Limited commercial integration between India and Pakistan or within much of the Middle East suggests that conflicting political interests between countries can have a detrimental effect on their economic relations. But rapidly growing economic ties between Mainland China and Taiwan show that commerce can also flourish even in the presence of very hostile relations. I explore this variation and hypothesize that the effects of international political conflict on trade are less severe in cases where internationalist economic interests have relatively strong political clout domestically. Simple quantitative tests on a sample of seventy-six countries over the years 1961 to 1992 are supportive; further evidence is provided via a brief case study of Mainland China-Taiwan relations.
Abdelal, Rawi, and Jonathan Kirshner .1999/2000. Strategy, economic relations, and the definition of national interests. Security Studies9 (1/2): 119-56.
2.
Anderton, Charles H., and John R. Carter.2001a. The impact of war on trade: An interrupted times-series study. Journal of Peace Research38 (4): 445-57.
3.
———. 2001b. On disruption of trade by war: A reply to Barbieri & Levy. Journal of Peace Research38 (5): 625-8.
4.
———. 2003. Does war disrupt trade? In Globalization and armed conflict, edited by Gerald Schneider , Katherine Barbieri, and Nils Peter Gleditsch, 299-310. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
5.
Baldwin, David.1985. Economic Statecraft. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
6.
Barbieri, Katherine.2002. The liberal illusion: Does trade promote peace?Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Barbieri, Katherine, and Jack S. Levy.1999. Sleeping with the enemy: The impact of war on trade. Journal of Peace Research36 (4): 463-79.
8.
———. 2001. Does war impede trade? A response to Anderton and Carter . Journal of Peace Research38 (5): 619-24.
9.
———. 2003. The trade disruption hypothesis and the liberal economic theory of peace. In Globalization and armed conflict, edited by Gerald Schneider, Katherine Barbieri, and Nils Peter Gleditsch , 277-98. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
10.
Beck, Nathaniel, and Jonathan N. Katz .1996. Nuisance vs. substance: Specifying and estimating time-series-cross-section models. PoliticalAnalysis6 (1): 1-36.
11.
Bliss, Harry, and Bruce Russett.1998. Democratic trading partners: The liberal connection, 1962-1989. Journal of Politics60 (4): 1126-47.
12.
Brambor, Thomas, William Roberts Clark, and Matt Golder.2006. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. PoliticalAnalysis14:63-82.
13.
Braumoeller, Bear F.2004. Hypothesis testing and multiplicative interaction terms . International Organization58:807-20.
14.
Chu, Yun-han.1997. The political economy of Taiwan's Mainland policy. Journal of Contemporary China6 (15): 229-57.
15.
Davis, Patricia A.1999. The art of economic persuasion: Positive incentives and German economic diplomacy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16.
Dixon, William J., and Bruce E. Moon.1993. Political similarity and American foreign trade patterns. Political Research Quarterly46 (1): 5-25.
17.
Fearon, James D.1994. Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review88 (3): 577-92.
18.
Gartzke, Erik.1998. Kant we all just get along? Opportunity, willingness, and the origins of the democratic peace. American Journal of Political Science42 (1): 1-27.
19.
———. 2000. Preferences and the democratic peace. International Studies Quarterly44 (2): 191-212.
20.
———. 2003. The classical liberals were just lucky: A few thoughts about interdependence and peace. In Economic interdependence and international conflict: New perspectives on an enduring debate, edited by Edward D. Mansfield and Brian M. Pollins, 96-110. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
Gartzke, Erik, Dong-Joon Jo, and Richard Tucker.1999. The similarity of UN policy positions, 1946-96. Version 1.17. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/∼rtucker/data/affinity/un/similar (accessed in January 2003).
22.
Gartzke, Erik, and Quan Li.2003. War, peace, and the invisible hand: Positive political externalities of economic globalization. International Studies Quarterly47 (4): 561-86.
23.
Gartzke, Erik, Quan Li, and Charles Boehmer .2001. Economic interdependence and international conflict. International Organization55 (2): 391-438.
24.
Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede.2002. Expanded trade and GDP data. Journal of Conflict Resolution46 (5): 712-24.
25.
Glick, Reuven, and Alan M. Taylor.2005. Collateral damage: Trade disruption and the economic impact of war. Working paper no. 11565. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
26.
Gowa, Joanne.1994. Allies, adversaries, and international trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
Gowa, Joanne, and Edward D. Mansfield .2004. Alliances, imperfect markets, and major-power trade. International Organization58 (4): 775-805.
28.
Green, Donald P., Soo Yeon Kim, and David H. Yoon.2001. Dirty pool. International Organization55 (2): 441-68.
29.
Heckscher, Eli F., and Bertil Ohlin.1991. Heckscher-Ohlin trade theory. Translated, edited and introduced by Harry Flam and M. JuneFlanders. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
30.
Hengeveld, W.A.B.1996. World distance tables, 1948-1974 (computer file). ICPSR version. Amsterdam, Holland: W. A. B. Hengeveld, University of Amsterdam (producer), 1983 . Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor).
31.
Hirschman, Albert O.1945. National power and the structure of foreign trade. Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
Hiscox, Michael J., and Scott L. Kastner .2002. A general measure of trade policy orientations: Gravity-model-based estimates for 82 nations, 1960 to 1992. Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University, Cambridge MA.
33.
Huth, Paul K., and Todd L. Allee.2002. The democratic peace and territorial conflict in the twentieth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Johal, Sarbjit.1989. Conflict and integration in Indo-Pakistan relations. USA: Centers for South andSoutheast Asia Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
35.
Kang, Heejoon, and Rafael Reuveny.2001. Exploring multi-country dynamic relations between trade and conflict. Defence and Peace Economics12:175-96.
36.
Keshk, Omar M. G., Brian M. Pollins, and Rafael Reuveny.2004. Trade still follows the flag: The primacy of politics in a simultaneous model of interdependence and armed conflict. Journal of Politics66 (4):1155-79.
37.
Kim, Hyung Min, and David L. Rousseau .2005. The classical liberals were half right (or half wrong): New tests of the ``liberal peace,'' 1960-88. Journal of Peace Research42 (5): 523-43.
38.
King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg .2000. Making the most of statistical analysis: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44 (2): 347-61.
39.
Leng, Tse-kang.1996. The Taiwan-China connection: Democracy and development across the Taiwan Straits. Boulder, CO: Westview.
40.
———. 1998. A political analysis of Taiwan's economic dependence on Mainland China. Issues and Studies34 (8):132-54.
41.
Levy, Jack S., and Katherine Barbieri.2004. Trading with the enemy during wartime. Security Studies13 (3): 1-47.
42.
Li, Quan, and David Sacko.2002. The (ir)relevance of militarized interstate disputes for international trade. International Studies Quarterly46 (1): 11-43.
43.
Long, Andrew G.2003a. Does trade follow peace? Postwar bilateral trade and expectations for recurrent conflict. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August, Philadelphia, PA.
44.
———. 2003b. Defense Pacts and International Trade. Journal of Peace Research40 (5): 537-52.
45.
Mansfield, Edward D., Helen V. Milner, and Peter Rosendorff.2000. Free to trade: Democracies, autocracies, and international trade. American Political Science Review94 (2): 305-21.
46.
Mansfield, Edward D., and Brian M. Pollins, eds. 2003. Economic interdependence and international conflict: New perspectives on an enduring debate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
47.
Marshall, Monty G., and Keith Jaggers.2000. Polity IV Project: Data Users Manual. Integrated Network for Societal Conflict Research Program, Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, College Park.
48.
Mastanduno, Michael.1988. Trade as a strategic weapon: American and alliance export control policy in the early postwar period. International Organization42 (1): 121-50.
49.
———. 1992. Economic containment: COCOM and the politics of East-West trade. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
50.
McDonald, Patrick J.2004. Peace through trade or free trade?Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48 (4): 547-72.
51.
McLaren, John.1997. Size, sunk costs, and Judge Bowker's objection to free trade. American Economic Review87 (3): 400-20.
52.
Milner, Helen V., and Keiko Kubota.2005. Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in the developing countries. International Organization59 (1): 107-43.
53.
Morrow, James D.1999. How could trade affect conflict?Journal of Peace Research36 (4): 481-9.
54.
———. 2003. Assessing the role of trade as a source of costly signals . In Economic interdependence and international conflict: New perspectives on an enduring debate, edited by Edward D. Mansfield and Brian M. Pollins , 89-95. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
55.
Morrow, James D., Randolph M. Siverson, and Tressa E. Taberes .1998. The political determinants of international trade: The major powers, 1907-90. American Political Science Review92 (3): 649-61.
56.
Oneal, John R., and Bruce M. Russett .1997. The classical liberals were right: Democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950-1985. International Studies Quarterly41:267-94.
57.
———. 1999. Assessing the liberal peace with alternative specifications: Trade still reduces conflict. Journal of Peace Research36 (4): 423-42.
58.
———. 2001. Clear and clean: The fixed effects of the liberal peace . International Organization55 (2): 469-85.
59.
Oneal, John R., Bruce Russett, and Michael L. Berbaum.2003. Causes of peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885-1992. International Studies Quarterly47 (3): 371-93.
Pevehouse, Jon C.2004. Interdependence theory and the measurement of international conflict. Journal of Politics66 (1): 247-66.
62.
Pollins, Brian M.1989a. Conflict, cooperation, and commerce: The effect of international political interactions on bilateral trade flows. American Journal of Political Science33 (3): 737-61.
63.
———. 1989b. Does trade still follow the flag?American Political Science Review83 (2): 465-80.
64.
Rigger, Shelley.2001. From opposition to power: Taiwan's democratic progressive party. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner .
65.
Robst, John, Solomon Polachek, and Yuan-ching Chang.2007. Geographical proximity, trade, and international conflict/cooperation. Conflict Management and Peace Science24:1-24.
66.
Rogowski, Ronald.1989. Commerce and coalitions: How trade affects domestic political alignments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
Rose, Andrew K.2004. Do WTO members have more liberal trade policy?Journal of International Economics63 (2): 209-35.
68.
Roy, Denny.2003. Taiwan: A political history. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
69.
Russett, Bruce, and John R. Oneal.2001. Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: Norton.
70.
Sachs, Jeffrey D., and Andrew Warner.1995. Economic reform and the process of global integration . Brookings Papers on Economic Activity1:1-118.
71.
Schultz, Kenneth A.2001. Democracy and coercive diplomacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
72.
Sheng Lijun.2001. China's dilemma: The Taiwan issue. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
73.
Simmons, Beth A.2005. Rules over real estate: Trade, territorial conflict, and international borders as institution. Journal of Conflict Resolution49 (6): 823-48.
74.
Skalnes, Lars S.1998. Grand strategy and foreign economic policy: British grand strategy in the 1930s. World Politics50 (4): 582-616.
75.
Signorino, Curtis S., and Jeffrey M. Ritter .1999. Tau-b or not Tau-b: Measuring the similarity of foreign policy positions. International Studies Quarterly43 (1): 115-44.
76.
Solingen, Etel. 1998. Regional orders at century's dawn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
77.
Stein, Arthur A.2003. Trade and conflict: Uncertainty, strategic signaling, and interstate disputes. In Economic interdependence and international conflict: New perspectives on an enduring debate, edited by Edward D. Mansfield and Brian M. Pollins, 111-26. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
78.
Thompson, William R.2001. Identifying rivals and rivalries in world politics. International Studies Quarterly45 (4): 557-86.
79.
World Bank.2001. World development indicators (CD-ROM). Washington, DC: World Bank
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
