IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v41y1997i1p12-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Do “Relative Gains†Impede Trade?

Author

Listed:
  • James D. Morrow

    (Hoover Institution, Stanford University)

Abstract

Neorealists argue that states may refuse mutually profitable trade because of concern about “relative gains.†If one state profits more than another, the latter may fear the former will use its advantage to dominate it. However, the relative gains argument ignores states' ability to respond to external threats by arming. If a state does not spend its entire gain from trade on the military, it is better off with trade than without. Unless states spend a large fraction of the gain from trade on the military, the division of benefits must be very unequal for either state to spend all its gain on the military. Concern with relative gains, then, should not block trade even between rivals; therefore, the conclusion of the relative gains argument does not follow from its premises. The author analyzes this point with a formal model of the enforceability of trade agreements by examining three types of goods.

Suggested Citation

  • James D. Morrow, 1997. "When Do “Relative Gains†Impede Trade?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 12-37, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:41:y:1997:i:1:p:12-37
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002797041001002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002797041001002
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002797041001002?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. Gowa, Joanne, 1989. "Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and Free Trade," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1245-1256, December.
    2. James C. Murdoch & Todd Sandler, 1982. "A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of NATO," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(2), pages 237-263, June.
    3. Mr. John Wakeman-Linn & Ms. Nancy Louise Happe, 1994. "Military Expenditure and Arms Trade: Alternative Data Sources," IMF Working Papers 1994/069, International Monetary Fund.
    4. Powell, Robert, 1993. "Guns, Butter, and Anarchy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 115-132, March.
    5. Pollins, Brian M., 1989. "Does Trade Still Follow the Flag?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 465-480, June.
    6. Gowa, Joanne & Mansfield, Edward D., 1993. "Power Politics and International Trade," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 408-420, June.
    7. Powell, Robert, 1991. "Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1303-1320, December.
    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. Li, Megan Yuan & Makino, Shige & Jiang, Chunyan, 2019. "Does national sentiment affect foreign direct investment, and if so, how? Additional evidence," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 1-1.

    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. Rafael Reuveny & John Maxwell, 1998. "Free Trade and Arms Races," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 771-803, December.
    2. James S. Mosher, 2003. "Relative Gains Concerns when the Number of States in the International System Increases," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(5), pages 642-668, October.
    3. Michelle A. Benson, 2005. "The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads in the Study of Interdependence and Dyadic Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 113-133, April.
    4. Håvard Hegre, 2005. "Development and the Liberal Peace," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 31, pages 17-46.
    5. Tobias Böhmelt, 2010. "The Impact of Trade on International Mediation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(4), pages 566-592, August.
    6. Christina L. Davis & Tyler Pratt, 2021. "The forces of attraction: How security interests shape membership in economic institutions," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 903-929, October.
    7. Timothy M Peterson, 2011. "Third-party trade, political similarity, and dyadic conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 48(2), pages 185-200, March.
    8. Fuchs, Andreas, 2016. "China’s Economic Diplomacy and the Politics-Trade Nexus," Working Papers 0609, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    9. Teng, Jimmy, 2012. "Military competition and size and composition of economy and government," MPRA Paper 37968, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 05 Apr 2012.
    10. Cullen F. Goenner, 2011. "Simultaneity between Trade and Conflict: Endogenous Instruments of Mass Destruction," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(5), pages 459-477, November.
    11. Fuchs, Andreas & Klann, Nils-Hendrik, 2013. "Paying a visit: The Dalai Lama effect on international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 164-177.
    12. Edward D. Mansfield & Brian M. Pollins, 2001. "The Study of Interdependence and Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 834-859, December.
    13. Yan, Jiaqiang & Zhou, Yonghong, 2021. "Economic return to political support: Evidence from voting on the representation of China in the United Nations," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    14. Jianting Fan & Bo Lu, 2021. "The impact of summit visits on bilateral trade: Empirical evidence from China," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(12), pages 3583-3608, December.
    15. Guanyi Leu, 2011. "ASEAN’s Preferential Trade Agreements (PTA) Strategy," Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, Institute of Asian Studies, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, vol. 30(2), pages 31-64.
    16. Stephen J. Majeski & Shane Fricks, 1995. "Conflict And Cooperation in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(4), pages 622-645, December.
    17. Lin, Faqin & Hu, Cui & Fuchs, Andreas, 2019. "How do firms respond to political tensions? The heterogeneity of the Dalai Lama Effect on trade," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 73-93.
    18. Daniel Albalate & Germà Bel & Ferran A. Mazaira-Font & Xavier Ros-Oton, 2023. "Paying for Protection: Bilateral Trade with an Alliance Leader and Defense Spending of Minor Partners," IREA Working Papers 202317, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Nov 2023.
    19. (ed.), 0. "Research Handbook on Economic Diplomacy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16053.
    20. Kim Myeong Hwan & Kim Dongsoo & Han Yongseung, 2008. "The Impact of International Institutions on Bilateral Trade: Economic and Political," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 8(4), pages 1-22, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jocore:v:41:y:1997:i:1:p:12-37. 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.