Does International Trade Reduce Political Disputes?

Abstract

The effect of economic integration and other factors on interstate conflict has been examined with a delimited geographical scope. A logistic regression analysis is adopted with one-year lagged independent variables regressed on dependent variable of interstate conflict. It is revealed that the pacification effect of economic openness and economic dependence on trade of the East African countries—Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda—is significant. In addition, it is found that an improvement in the democratic situation of the dyads reduces the likelihood of eruption of interstate conflict in the region. The article has uncovered that higher national capability asymmetry in East African region among the specified countries leads to an increase in the possibility of violence.

Keywords

Democratic situation economic openness interstate conflict national capability trade dependence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barbieri

(2002). The liberal illusion: Does trade promote peace? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Barbieri

Peters

R.A.

(2003). Measure for mis-measure: A response to Gartzke and Li. Journal of Peace Research, 40(6), 713–719.

Bearce

D.H.

Fisher

E.O.

(2002). Economic geography, trade and war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(3), 365–393.

Beck

Jonathan

N.K.

Tucker

(1998). Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1260–1288.

Beyene

H.G.

(2013). Trade, interdependence and its effect on interstate conflict: The case of East African Region. Unpublished Paper, University of South Africa.

DeSoysa

Oneal

J.R.

Park

Y.H.

(1997). Testing power-transition theory using alternative measures of national capabilities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(4), 509–528.

Dorussen

(2006). Heterogeneous trade interests and conflict: What you trade matters. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(1), 3–27.

Gartzke

(2003). Measure for measure: Concept operationalization and the trade interdependence—conflict debate. Journal of Peace Research, 40(5), 553–571.

Goenner

C.F.

(2004). Uncertainty of the liberal peace. Journal of Peace Research, 41(5), 589–605.

10.

Goenner

C.F.

(2011). Simultaneity between trade and conflict: Endogenous instruments of mass destruction. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(5), 459–477.

11.

Hegre

Oneal

Russett

(2010). Trade does promote peace: New simultaneous estimation of the reciprocal effects of trade and conflict. Journal of Peace Research, 47(6), 763–774.

12.

IMF (1990–2013). Direction of trade statistics, Yearbook. Washington, DC.

13.

Jervis

(2002). Theories of war in an era of leading power peace. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 1–14.

14.

Keshk

O.M.

Pollins

B.M.

Reuveny

(2004). Trade still follows the flag: The primacy of politics in a simultaneous model of interdependence and armed conflict. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1155–1179.

15.

Kimball

A.L.

(2006). Alliance formation and conflict initiation: The missing link. Journal of Peace Research, 43(4), 371–389.

16.

Lee

J.W.

Pyun

J.H.

(2009). Does trade integration contribute to peace? Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration, Asian Development Bank, No. 24.

17.

Levy

S.J.

(2002). War and peace. In Carlsnaes

Risee

Simmons

B.A.

(Eds), Handbook of International Relations (pp. 350–368). London: SAGE.

18.

Thies

C.G.

(2010). Trade interdependence and the issues at stake in the onset of militarized conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27(4), 347–368.

19.

Mansfield

E.D.

Pevehouse

J.C.

(2000). Trade blocs, trade flows, and international conflict. International Organization, 54(4), 775–808.

20.

Marshall

M.G

. (2013). Major episodes of political violence (MEPV) and conflict regions 1946–2012. Center for Systemic Peace. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org

21.

Marshall

M. G.

Gurr

T. R.

Jaggers

(2013). Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2012. Center for Systemic Peace. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org

22.

Maoz

(2005). Dyadic MID Dataset (version 2.0). Retrieved from http://psfaculty.ucdavis.ucdavis.edu/zmaoz/dyadmid.html

23.

McDonald

P.J.

(2004). Peace through trade or free trade? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(4), 547–572.

24.

McDonald

P.J.

(2007). The purse strings of peace. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 569–582.

25.

Oneal

J.R.

(2003). Measuring interdependence and its pacific benefits: A reply to Gartzke and Li. Journal of Peace Research, 40(6), 721–725.

26.

Oneal

J.R.

Russett

Berbaum

M.L.

(2003). Causes of peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885–1992. International Studies Quarterly, 47(3), 371–93.

27.

Oneal

J.R.

Russett

(1997). The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950–1985. International Studies Quarterly, 41(2), 267–294.

28.

Polachek

S.W.

(1980). Conflict and trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 55–78.

29.

Press-Barnathan

(2006). Economic cooperation and transition to peace: The neglected dimension of commercial liberalism. Journal of Peace Research, 43(3), 261–278.

30.

Russett

B.M.

Oneal

J.R.

(2001). Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: Norton.

31.

Singer

J.D.

Bremer

Stuckey

(1972). Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820–1965. In Russett

(Ed.), Peace, war, and numbers (pp. 19–48). Beverly Hills: SAGE.

32.

Singer

J.D.

Small

(1995). National Military Capabilities Data. Correlates of War Project, University of Michigan.Modified12/28/94.