Research appears to substantiate the liberal conviction that trade fosters global peace. Still, existing understanding of linkages between conflict and international economics is limited in at least two ways. First, cross-border economic relationships are far broader than just trade. Global capital markets dwarf the exchange of goods and services, and states engage in varying degrees of monetary policy coordination. Second, the manner in which economics is said to inhibit conflict behavior is implausible in light of new analytical insights about the causes of war. We discuss, and then demonstrate formally, how interdependence can influence states' recourse to military violence. The risk of disrupting economic linkages—particularly access to capital—may occasionally deter minor contests between interdependent states, but such opportunity costs will typically fail to preclude militarized disputes. Instead, interdependence offers nonmilitarized avenues for communicating resolve through costly signaling. Our quantitative results show that capital interdependence contributes to peace independent of the effects of trade, democracy, interest, and other variables.

A basic debate in world politics involves the impact of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) on international conflict. Liberals, functionalists, and others see IGOs as capable of transforming global anarchy, while realists emphasize the essential irrelevance of IGOs in managing such fundamental processes as war and peace. Recent quantitative studies also yield disparate conclusions depending on particular econometric assumptions, implying variously that IGOs foster pacific relations among states, have no impact on dispute behavior, or even increase dispute propensity. At least part of the problem is a lack of theoretical and empirical specificity. The authors apply bargaining theory to develop a “middle path” between the realist and liberal perspectives. Only some IGOs, those with security mandates and the most sophisticated institutional structures, are likely to influence dispute behavior. The authors combine the theory with two improvements in research design. First, IGOs vary in capability, mandate, and cohesion. The authors construct a dataset of IGO institutional heterogeneity and member cohesiveness. Second, states join IGOs for reasons that are not unrelated to why states fight. The authors control for the level of international involvement among countries and find support for their arguments in initial tests.

This article examines how economic development influences interstate conflict. Rather than theorizing a linear relationship between economic development and state behavior in militarized conflicts, this article hypothesizes a non-linear relationship where both extreme poverty and prosperity reduce this risk. This occurs because states at an intermediate level of development have both the opportunity and willingness to pursue territorial claims, which makes them most prone to militarized interstate conflicts. The changing orientation of economies from agricultural and extractive activities eventually to service-based economies alters the cost–benefit calculations concerning territorial acquisition. Developed states, more reliant on services for their economic growth, are less likely to push territorial claims, decreasing their involvement in interstate conflict. Meanwhile, the poorest states, although they have more to gain through territorial expansion, have a decreased ability to pursue their objectives through military force. The authors examine all states between 1870 and 1992 at the monadic level of analysis. In general, the statistical analysis confirms the hypotheses. States at an intermediate level of development are most prone to initiate and participate in militarized conflicts, including those over the issue of territory and those that result in battlefield deaths. High levels of economic development mitigate the effects of military power and population growth that increase the risk of interstate violence. This project helps explain why past studies have linked development to both war and peace, as well as suggesting possible flashpoints in the future. Finally, the results also suggest that other models in the literature theorizing linear functions for economic development and conflict are misspecified.

No abstract

No abstract

Are democracies generally peaceful? Studies have produced mixed evidence, both for and against this proposition. I review and update the literature on this topic and explore reasons why some scholars have come to emphasize those studies showing that democracies are no more or less conflict-prone than other states. This paper re-examines democracy and conflict at the state level of analysis from 1884 to 1999 using a broad sample of states and appropriate statistical estimators. The results show that democracies are less likely to initiate militarized conflicts. I also find that political competition has a stronger pacifying effect than executive constraints when disaggregating the Polity IV democracy index.

No abstract

Researchers investigating the link between trade and peace often face a severe problem of list-wise deletion from missing trade data. Attempts to mitigate this problem include assuming that most observations are zero or imputing the values of such flows. We compare two frequently used trade data sets (the Gleditsch data set and the Correlates of War Project data set). We classify individual observations as observed, constructed or missing. We demonstrate that state attributes are systematically related to different categories of trade data. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we also find that replacing some missing data with estimated values tends to inflate the effects of trade in conflict models, although the effects differ by data set.