Democracy, Interdependence, and the Sources of the Liberal Peace
Democracy, Interdependence, and the Sources of the Liberal Peace
复制标题
民主、相互依存与自由和平的源泉
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Joseph Grieco
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christopher Gelpi;Joseph Grieco
世界能通过贸易变得更加和平吗？关于贸易对军事冲突影响的实证研究，根据学者们为研究选择的具体措施和实证领域，得出了相互矛盾的结果。这篇文章认为，这些不同的结果可能是由于贸易将防止冲突的条件不够具体。特别是，以前的研究表明，民主领导人依赖于公共政策的成功，如经济增长，以保持他们的政治生存能力在更大程度上比专制领导人。由于贸易有助于促进增长，作者认为民主领导人应该比专制领导人更反对与贸易伙伴发起军事冲突，因为这种冲突可能会破坏商业联系，阻碍政治上重要的经济增长。作者在他们对1950年至1992年间民主和专制国家引发的贸易一体化和国际冲突的分析中找到了支持这一预期的证据。在不同的贸易和冲突数据来源中，结果是稳健的，这表明贸易对冲突的条件影响可能解释了以前结果的差异。然而，这些结果对贸易依赖本身可以成为防止专制国家使用军事力量的机制的观点具有清醒的影响。
Can the world be made more peaceful through commerce? Empirical studies of the impact of trade on military conflict have yielded conflicting results depending on the specific measures and empirical domains that scholars select for their studies. The article suggests that these varying results may be due to inadequate specification of the conditions under which trade will prevent conflict. In particular, previous research suggests that democratic leaders rely on public policy successes, such as economic growth, to maintain their political viability to a greater degree than do autocratic leaders. Since trade can help promote growth, the authors argue that democratic leaders should be more averse than autocratic leaders to initiating military conflicts with trading partners, for such conflicts might damage commercial ties and hamper politically important economic growth. The authors find support for this expectation in their analysis of trade integration and international conflict initiation by democratic and autocratic states between 1950 and 1992. The results are robust across different data sources on trade and conflict, suggesting that the conditional impact of trade on conflict may explain the variance in previous results. However, these results have sobering implications for the view that trade dependence by itself can be a mechanism for preventing autocratic states from using military force.