IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp2170.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade, Peace and Democracy: An Analysis of Dyadic Dispute

Author

Listed:
  • Polachek, Solomon

    () (Binghamton University, New York)

  • Seiglie, Carlos

    () (Rutgers University)

Abstract

At least since 1750 when Baron de Montesquieu declared "peace is the natural effect of trade," a number of economists and political scientists espoused the notion that trade among nations leads to peace. Employing resources wisely to produce one commodity rather than employing them inefficiently to produce another is the foundation for comparative advantage. Specialization based on comparative advantage leads to gains from trade. If political conflict leads to a diminution of trade, then at least a portion of the costs of conflict can be measured by a nation's lost gains from trade. The greater two nations' gain from trade the more costly is bilateral (dyadic) conflict. This notion forms the basis of Baron de Montesquieu's assertion regarding dyadic dispute. This paper develops an analytical framework showing that higher gains from trade between two trading partners (dyads) lowers the level of conflict between them. It describes data necessary to test this hypothesis, and it outlines current developments and extensions taking place in the resulting trade-conflict literature. Cross-sectional evidence using various data on political interactions confirms that trading nations cooperate more and fight less. A doubling of trade leads to a 20% diminution of belligerence. This result is robust under various specifications, and it is upheld when adjusting for causality using cross-section and time-series techniques. Further, the impact of trade is strengthened when bilateral import demand elasticities are incorporated to better measure gains from trade. Because democratic dyads trade more than non-democratic dyads, democracies cooperate with each other relatively more, thereby explaining the "democratic peace" that democracies rarely fight each other. The paper then goes on to examine further extensions of the trade-conflict model regarding specific commodity trade, foreign direct investment, tariffs, foreign aid, country contiguity, and multilateral interactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Polachek, Solomon & Seiglie, Carlos, 2006. "Trade, Peace and Democracy: An Analysis of Dyadic Dispute," IZA Discussion Papers 2170, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp2170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2170.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Polachek Solomon W, 2011. "Current Research and Future Directions in Peace Economics: Trade Gone Awry," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-14, January.
    2. Dawood Mamoon & S. Murshed, 2010. "The conflict mitigating effects of trade in the India-Pakistan case," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 145-167, April.
    3. repec:epc:journl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:21-31 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Han Dorussen & Hugh Ward, 2011. "Disaggregated Trade Flows and International Conflict," Chapters,in: The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 25 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Vincenzo Bove & Leandro Elia & Petros G. Sekeris, 2014. "US Security Strategy and the Gains from Bilateral Trade," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 863-885, November.
    6. d'Agostino, Giorgio & Daddi, Pierluigi & Pieroni, Luca & Steinbrueck, Eric, 2014. "Does military spending stimulate growth? An empirical investigation in Italy," MPRA Paper 58290, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Anderton,Charles H. & Carter,John R., 2009. "Principles of Conflict Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521875578.
    8. Shoro Armstrong, 2010. "Interaction Between Trade, Conflict And Cooperation: The Case Of Japan And China," Asia Pacific Economic Papers 386, Australia-Japan Research Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    9. Murshed, Mansoob & Mamoon, Dawood, 2008. "The consequences of Not Loving thy neigbor as Thyself: Trade, democracy and military explainations behind India Pakistan rivalry," MPRA Paper 10429, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor, 2016. "Economic Diplomacy in Africa: The Impact of Regional Integration versus Bilateral Diplomacy on Bilateral Trade," Economics Working Papers 2016-09, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    11. Seitz, Michael & Tarasov, Alexander & Zakharenko, Roman, 2015. "Trade costs, conflicts, and defense spending," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 305-318.
    12. Caruso Raul, 2011. "On the Nature of Peace Economics," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, January.
    13. Jha, Saumitra, 2008. "Trade, Institutions and Religious Tolerance: Evidence from India," Research Papers 2004, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. D'Souza, Anna, 2014. "Conflict and Trade: Implications for Agriculture and Food Security," Proceedings Issues, 2014: Food, Resources and Conflict, December 7-9, 2014, San Diego, California 197200, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    15. Mamoon, Dawood & Murshed, S. Mansoob, 2007. "Politics Remains but Economics Leads and Peace Follows: Making a Case for India-Pakistan Peace Process in line with China Model," MPRA Paper 3075, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. repec:ksp:journ3:v:4:y:2017:i:3:p:322-328 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Mamoon, Dawood, 2017. "Beyond being Good Neighbors: Proximity to International Markets Matter More for India Pakistan Peace," MPRA Paper 83098, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Dawood MAMOON, 2017. "Missing the Peace Train in 2006: Economic and political dynamics of India Pakistan hostility?," Journal of Economic and Social Thought, KSP Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 322-328, Seprember.
    19. Polachek Solomon W & Xiang Jun, 2010. "Opportunity Costs and the Probability of War in an Incomplete Information Game (With Comments by Lloyd Jeff Dumas)," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-6, June.
    20. 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.
    21. Mamoon, Dawood & S. Mansoob, Murshed, 2008. "On the Conflict Mitigating Effects of Trade: The India-Pakistan Case," MPRA Paper 10431, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    22. Murshed, S.M. & Mamoon, D., 2007. "On the Costs of Not Loving Thy Neighbour as Thyself," ISS Working Papers - General Series 18748, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    23. Scott L. BAIER & Jeffrey H. BERGSTRAND & Peter EGGER, 2009. "The Growth Of Regional Economic Integration Agreements And The Middle East," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 29, pages 11-30.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    conflict; cooperation; interdependence; gains from trade; dyadic dispute; democratic peace; trade; democracy;

    JEL classification:

    • F01 - International Economics - - General - - - Global Outlook
    • F51 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - International Conflicts; Negotiations; Sanctions
    • F59 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy - - - Other
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iza:izadps:dp2170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Fallak). General contact details of provider: http://www.iza.org .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.