slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Nils Petter Gleditsch Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW at PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Nils Petter Gleditsch Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW at

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

Nils Petter Gleditsch Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW at - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

The liberal peace – a capitalist peace? Lecture at HEI, 10 May 2007 Course E 584 Topics in Peace Research. Nils Petter Gleditsch Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW at International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) & Department of Sociology and Political Science,

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Nils Petter Gleditsch Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW at

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. The liberal peace – a capitalist peace?Lecture at HEI, 10 May 2007Course E 584 Topics in Peace Research Nils Petter Gleditsch Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW at International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) & Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

    2. A puzzle • The democratic peace: Democracy (at the dyadic level) is a sufficient condition for peace • A market economy is a (monadic) necessary condition for democracy • A + b = ? – nothing, really • But the debate about the capitalist peace arises out of this puzzle

    3. Four intersecting topics • The Liberal Peace • Globalization and conflict • How development modifies the liberal peace • The capitalist peace

    4. Brief history of the liberal peace • Kant (1795/1991: 114): ‘the spirit of commerce sooner or later takes hold of every people, and it cannot exist side by side with war’ • Montesquieu, Adam Smith: Market interests run counter to war • John Stuart Mill (1861/1998): Market forces render war obsolete • Norman Angell (1909/1938: 60): It has become impossible for one nation to seize by force the wealth or trade of another … war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those aims for which peoples strive • Polachek (1980): Trade reduces conflict • Levitt (1983): Globalization • Rosecrance (1986): Trading states • Russett & Oneal (1996, 2001, etc.): The three-legged Kantian Peace • Barbieri (1996): Trade  conflict • Hegre (2000), Mousseau (2002, 2003): Economic limitations to the liberal peace • Weede (2004), Gartzke (2007): The capitalist peace

    5. Definition of globalization Globalization is a historical process where the world is tied more closely together on several levels - economically - technologically - ecologically - culturally - politically • the ‘process by which the experience of everyday life ... is becoming standardized around the world’ (Encyclopedia Britannica) • … increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres (Wikipedia) • A network of mutual dependence between continents • De-territorialization • Modernization? Westernization? • Uneven speed in different areas and different processes • Counter-reactions? (Jihad vs. McWorld)

    6. Alleged consequences of globalization • Security • More peace in a democratic and interdependent world? OR: Global anarchy and chaos, intolerance, and violence, civil war, fundamentalism, terrorism, drug trade? • More environmental cooperation? OR: Higher environmental insecurity? • Economic development and security? OR: More unemployment, mass flight of qualified labor to developed countries, political instability? • Greater mutual understanding? OR: Cultural imperialism? • End of history? OR: Clash of civilizations? • Inequality • Economic growth and welfare (as in Botswana, Chile, China, Hungary), human rights and women’s rights on the political agenda, WB and IMF changing? OR: Greater income differences within and between countries, between urban and rural areas? • Democracy • Diffusion of democracy, information society, Internet, new media? OR: Elite democracy, digital divide  Globalization at the root of all that is good and all that is evil?

    7. Grand theories of globalization? Liberalism • Globalization has transcended the state system, which opens up many new opportunities that are difficult to anticipate. Trade reduces conflict Radicalism • Globalization is but a new stage in international capitalism (economic imperialism). Trade exacerbates conflict Realism • Globalization influences our social, economic and cultural lives, but power politics and the interstate struggle for security is more fundamental. Trade is irrelevant to conflict

    8. Liberalism and globalization • Central thinkers: Locke, Bentham, Smith, Ricardo • Central concepts: Freedom, equality, property rights • Basic development optimism, harmony • Everyone gains from international trade and interaction via comparative advantage • Free markets and open economy is important for development because of competition

    9. Radicalism and globalization • Central thinkers: Rousseau, Marx, Lenin • Central concepts: Class struggle and revolution • Capitalism to blame for the gap between rich and poor • Private property breeds inequality • Trade leads to conflict (structuralists, neo-marxists) • Trade leads to war (marxists, leninists) • Markets must be governed • Revolution

    10. The liberal model Open economy Economic development Peace Democracy Source: Hegre, Gissinger & Gleditsch (2003)

    11. The radical model Conflict Open economy Inequality

    12. Empirics: trade and interstate conflict • Trade/openness leads to peace • Polachek et al., 1980, 1992,1999; Oneal et al., 1996, 1997, 1999ab, 2003; Gartzke, 2007 • Trade/openness leads to conflict • Mansfield, 1994; Reuveny, 1999ab; Barbieri, 1996, 2002 • Trade/openness leads to peace or conflict • conflict for poor dyads, not for rich (Hegre, 2003) • conflict for autocratic dyads, not for democratic (Gelpi & Grieco, 2003) For surveys of the debate, see Macmillan (1997), Schneider, Barbieri & Gleditsch (2003a,b), Mansfield & Pollins (2003)

    13. The Kantian liberal peace Source: Russett & Oneal (2001: 35)

    14. Substantive effect of the liberal peace Reduction in risk (%) All onsets Fatal MIDs Baseline 0 0 Democracy to 90th percentile -66 -86 Trade/GDP to 90th percentile -22 -32 Increase in IGO to 90th percentile -22 -43 Allies +03 +01 Capability ratio to 90th percentile -30 -71 All three liberal factors to 90th perc. -79 -95 Oneal, Russett & Berbaum (2003: 382)

    15. Is IGO membership a liberal factor? Russett & Oneal (2001): The number of common IGO memberships Boehmer, Gartzke & Nordstrom (2004): Only organizations with security mandates and the most sophisticated institutional structures count Pevehouse & Russett (2006): Densely democratic IGOs promote peace

    16. Limitations of the interstate democratic peace Source: Mousseau, Hegre & Oneal (2003: 298)

    17. Globalization and intrastate conflict Direct effect? (No) Indirect positive effect via development and democracy? Indirect negative effect via inequality? Source: This slide and the next two build mostly on Hegre, Gissinger & Gleditsch (2003). Additional support for the liberal model is found in Barbieri & Reuveny (2005), Bussmann, Schneider & Wiesehomeier (2005), and Bussmann & Schneider (2007)

    18. Indirect effect I: Globalization → economic growth? • Generally: strongest economic growth in the least developed countries • Trade/GDP and FDI/GDP have a positive, but not significant effect on economic growth (other studies find a positive and significant effect) • Reverse causation? FDI to countries with high economic growth • Trade has the greatest positive effect for rich countries, less good for countries with high exports of primary products • Economic openness (low tariffs and quotas, less extensive black market, low state control of the export sector) has a positive and significant effect

    19. Indirect effect II: Globalization → inequality? • High trade is associated with high inequality, but not significantly • Except for the very poorest countries, economic growth is associated with lower inequality • Economic openness leads to lower inequality, particularly for rich countries • Trade impacts poor and rich countries in different ways: • For poor countries trade leads to higher inequality (not significant) • For rich countries it is opposite: high trade reduces inequality (significant)  If trade leads to economic growth, trade can lead to less inequality in the long run

    20. Economic development and civil war • Apart from population size, economic development is the most robust correlate of civil peace (Collier et al., 2003; Fearon & Latitin, 2003; Hegre & Sambanis, 2006) • What explains the relationship: development  peace? • High level of education promotes peaceful conflict resolution • High income and low unemployment reduces the motivation for rebellion • More difficult to recruit rebels • More stable government, more difficult to challenge the leadership militarily • Rich countries more responsive to demands for a redistribution of resources • Rich countries less vulnerable to economic shocks • Rich countries have greater resources for surveillance of the population (bureaucratic infrastructure, but also policing) • Conflict is more costly in rich countries, stronger incentive to keep the peace

    21. Globalization  civil war? • High trade or FDI has no effect on civil war • High (vertical) inequality has no effect on civil war either • but how about horizontal inequality? • For the very poorest countries growth does not matter much for conflict • For other countries, economic growth reduces the risk of civil war • Level of economic development is, apart from population size, the factor that has the highest effect on the risk of civil war (Collier et al., 2003; Fearon & Laitin, 2003)  If trade and openness contribute to higher development in the long run, they will indirectly reduce the risk of conflict

    22. The growth of the liberal factors Source: Lacina, Russett & Gleditsch (2005)

    23. Capitalism  War Capitalism  imperialism  war (Hobson, 1902; Lenin, 1916/1964) ‘[T]he inevitability of war between capitalist countries remains in force.’ (Stalin, 1952) Economic development  increased volume and diversification  lateral pressure  influence abroad to secure raw materials and markets  more war (Choucri & North (1975) For a survey, see Väyrynen (2006)

    24. Capitalism  Peace Weede (2004): • Democracies rarely fight each other • Prosperity promotes democracy • Market economy and free trade promote growth • Bilateral trade reduces the risk of war Prosperity  Democracy ↗ ↘ Trade -------------------------------------------------- Peace

    25. Capitalism  Peace Gartzke (2007): • Changes in the nature of production makes it difficult to manage economies through force • Economic interdependence makes war and destruction counterproductive • Trade interdependence (Russett et al.) may not be the most important factor • Capital and monetary integration measured with eight variables from IMF • Three capitalist mechanisms lead to peace: - Economic development - Similar interests - Globalization of capital • Empirical findings: - Democracy and Trade significantly reduce MIDs - But no longer when Open markets is introduced - Development reduces violence for contiguous states (lower incentive for territorial expansion) - But increases it for non-contiguous states (greater ability to project power)

    26. Gartzke (2007): The capitalist peace

    27. Research conclusions • Mixed results, but more support for the liberal model than for the radical model (particularly for interstate conflict and inequality) • Economic openness reduces inequality, increases economic growth, reduces the danger of interstate conflict, negligible direct effect on internal conflict • Economic development (at least beyond a certain level) reduces inequality, growth, and all forms of conflict, increases regime stability • Unclear relationship between globalization and new forms of conflict (terrorism, political violence) • Open markets may be more important than democracy or trade • But what about reverse causation?

    28. Policy questions • Promoting economic growth is good for development, equality, and democracy – and also for peace (cf. Nobel Peace Prize 2006 to Grameen Bank) • Is the ‘long peace of ASEAN’ a capitalist peace? (Kivimäki, 2001; Goldsmith, 2007) • What can be done for the losers in the globalization process? • Exporting democracy by force may be useless or counterproductive • How can the market economy be exported?

    29. References (1) Angell, Normann, 1938. The Great Illusion – Now. Harmondsworth: Penguin. [First version published 1909.] Babst, Dean V., 1964. 'Elective Governments – A Force For Peace', Wisconsin Sociologist 3(1): 9 –14 Barbieri, Katherine, 1996. ‘Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?’, Journal of Peace Research 33(1): 29–49 Barbieri, Katherine, 2002. The Liberal Illusion: Does Trade Promote Peace? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Barbieri, Katherine & Rafael Reuveny, 2005. ‘Economic Globalization and Civil War’, Journal of Politics 67(4): 1228–1247 Boehmer, Charles; Erik Gartzke & Timothy Nordstrom, 2004. ‘Do Intergovernmental Organizations Promote Peace?’, World Politics 57(1): 1–38 Bussmann, Margit & Gerald Schneider, 2007. ‘When Globalization Discontent Turns Violent: Foreign Economic Liberalization and Internal War’, International Studies Quarterly 51(1): 79–97 Bussmann, Margit; Gerald Schneider & Nina Wiesehomeier, 2005. ‘Foreign Economic Liberalization and Peace: The Case of Sub-saharan Africa’, European Journal of International Relations 11(4): 551–579 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce & Randolph M. Siverson, 1995: ’War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Type and Political Accountability’, American Political Science Review 89(4): 841–855 Chan, Steve, 1997: ’In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise’, Mershon International Studies Review 41(1): 59–91 Choucri, Nazli & Robert C. North, 1975. Nations in Conflict: National Growth and International Violence. San Francisco, CA: Freeman Collier, Paul; Lani Elliott, Håvard Hegre, Anke Hoeffler, Marta Reynal-Querol & Nicholas Sambanis, 2003. Breaking the Conflict Trap. Civil War and Development Policy. New York: Oxford University Press & Washington, DC: World Bank, Doyle, Michael W., 1983: ’Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, part 1: 12(3) 205–235, part 2: 12(4): 323–353 Doyle, Michael W., 1986. ’Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review 80(4): 1151–1169 Fearon James D. & David D. Laitin, 2003. ‘Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War’, American Political Science Review 97(1): 75–90 Gaddis, John Lewis, 2007. The Cold War. London: Penguin. [Originally published in the US by Penguin Press, 2005] Gartzke, Erik, 2007. ‘The Capitalist Peace’, American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 166–191 Gelpi, Christopher & Joseph Grieco, 2003. ‘Conceptualizing the Liberal Peace’, in Edward D. Mansfield & Brian Pollins, eds, Economic Interdependence and International Conflict. Ann Arbor. MI: University of Michigan Press  Goldsmith, Benjamin E, 2007. ‘A Liberal Peace in Asia?’, Journal of Peace Research 44(1): 5–27

    30. References (2) Hegre, Håvard, 2000. ’Development and the Liberal Peace: What Does It Take to be a Trading State?’, Journal of Peace Research 37(1): 5–30 Hegre, Håvard, 2003. Disentangling Democracy and Development as Determinants of Armed Conflict’, paper presented at the 44th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Portland, OR, 25 February–1 March Hegre, Håvard; Ranveig Gissinger & Nils Petter Gleditsch, 2003. ‘Globalization and Internal Conflict’, in Gerald Schneider, Katherine Barbieri & Nils Petter Gleditsch, eds, Globalization and Armed Conflict. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield (251–276) Hegre, Håvar & Nicholas Sambanis, 2006. ‘Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(4): 508–535 Hobson, John A., 1902/1965. Imperialism: A Study. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Kant, Immanuel, 1795/1991. ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’, reprinted in Hans Reiss, ed., Kant’s Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (93–130) Kivimäki, Timo, 2001. ‘The Long Peace of ASEAN’, Journal of Peace Research 38(1): 5–25 Lacina, Bethany; Bruce Russett & Nils Petter Gleditsch, 2005. 'The Declining Risk Of Death In Battle', Paper Presented To The 46th Annual Convention Of The International Studies Association, Honolulu, 2–5 March Lenin, Vladimir, I., 1916/1964. Imperialism – the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1951, Levitt, Theodore, 1983. ‘The Globalization of Markets’, Harvard Business Review 61(3): 92–102 Macmillan, Susan M., 1997. ‘Interdependence and Conflict’, Mershon International Studies Review 41(1): 33-58 Mansfield, Edward D. 1994. Power, Trade, and War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universitz Press Mansfield, Edward D. & Brian M. Pollins, 2003. Economic Interdependence and International Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Marshall, Monty; Keith Jaggers & Ted Robert Gurr, 2004. The Polity IV Project, Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2004, Www.Cidcm.Umd.Edu/Polity/. Mill, John Stuart, 1861/1998. Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press Mousseau, Michael, 2002. ‘An Economic Limitation to the Zone of Democratic Peace and Cooperation’, International Interactions 28(2): 137–164 Mousseau, Michael, 2003. ’The Nexus of Market Society, Liberal Preferences, and Democratic Peace: Interdisciplinary Theory and Evidence’, International Studies Quarterly 47(4): 483–510 Mousseau, Michael, Håvard Hegre & John R. Oneal, 2003. 'How the Wealth of Nations Conditions the Liberal Peace', European Journal of International Relations 9(2): 277–314 Oneal, John R; Frances H. Oneal, Zeev Maoz & Bruce Russett, 1996. The Liberal Peace: Interdependence, Democracy, and International Conflict, 1950-85’,Journal of Peace Research 33(1): 11–28

    31. References (3) Oneal, John R. & Bruce Russett, 1997. ‘The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–85’, International Studies Quarterly 41(2): 267–2 Oneal, John R. & Bruce Russett, 1999a. ‘Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict’, Journal of Peace Research 36(4): 423–442 Oneal, John R. & Bruce Russett, 1999. ‘The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885-1992’, World Politics 52(1): 1–37 Oneal, John R. & Bruce Russett, 2003. ‘Modeling Conflict while Studying Dynamics. A Response to Nathaniel Beck’, in Gerald Schneider, Katherine Barbieri & Nils Petter Gleditsch, eds, Globalization and Armed Conflict. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield (179–188) Oneal, John R.: Bruce Russett & Michael L. Berbaum, 2003. ‘Causes of Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1885–1992’, International Studies Quarterly 47(3): 371–393 Pevehouse, Jon C. & Bruce Russett, 2006. ‘Democratic International Governmental Organizations Promote Peace’, International Organization 60(4): 969–1000 Polachek, Solomon W., 1980. ‘Conflict and Trade’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 24(1): 55–78 Polachek, Soloon W. & Judith A. McDonald, 1992. ‘Strategic Trade and the Incentive for Cooperation’, in Manus Chatterji & Linda R. Forcey, eds, Disarmament, Economic Conversions, and Management of Peace. New York, Praeger (273–284) Polachek, Solomon W.; John & Yuan-Ching Chang, 1999. ‘Liberalism and Interdependence: Extending the Trade-Conflict Model’, Journal of Peace Research 36(4): 405–422 Reuveny, Rafael, 1999a, ‘The Political Economy of Israeli-Palestinian Interdependence’, Policy Studies Journal 27(4): 643–664 Reuveny, Rafael, 1999b, ‘Israeli-Palestinian Economic Interdependence Reconsidered’, Policy Studies Journal 27(4): 668–671 Rosecrance, Richard, 1986. The Rise of the Trading State. Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World. New York: Basic Books Russett, Bruce & John R. Oneal, 2001. Triangulating Peace. Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York. Norton. Schneider, Barbieri & Gleditsch, 2003a,b Stalin, Joseph, 1952. Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, excerpted in Robert V. Daniels, ed., A Documentary History of Communism, rev.ed. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1984: 172. (Cited from Gaddis, 2007: 14) Väyrynen, Raimo, 2006. ‘Capitalism, War, and Peace: Virtual or Vicious Cycles’, ch. 10 in Raimo Väyrynen, ed., The Waning of Major War. Theories and Debate. London: Routledge (239–279) Weede, Erich, 2004. ‘The Diffusion of Prosperity and Peace by Globalization’, Independent Review 9(2): 165–186

    32. Next week (17 May):Public holiday Thursday 24 May: Presentations of term paper outlines