social networks within the camps
   increased a soldier�s survival probability. We can establish this
   because we know each POW�s war company and home town. We document that
   men who were in the camp with �more friends� had higher probabilities
   of survival then men with similar demographics who were in the camp
   with fewer friends. Ties between kin and ties between comrades of the
   same ethnicity were stronger than ties between other men from the same
   company.

   Why did friends increase the probability of surviving POW camps? Did
   friends provide extra food or clothing, tend to the sick, protect
   against the predation of other prisoners? Or did simply having a
   friend have a positive effect on men�s immune and endocrine systems?
   Monkeys randomly assigned to stable or unstable social conditions and
   inoculated with the simian immunodeficiency virus face shorter lives
   if they live in unstable social conditions [4]conditions. We cannot
   run such tests on humans. But, in our final post, we will discuss some
   intriguing evidence for how social networks can cushion psychological
   shocks. [5]We would like to conduct similar survival research based on
   records from the Nazi holocaust camps. We have not been able to
   identify credible network measures (analogous to our War Company
   identifiers) to be able to establish who knew who within these camps.

References

   1. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8734.html
   2. http://www.econ.ucla.edu/costa/papers.html
   3. http://www.nps.gov/ande/
   4. 
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/8/4714.full.pdf+html?sid=3189d966-6e03-417e-8d96-ce6b3e737384
   5. http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to