Sleeping with the enemy: The impact of war on trade
Sleeping with the enemy: The impact of war on trade
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0022343399036004005
复制
发表时间：
1999-07-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Levy, JS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barbieri, K;Levy, JS
当前关于经济相互依存是促进和平还是助长国际冲突的争论，往往是在自由主义和现实主义理论之间的“范式战争”中进行的。尽管存在分歧，但大多数自由主义和现实主义的相互依存和冲突理论都认为，一旦恐惧彼此之间发生严重的冲突，特别是在战争爆发之后，社会之间的贸易和其他形式的经济交流将停止或大幅减少。自由主义理论通常认为，当政治领导人预期冲突会破坏或消除贸易或对贸易条件产生不利影响时，他们就不会参与冲突，因此贸易阻止战争的假设建立在战争阻碍贸易的假设之上。现实主义理论认为，对相对收益的关注将导致至少一个交战国终止贸易，以防止其对手利用贸易收益来增加其相对军事实力。与这些预测相反，历史上有许多例子表明，敌对国家之间的贸易在战时仍在继续。本文的目的是通过对1870年以来的7个时期的战争对贸易的短期和长期影响进行实证分析，更系统地考察这一现象。应用中断的时间序列模型，我们发现，在大多数情况下，战争不会有重大影响的贸易关系。虽然战争有时会导致双边贸易水平的暂时下降，但在大多数情况下，战争对贸易关系没有永久的长期影响，事实上，战后贸易往往会增加。自由主义和现实主义关于相互依存和冲突的理论中的这种经验异常使我们得出结论，这两种理论都需要重新表述。
Current debates over the question of whether economic interdependence promotes peace or contributes to international conflict are often framed in terms of the 'paradigm wars' between liberal and realist theory. In spite of their differences, most liberal and realist theories of interdependence and conflict agree that trade and other forms of economic interchange between societies will cease or be substantially reduced once scares are engaged in serious forms of conflict with each other, particularly after the outbreak of war. Liberal theories generally assume that political leaders are deterred from engaging in conflict when they anticipate that conflict will disrupt or eliminate trade or adversely affect the terms of trade, so the hypothesis that trade deters war rests on the assumption that war impedes trade. Realist theories suggest that the concern over relative gains will lead at least one of the belligerents to terminate trade in order to prevent its adversary from using the gains from trade to increase its relative military power. Contrary to these predictions, there are numerous historical examples of trade between adversaries that continues during wartime. Our aim here is to examine this phenomenon more systematically by conducting an empirical analysis of the short-term and long-term impact of war on trade for seven dyads in the period since 1870. Applying an interrupted time-series model, we find that in most cases war does not have a significant impact on trading relationships. Although war sometimes leads to a temporary decline in the level of dyadic trade, in most instances war has no permanent longterm effect on trading relationships and, in fact, trade often increases in the postwar period. This empirical anomaly in both liberal and realist theories of interdependence and conflict leads us to conclude that both theories need to be reformulated.