User:Pfafrich/Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Critics of the Democratic peace theory have argued that even if democracy is correlated with less systematic violence, this does not establish causality. They have thus argued that the absence of wars and the few MIDs may be explained by other factors in democratic states not caused be democracy. Supporters of the DPT do not deny that other factors affect the risk of war but argue that many studies have controlled for such factors and that the DPT is still validated. Examples of factors controlled for are geographical contiguity, power status, alliance ties, militarization, economic wealth and economic growth, power ratio, and political stability.[1][2][3] Studies have also controlled for reverse causality from peace or war to democracy{ref|RevCausa1}}[4][5]. However, it has been suggested that democratic peace theory is based on nothing more than 'casual logics' ((ref|CasualLogics}}

The Kantian peace theory[edit]

Trade and the United nations, one intergovernmental organization

Several studies find that more trade causes greater economic interdependence and membership in more intergovernmental organizations reduce the risk of war. Democracy, interdependence, and intergovernmental organizations are positively related to each other but each has an independent pacifying effect. This is often called the Kantian peace theory since it is similar to Kant's earlier theory about a perpetual peace.[6][7] However, other studies find an effect from more democracy but no effect from more trade.[8]

Economic development[edit]

One study indicates that independently of trade, democracy is not a significant factor unless both of the democracies have a GDP/capita of at least 1400 USD. This level is quite low and 91% of all the democratic pairs passed this criteria during the 1885–1992 period and all in 1992. Still, higher economic development than this makes the effect of democracy stronger. Low economic development may hinder development of liberal institutions and values.[9]

Geographic isolation[edit]

Critics have argued that few democracies mean that they are geographically isolated and thus unable to make war with one another. As described above, several of the studies finding evidence for the DPT have controlled for this. One study has demonstrated that democratic pairs of nations have not been more geographically separated than non-democratic pairs.[10] Today more than 50% of all nations are democratic.[11]

The Cold War peace[edit]

Joanne Gowa has argued that the Cold War was responsible for creating the illusion of a democratic peace. The United States and the Soviet Union "assumed dominance of what became essentially a bipolar world". The democratic states had a common interest due to the threat from the Communist states and allied with each other. She present statistical research that before 1914 inter-democratic MIDs were as likely as MIDs involving at least one nondemocracy. Looking at the time before the Entente Cordiale, 1816-1904, she finds that the democratic states were less likely to ally and more likely to engage in MIDs with one another.[12] At least one other study has shows similar results.[13]

While not statistical evidence, one intuitive counter-argument is that external threat did not prevent wars between the Communist states and did not prevent wars beteen democracies and nondemocracies in the Western bloc.[14]

Such wars include the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, and the Sino-Vietnamese War. There were also minor conflicts, not meeting the threshold of deaths, particularly the Sino-Soviet border conflict and the Prague Spring. In the Western bloc such wars include Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, at a time when Cyprus had British military bases and close ties to Turkey's NATO partner Greece. Another is the Football War. However, the US put pressure on the combatants to stop the Football War which fits the bloc peace theory. A third is the 1965 US invasion of the Dominican Republic. The 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War may also be wars within the Western bloc, because Iraq belonged to CENTO, the US and the UK were also member, and the UK had nuclear weapons deployed on Cyprus for the defense of CENTO until 1975.[15] Israel received extensive aid during the Yom Kippur War from the US. Bloc peace theory supporters note that the Soviet-Iraqi Treaty of Friendship was signed in 1972. All of these wars had more than 1000 military casualties. The Falklands War almost qualify.[16]

More importantly, more recent studies find fewer MIDs between democracies also before the Cold War.[17][18] Gowa's theory does not explain the low domestic violence in democracies or why relative military strength does not influence the outcome of crises between democracies.[19] Gowa did not control for alliances, arguing that there are methodological problems. Many studies that have controlled for alliances like NATO show support for the DPT.[20]

DPT supporters also argue that there has been continued peace between democracies after the end of the Cold War. Critics disagree and even if true they note that the European Union and NATO still exist and that they contain some of the democracies capable of maintaining a war. However, there are many democracies outside Europe.[21] The threat from the Communist states which Gowa thought explained both the peace and the existence of alliances between democracies such as NATO has largely disappeared. Contrary to what could be expected from Gowa's theory, the fall of Communism was accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in interstate warfare and other armed conflicts[22]. Some researchers argue that the increase in democracy associated with the end of the Cold War is the main cause for this decline in armed conflicts while others note that there has also been an increase in intermediate regimes and as noted earlier such states may be particularly prone to civil war. Other explanations for the decline in armed conflicts is the end of colonialism and the Cold War itself. [23][24]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Ray, Jamee Lee (1998). "Does Democracy Cause Peace?". Annual Review of Political Science. 1: 27–46. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.27..
  2. ^ Ray, James Lee (2003). "Constructing Multivariate Analyses (of dangerous dyads)" (Document). {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |version= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russet (2004). "Rule of Three, Let it Be? When More Really Is Better" (Document). {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |version= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Mousseau, Michael, and Yuhand Shi (1999). "A Test for Reverse Causality in the Democratic Peace Relationship" (PDF). Journal for Peace Research. 36 (6): 639–663. doi:10.1177/0022343399036006003. S2CID 36381997.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Reiter, D (2001). "Does Peace Nature Democracy?". Journal of Politics. 63 (3): 935–948. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00095. S2CID 154824443.
  6. ^ Reuveny, Rafael, and Quan Li (2003). "The Joint Democracy–Dyadic Conflict Nexus: A Simultaneous Equations Model" (PDF). Journal of Politics. 47: 325–346.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ((note|CasualLogics}} Rosato, Sebastian (2003). "The flawed logic of democratic peace theory". American Political Science Review. 97 (4): 585–602. doi:10.1017/S0003055403000893. S2CID 17654114.
  8. ^ Oneal, John R., and Bruce Russet (1999). "The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations" (PDF). World Politics. 52 (1): 1–37. doi:10.1017/S0043887100020013. S2CID 153557783.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ Russet, B., and J.R. Oneal, and D. R. David (1998). "The Third Leg of the Kantian Tripod for Peace: International Organizations and Militarized Disputes, 1950–85". International Organization. 52 (3): 441–467. doi:10.1162/002081898550626. S2CID 153665709.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ Goenner, Cullen F (2004). "Uncertainty of the Liberal Peace" (PDF). Journal of Peace Research. 41 (5): 589–605. doi:10.1177/0022343304045977. S2CID 5270352.
  11. ^ Mousseau, Michael, Håvard Hegre, and John R. Oneal (2003). "How the Wealth of Nations Conditions the Liberal Peace" (PDF). European Journal of International Relations. 9 (2): 227–314. doi:10.1177/1354066103009002005. S2CID 143411095.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ Ray, 1998.
  13. ^ "Democracy's Century: A Survey of Global Political Change in the 20th Century". Freedom House. Retrieved October 3, 2005.
  14. ^ Gowa, Joanne (1999). Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691070229.
  15. ^ Beck, N., and Tucker R (1998). "Democracy and Peace: General Law or Limited Phenomenon?" (Document). Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. ^ Ray, 1998.
  17. ^ "Where Her Majesty's weapons were". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved October 3, 2005.
  18. ^ "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century". Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century. Retrieved October 3, 2005.
  19. ^ Oneal, 1999
  20. ^ Lagazio, Monica, and Bruce Russet (2003). "A Neural Network Analysis of Militarized Disputes, 1885-1992: Temporal Stability and Causal Complexity1" (Document). in Toward a Scientific Understanding of War: Studies in Honor of J. David Singer., Diehl, Paul (ed.). {{cite document}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ^ Gelpi, Christopher F., and Michael Griesdorf (2001). "Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918–94" (PDF). American Political Science Review. 95 (3): 633–647. doi:10.1017/S0003055401003148. S2CID 146346368.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ Ray, 1998.
  23. ^ "Freedom in the World 2004: Selected Data from Freedom House's Annual Global Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties". Freedom House. Retrieved October 3, 2005.
  24. ^ "Global Conflict Trends". Center for Systematic Peace. Retrieved October 1, 2005.
  25. ^ "The Human Security Report 2005". Human Security Centre. Retrieved October 18, 2005.
  26. ^ "Democratic peace clock". Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War. Retrieved October 18, 2005.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pfafrich/Democratic_peace_theory_(Correlation_is_not_causation)&oldid=1118573862"