Murshed, Mansoob and Mamoon, Dawood (2008): The consequences of Not Loving thy neigbor as Thyself: Trade, democracy and military explainations behind India Pakistan rivalry.
Download (216kB) | Preview
Conflict between Pakistan and India can be best understood in a multivariate framework where variables such as economic performance, multilateral trade with the rest of the world, bilateral trade, military expenditure, democracy scores and population are simultaneously taken into account. Our empirical investigation based on time series econometrics from 1950-2005, allowing us to truly address causality, suggests that reduced bilateral trade, greater military expenditure, less development expenditure, lower levels of democracy, lower growth rates and less general trade openness are all conflict enhancing, albeit with lags in some cases. Moreover, there is reverse causality between bilateral trade, militarization and conflict; low levels of bilateral trade and high militarization are conflict enhancing, equally conflict also reduces bilateral trade and raises militarization. Economic growth is conflict mitigating, but the reverse is not true. Globalization, or a greater openness to trade with the rest of the world, is the most significant driver of a liberal peace, corroborating a modified form of the capitalist peace, rather than a common democratic political orientation suggested by the pure form of the Kantian liberal peace.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||The consequences of Not Loving thy neigbor as Thyself: Trade, democracy and military explainations behind India Pakistan rivalry|
|Keywords:||Inter-State Conflict and Trade, Democracy and COnflict, COnflict and Economic Development|
|Subjects:||F - International Economics > F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy > F59 - Other
F - International Economics > F1 - Trade
F - International Economics > F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy > F51 - International Conflicts ; Negotiations ; Sanctions
C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games
|Depositing User:||Dawood Mamoon|
|Date Deposited:||13. Sep 2008 00:43|
|Last Modified:||12. Feb 2013 13:56|
Anderton, Charles H & John R. Carter, 2001. ‘The Impact of War on Trade: An Interrupted Times-Series Study’, Journal of Peace Research 38 (4): 445-457.
Barbieri, Katherine & Jack S. Levy, 1999. ‘Sleeping with the Enemy: The Impact of War on Trade’, Journal of Peace Research 36 (4): 463-479.
Dorussen, Han, & Håvard Hegre. 2003. ‘Extending the Multicountry Model of Trade and Conflict’, in Gerald Schneider, Katherine Barbieri, and Nils Petter Gleditsch (eds), Globalization and Armed Conflict. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield (77 – 102).
Dorussen, Han & Hugh Ward, 2008. ‘Intergovernmental Organizations and the Kantian Peace: A Network Perspective’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (2): 189-212.
Dorussen, Han & Hugh Ward, 2009. ‘Trade Networks and the Kantian Peace’, Journal of Peace Research, forthcoming.
Doyle, Michael W., 1986. ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review 80(4): 1151–69.
Elliot, Graham, Thomas Rothenberg, & James Stock, 1996. ‘Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root’, Econometrica 64 (4): 813-836.
Gartzke, Erik, 2007. ‘The Capitalist Peace’, American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 166-191.
Ghosn, Faten, Glenn Palmer, & Stuart Bremer, 2004. ‘The MID3 Data Set, 1993–2001: Procedures, Coding Rules, and Description, Conflict Management and Peace Science 21 (2):133-154.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, 1967. ‘Trends in World Airline Patterns’, Journal of Peace Research 4(4): 366–408.
Granger, Clive, 1969. ‘Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods’, Econometrica, 37 (3): 424-438.
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. Jones, Daniel M., Stuart A Bremer & David J Singer, 1996. ‘Militarised Inter-state Disputes, 1816-1992: Rationale, Coding Rules, and Empirical Patterns’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 15 (2): 163-212. Kant, Immanuel, 1795. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History and Morals, reprinted 1983. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Keshk, Omar, Brian Pollins & Rafael Reuveny, 2004. ‘Trade Still Follows the Flag: The Primacy of Politics in a Simultaneous Model of Interdependence and Armed Conflict’, Journal of Politics 66 (1): 1165-79. Kim, Hyung Min & David L. Rousseau, 2005. ‘The Classical Liberals Were Half Right (or Half Wrong): New Tests of the ‘Liberal Peace’, 1960-88’, Journal of Peace Research 42 (5): 523-543.
Korbel, Josef, 1954. Danger in Kashmir, reprinted in 2002. Karachi and New York: Oxford University Press.
Lipset, Seymour, 1960. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. New York: Doubleday.
McDonald, Patrick J., 2004. ‘Peace through Trade or Free Trade?’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(4): 547-572.
Mansfield, Edward & Jack Snyder, 2005. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maoz, Zeev, Ranan D. Kuperman, Lesley Terris & Ilan Talmud, 2006. ‘Structural Equivalence and International Conflict: A Social Network Analysis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(5): 664–89. Martin, Philippe, Thierry Mayer & Mathias Thoenig, 2008. ‘Make Trade not War?’, Review of Economic Studies 75(3): 865-900. Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de, 1748. De l’Espirit des Lois, reprinted 1979. Paris: Flammarion. Moon, Penderel, 1962. Divide and Quit. Berkley: University of California Press. Oneal, John, and Bruce Russett, 1997. “The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950 – 1985” International Studies Quarterly 41(2): 267–93. Oneal, John & Bruce Russett, 1999. ‘Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict’, Journal of Peace Research 36 (4): 423-32. Polachek, Solomon W., 1980. ‘Conflict and Trade’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24 (1): 55-78.
Polachek, Solomon W, 1997. ‘Why Democracies Cooperate More and Fight Less: The Relationship Between International trade and Cooperation’, Review of International Economics 5(3): 295-309.
Polachek, Solomon W & Carlos Seiglie, 2006. ‘Trade, Peace and Democracy: An Analysis of Dyadic Dispute’, IZA DO No. 2170.
Reuveny, Rafael & Heejoon Kang, 1998. ‘Bilateral Trade and Political Conflict/Cooperation: Do Goods Matter?’, Journal of Peace Research 35(5): 581-602.
Robst, John, Solomon Polachek & Yuan-Ching Chang, 2007. ‘Geographic Proximity, Trade and International Conflict/Cooperation’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 24 (1): 1-24.
Russett, Bruce, and John Oneal, 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy Interdependence and International Organizations. New York: Norton.
Sims, Chris, 1980. ‘Macroeconomics and Reality’, Econometrica 48 (1): 1-48.
Wolpert, Stanley, 2002. Jinnah of Pakistan. Oxford: University Press.
Wolpert, Stanley, 2006. Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India. Oxford: University Press.
World Bank, 2006. World Development Indicators. Washington D.C.