IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v22y2005i1p63-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Mousseau

    (Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey, MMousseau@ku.edu.tr)

Abstract

Stuart Bremer counseled against the falsificationist convention of testing new models against the null hypothesis of no model. Instead, new models should be compared against prior beliefs, and theories should compete, whenever possible, on a field of equivalent test conditions. This article applies Stuart Bremer's notion of comparative theory testing by comparing a new model of contract norms with the prior institutionalist model of democratic peace. On a field of equivalent test conditions it is found that the hypothesis for contract norms (that the democratic peace is contingent upon economic development) is thousands of times more likely to be true than the hypothesis for institutionalist theory (that democracy pacifies all dyads regardless of economic conditions). Democracy appears to be a significant force for peace only in dyads that are above the median income: the richest 45%. The results indicate that scholars of war should update the widespread prior belief that democracy, alone, causes peace.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Mousseau, 2005. "Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 63-77, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:22:y:2005:i:1:p:63-77
    DOI: 10.1080/07388940590915327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/07388940590915327
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07388940590915327?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dixon, William J., 1994. "Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 14-32, March.
    2. Lipset, Seymour Martin, 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 69-105, March.
    3. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    4. Keohane, Robert O., 2001. "Governance in a Partially Globalized World," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 1-13, March.
    5. Moravcsik, Andrew, 1997. "Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 513-553, October.
    6. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    7. Thompson, William R., 1996. "Democracy and peace: putting the cart before the horse?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 141-174, January.
    8. Michael Mousseau, 2002. "An Economic Limitation to the Zone of Democratic Peace and Cooperation," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 137-164, April.
    9. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Morrow, James D. & Siverson, Randolph M. & Smith, Alastair, 1999. "An Institutional Explanation of the Democratic Peace," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 791-807, December.
    10. Lake, David A., 1992. "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 24-37, March.
    11. Burkhart, Ross E. & Lewis-Beck, Michael S., 1994. "Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(4), pages 903-910, December.
    12. Patrick James & Eric Solberg & Murray Wolfson, 1999. "An identified systemic model of the democracy-peace nexus," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 1-37.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Weede Erich, 2006. "Globale Ordnungspolitik im Zeitalter amerikanischer Hegemonie: Kritische Anmerkungen dazu, wie man Demokratie und Kapitalismus nicht verbreiten kann / Global Order in the Era of American Hegemony," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 57(1), pages 371-392, January.
    2. Erich Weede, 2011. "The Capitalist Peace," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Lin Scott Y. & Seiglie Carlos, 2014. "Same Evidences, Different Interpretations – A Comparison of the Conflict Index between the Interstate Dyadic Events Data and Militarized Interstate Disputes Data in Peace-Conflict Models," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 1-26, April.
    4. Christopher J. Coyne & Anne R. Bradley, 2019. "Ludwig von Mises on war and the economy," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(3), pages 215-228, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.
    2. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.
    3. Michael Mousseau, 1998. "Democracy and Compromise in Militarized Interstate Conflicts, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(2), pages 210-230, April.
    4. William J. Dixon & Paul D. Senese, 2002. "Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 547-571, August.
    5. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    6. Jason Enia & Patrick James, 2015. "Regime Type, Peace, and Reciprocal Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 523-539, June.
    7. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    8. Michael Mousseau, 2000. "Market Prosperity, Democratic Consolidation, and Democratic Peace," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(4), pages 472-507, August.
    9. Ely Ratner, 2009. "Reaping What You Sow," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(3), pages 390-418, June.
    10. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Scott Gates & HÃ¥vard Hegre, 1999. "Evolution in Democracy-War Dynamics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(6), pages 771-792, December.
    11. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    12. Håvard Hegre, 2005. "Development and the Liberal Peace," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 31, pages 17-46.
    13. Kenneth A. Schultz, 2001. "Looking for Audience Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 32-60, February.
    14. Sebastian Rosato, 2011. "On the Democratic Peace," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita & Michael T. Koch & Randolph M. Siverson, 2004. "Testing Competing Institutional Explanations of the Democratic Peace: The Case of Dispute Duration," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(4), pages 255-267, September.
    16. Jonas Tallberg & Thomas Sommerer & Theresa Squatrito, 2016. "Democratic memberships in international organizations: Sources of institutional design," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 59-87, March.
    17. Conconi, Paola & Sahuguet, Nicolas & Zanardi, Maurizio, 2018. "Electoral incentives, term limits, and the sustainability of peace," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 15-26.
    18. Seung-Whan Choi, 2010. "Legislative Constraints: A Path to Peace?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(3), pages 438-470, June.
    19. Michael Mousseau, 2012. "The Democratic Peace Unraveled: It’s the Economy," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 1207, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    20. Brian Lai & Dan Reiter, 2000. "Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(2), pages 203-227, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:22:y:2005:i:1:p:63-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.