Interdependence, Institutions, and the Balance of Power: Britain, Germany, and World War I

Papayoanou, Paul A.

doi:10.1162/isec.20.4.42

Cited by 49 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study, Jungblut, (2011) examines economic interdependence and inter-state conflicts. He based his analysis on versions of the liberal hypothesis, and functionalists' research such as that by Haas and Mitrany (1964), political and economic liberalism (Russett, O'neal, & Davis, 1998), and theories of international exchange (Polachec & McDonald, 1992 (Buzan, 1984;Papayoanou, 1996). A group of scholars, who maintains the Marxist's point of view, oppose the liberal, functionalist, and realist theories and argue that, interdependence and conflict are unrelated.…”

Section: Interdependence and Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Economic Integration within the European Union as a Factor in Conflict Transformation and Peace-Building

Ette

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines economic integration within the European Union as a factor in conflict transformation and peace-building. European responses to causes of frequent conflict and wars after the end of WWII focused on the search for peace, economic cooperation and prosperity. This thesis will focus on three elements: economic interdependence, the expansion of the free market, and economic integration. In-depth examination of these factors reveals that economic interdependence or the exchange of goods and services across inter-state and international boundaries only, is not sufficient to bring peace among states. Economic interdependence may reduce the impact of war, but cannot maintain sustainable peace. Unfair competition fanned by economic nationalism was a strong obstacle to free trade in Europe in the early 19th century. In the 21st century, the expansion of the free trade, with increased understanding has enhanced reduction in interstate conflicts. However, free trade, in and of itself does not constitute a strong factor for a sustainable peace. Free trade may encourage democracy, but the expansion of free trade coupled with interdependence, does not bring sustainable peace. The EU has successfully established sustainable peace through economic integration-the creation of the single market that establish freedom of movement, people, goods, services; and a single currency that facilitates easy transactions. The single market also abolished tariffs and custom duties. By and large, economic integration within the EU has been successful in creating sustainable peace because economic interdependence, and the expansion of the free market have been combined with political integration by building democratic institutions at the intergovernmental and transnational levels.ii

show abstract

Section: Interdependence and Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Economic Integration within the European Union as a Factor in Conflict Transformation and Peace-Building

Ette

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, the so-called structural theories of the democratic peace often contend that democratic states will be less likely to initiate military force because of the public's aversion to paying the costs of war (Doyle 1986, Maoz & Russett 1992. Other variants of this argument suggest that the public's desire to maintain economic growth leads democratic leaders to avoid military conflicts that will disrupt commerce (Domke 1988, Papayoanou 1996, Gelpi & Grieco 2006. The central mechanism of public casualty aversion and its influence on democratic foreign policies also underpin game theoretic models that seek to explain why democracies do not fight one another yet are willing to use force against nondemocracies (Bueno de Mesquita & Lalman 1992, Fearon 1994.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection

Aldrich

Gelpi

Feaver

et al. 2006

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.

267

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Words public opinion, voting behavior, foreign policy decision making, democratic accountability ■ Abstract Public opinion is central to representation, democratic accountability, and decision making. Yet, the public was long believed to be relatively uninterested in foreign affairs, absent an immediate threat to safety and welfare. It had become conventional to say that "voting ends at water's edge." We start the examination of the scholarly understanding of the role of foreign affairs in public opinion and voting at that low point of view. Much subsequent development saw an increasing degree of holding and using of attitudes and beliefs about foreign affairs among the public. Moving in parallel with developments in political psychology, theoretical and methodological advances led to an increasingly widely shared view that the public holds reasonably sensible and nuanced views, that these help shape their political behaviors, and that these, in turn, help shape and constrain foreign policy making. "War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military." -Georges Clemenceau" [Clemenceau] once said that war is too important to be left to the generals.

show abstract

“…According to Moravcsik (1997), when domestic and transnational economic actors who benefit from trade have more to gain from trade than from costly wars, those actors will try to wield influence over their government so it will not make any foreign policy decisions that could disrupt the economic ties with other countries that benefit them. Papayoanou (1996; see also Papayoanou & Kastner, 1999) also argues that we need to take into account the way domestic political institutions are designed and whether interest groups that support the government in power benefit from international trade or protectionism, when we determine whether a state having economic ties with other states would show cooperative or conflictual foreign policy toward them. In democracies, according to Papayoanou (1996), political leaders are sensitive to domestic opposition to war or costly adjustments that could cause damage to their economies, whereas autocratic leaders can seek aggressive foreign policy even though their economies depend heavily on international trade because there are no domestic constraints.…”

Section: China-south Korea Relations and The Liberal Peace Ideamentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Trade Relations on South Korean Views of China

Chung

2015

Asian Politics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trade between China and South Korea has increased since the early 1990s, with South Korea becoming more and more economically dependent on China. At the same time, many regard China as a security threat to South Korea. This study investigates whether South Koreans view China positively or as a future threat within the context of this relationship. This article applies the Stolper–Samuelson theorem to test the proposition that individual South Koreans who benefit from trade with China view China positively, while those who do not benefit view it negatively. Using ordered logit models to analyze two survey data sources—the 2006 Public Opinion Survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Asia Society, and East Asia Institute, and the 2010 Asian Barometer Survey—the study concludes that South Koreans with high incomes, who are likely to be beneficiaries, are more likely to view China positively than those with low incomes.

show abstract

Interdependence, Institutions, and the Balance of Power: Britain, Germany, and World War I

Cited by 49 publications

References 26 publications

The Impact of Economic Integration within the European Union as a Factor in Conflict Transformation and Peace-Building

The Impact of Economic Integration within the European Union as a Factor in Conflict Transformation and Peace-Building

Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection

Effects of Trade Relations on South Korean Views of China

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About