How trade affects international interactions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15355/epsj.2.2.60Abstract
A viable peace is one that comes about naturally and persists without the need for outside intervention. At least since Baron de Montesquieu's statement that "peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who traffic with each other become reciprocally dependent: for if one has the interest in buying, the other has the interest in selling and thus their union is founded on the mutual necessities" (1748) a number of economists and political scientists maintained that trade among nations leads to peace. That logic is as follows: If a target country that is the recipient of conflict retaliates by cutting its trade ties with the conflict instigator, then a portion of the costs of conflict born by the instigator results from its lost gains from trade. Conflict is more costly the higher these gains from trade losses. This article summarizes some of the empirical work testing this proposition.References
Anderton, C.H. 2003. “Does Trade Disrupt War?” in G. Schneider, K. Barbieri, and N. P. Gleditsch, eds. Globalization and Armed Conflict. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Anderton, C.H. and J. Carter. 2001. “The Impact of War on Trade: An Interrupted Time-Series Study.” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, p. 445-457.
Barbieri, K. 2002. The Liberal Illusion: Does Trade Promote Peace? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Barbieri, K. and J. Levy. 2003. “The Trade Disruption Hypothesis and the Liberal Economic Theory of Peace,” in G. Schneider, K. Barbieri, and N. P. Gleditsch, eds. Globalization and Armed Conflict. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
de Montesquieu, B. 1900 [1750]. The Spirit of Laws. Tr. by Thomas Nugent. New York: Collier Press.
Gasiorowski, M. and S. Polachek. 1982. “Conflict and Interdependence: East-West Trade and Linkages in the Era of Detente.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 26, pp. 709-730.
Gilpin, R. 1977. “Economic Interdependence and National Security in Historical Perspctive,” in K. Knorr and F.N. Trager, eds. Economic Issues and National Security. Lawrence, KS: Regents Press of Kansas.
Gowa, J. 1994. Allies, Adversaries, and International Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mansfield, E.D. 1994. Power, Trade and War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mansfield, E.D., ed. 2004. International Conflict and the Global Economy. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar.
Mansfield, E.D. and B.M. Pollins. 2003. New Perspectives on Economic Exchange and Armed Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
McMillan, S. 1997. “Interdependence and Conflict.” Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 41, pp. 33-58.
Polachek, S.W. 1980. “Conflict and Trade.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 24, pp. 55-78.
Polachek, S.W. 1992. “Conflict and Trade: An Economics Approach to Political International Interactions,” pp. 89-120 in W. Isard and C.H. Anderton, eds. Economics of Arms Reduction and the Peace Process. New York: Elsevier Science.
Polachek, S.W. 1997. “Why Democracies Cooperate More and Fight Less: The Relationship between International Trade and Cooperation.” Review of International Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 295-309.
Polachek, S.W. 2002. “Trade-Based Interactions: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.” Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 19, pp. 1-21.
Polachek, S.W. and J.A. McDonald. 1992. “Strategic Trade and the Incentive for Cooperation,” pp. 273-284 in M. Chatterji and L. Forcey, eds. Disarmament, Economic Conversion, and the Management of Peace. New York: Praeger.
Polachek, S.W. and C. Seiglie. 2007. “Trade, Peace and Democracy: An Analysis of Dyadic Dispute,” pp. 1017-1073 in T. Sandler and K. Hartley, eds. Handbook of Defense Economics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Polachek, S.W. and J. Xiang. 2006. “Globalization and the Trade-Conflict Relationship: Is the Conflict-Trade Elasticity Getting Stronger?” Working Paper. SUNY Binghamton, NY.
Pollins, B. 1989a. “Does Trade Still Follow the Flag?” American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, pp. 465-480.
Pollins, B. 1989b. “Conflict Cooperation and Commerce: The Effect of International Political Interactions.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, pp. 737-761.
Reuveny, R. 1999. “The Trade Conflict Debate: A Survey of Theory, Evidence and Future Research.” Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy, Vol. 6, pp. 23-49.
Reuveny, R. 2001. “Disaggregated Trade and Conflict: Exploring Propositions in a Simultaneous Framework.” International Politics, Vol. 38, pp. 401-428.
Reuveny, R. and H. Kang. 1996. “International Trade, Political Conflict/Cooperation, and Granger Causality.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, pp. 943-970.
Reuveny, R. and H. Kang. 1998. “Bilateral Trade and Political Conflict/Cooperation: Do Goods Matter?” Journal of Peace Research Vol. 35, pp. 581-602.
Reuveny, R. and H. Kang. 2003. “A Simultaneous-Equations Model of Trade, Conflict, and Cooperation.” Review of International Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 279-295.
Richardson, L.F. 1960. Arms and Insecurity: A Mathematical Study of the Causes and Origins of War. Pittsburgh, PA: Boxwood Press; Chicago, I: Quadrangle Books.
Ripsman, N. and J.-M. Blanchard. 1996/1997. “Commercial Liberalism under Fire: Evidence from 1914 and 1936.” Security Studies, Vol. 6, No, 2, pp. 4-50.
Rummel, R.J. 1979. War, Power, Peace. Vol. 4 of Understanding Conflict and War. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press.
Sayrs, L.W. 1990. “Expected Utility and Peace Science: An Assessment of Trade and Conflict.” Conflict Management and Peace Science Vol. 11, pp. 17-44.
Schneider, G., K. Barbieri, and N.P. Gleditsch. 2003. “Does Globalization Contribute to Peace? A Critical Survey of the Literature,” pp. 3-29 in G. Schneider, K. Barbieri, and N.P. Gleditsch, eds. Globalization and Armed Conflict. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
