Democracy and peace: Reply to oneal and russett

Abstract

The criticism of James, Solberg and Wolfson (JSW) (1999) by Oneal and Russett (OR) is not responsive to the methodologica] issues at stake. JSW argued that war is an endogenous feature of the world political and economic system. If its causes are to be measured, it must be as a structural equation in a simultaneous system. Wedded to the idea that “democracies never fight each other,” OR rely on a single equation to justify their view. JSW claim that such an equation may be an ad hoc reduced form with no causal implications unless the equation is explicitly identified as a structural equation. JSW expand the model to explain democracy and conflict as two endogenous variables. JSW do not claim to have discovered the true relationships between these variables by their minimal expansion of the structural relation. They do show that unless these (and other) variables are treated as part of a system, the results are unstable, contradictory, of minimal size and not a reliable guide to public policy.Peace-democracy, International relations, Simultaneous system, Identification problem,

The Democratic Peace and a Sequential, Reciprocal, Causal Arrow Hypothesis

“…Oneal and Russett (2000) respond specifically to James et al (1999). James, Solberg, and Wolfson (2000) respond to Oneal and Russett. Much of this point and counterpoint deals with methodological and operational issues pertaining to the short-term reciprocal relationship between peace and democracy, as opposed to the sequential argument that is pursued here. However, Oneal and Russett (p. 207) should be added to the list of authors who find no relationship from militarized disputes to democracy.…”

Democracy and Military Expenditure: A Cross-Country Evidence

“…It is generally believed that democratic states are more likely to be at peace and less prone to become involved in international conflicts (e.g., James et al 1999James et al , 2000Oneal and Russet 1997). From this line of argument it follows that as the degree of democracy increases in a country, one would expect a decrease in the defence expenditures of that country (see Lebovic 2001).…”

Assessing the Progress of the Democratic Peace Research Program

“…Although the dyad as the unit of analysis has already been rejected as a potential proposition to the hard core, it is necessary to consider the dyad‐year in its own light. As a potential proposition to the hard core, the dyad‐year is especially problematic for two related reasons: (i) it is a methodological choice to use the dyad‐year as the empirical unit of time observation—the spatio‐temporally defined entity that is observed in order to derive values of the dependent variable—although many within the research program have employed this (James, Solberg, and Wolfson 2000:225) and (ii) any research conducted on the potential pacific effects of democracy that did not employ this unit of analysis would contradict the hard core, while still clearly being a part of the research program.…”