Suchergebnisse

This response counters Barbieri & Levy's assessment of Anderton & Carter's empirical study of the disruption of trade by war. A close examination of Anderton & Carter's results shows significant trade disruption in 17 of 19 long war dyads and in 21 of 27 dyads in total. These results constitute reasonably strong evidence that war disrupts trade.

The `trade promotes peace' hypothesis rests upon three premises: (1) Societies achieve salient economic gains from their trading relationships; (2) serious conflict among societies disrupts trade; and (3) premises 1 and 2 enter the calculus of political decisionmakers. If any one of the three premises does not hold, the liberal linkage between trade and peace is broken. In a recent analysis of seven non-major power dyads, Katherine Barbieri & Jack Levy raise doubts about the second premise upon which the liberal hypothesis rests. In this article, we further test the trade disruption premise. We use an interrupted time-series model to study the impact of war on trade for 14 major power dyads. We find reasonably strong evidence that major power war is associated with a decline in trade relative to pre- and postwar periods. We also investigate the impact of war on trade for 13 non-major power dyads. Here the evidence is weaker but on balance remains supportive of the trade disruption premise.

Globalization and Armed Conflict addresses one of the most important and controversial issues of our time: Does global economic integration foster or suppress violent disputes within and among states? Here, cutting-edge research by leading figures in international relations shows that expanding commercial ties between states pacifies some, but not necessarily all, political relationships. The authors demonstrate that the pacific effect of economic integration hinges on democratic structures, the size of the global system, the nature of the trade goods, and a reduced influence of the mil