Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:34:32.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clear and Clean: The Fixed Effects of the Liberal Peace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2003

John R. Oneal  and
Bruce Russett
Get access

Abstract

In their article in this issue, Donald P. Green, Soo Yeon Kim, and David H. Yoon claim, contrary to liberal theory and extensive evidence, that neither joint democracy nor economic interdependence significantly reduces the frequency of militarized interstate disputes in pooled time-series analyses when dyadic fixed effects are taken into account. Similarly, their fixed-effects analyses contradict theory and previous evidence that democracies have higher levels of trade with one another than do other types of states. Our reexamination, however, refutes both claims and reinforces previous findings. Their fixed-effects analyses of disputes produces distorted results because they consider a relatively short time period, 1951–92, in which variation in the binary dependent variable and the key independent variables, democracy and trade, is limited. When we analyze a longer period (1886–1992), the results confirm liberal theory. The differences between our analyses of bilateral trade and those of Green, Kim, and Yoon primarily arise from a seemingly minor methodological decision. A more reasonable method confirms that democracies do have higher levels of trade than expected on purely economic grounds. Though we do not advocate a fixed-effects model for analyzing these data and have serious reservations about its general usefulness, our findings provide additional confirmation of liberal theories of international relations.

Type
Symposium
Information
International Organization , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , Spring 2001 , pp. 469 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2001. Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water: A Comment on Green, Kim, and Yoon. International Organization 55 (2):487–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable. American Journal of Political Science 42 (4):1260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becketti, Sean. 1993. A Suite of Programs for Time Series Regression. Stata Technical Bulletin 15:20–28. College Station, Tex.: Stata Corporation.Google Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan C.. 2000. Research Design and Estimator Choices in the Analysis of Interstate Dyads: When Decisions Matter. Journal of Conflict Resolution 44 (5):653–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, Harry, and Russett, Bruce. 1998. Democratic Trading Partners: The Liberal Connection, 1962–1989. Journal of Politics 60 (4):1126–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, Stuart A. 1992. Dangerous Dyads: Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Interstate War, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36 (2):309–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and Lalman, David. 1992. War and Reason. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhart, Ross E., and Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. 1994. Comparative Democracy: The Economic Development Thesis. American Political Science Review 88 (4):903–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deardorff, Alan V. 1995. Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World? NBER Working Paper No. 5377. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, Paul F., and Goertz, Gary. 2000. War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diggle, Peter J., Liang, Kung-Yee, and Zeger, Scott L.. 1994. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Farber, Henry S., and Gowa, Joanne. 1997. Common Interests or Common Polities? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace. Journal of Politics 59 (2):393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartzke, Erik. 1998. Kant We All Just Get Along? Opportunity, Willingness, and the Origins of the Democratic Peace. American Journal of Political Science 42 (1):1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowa, Joanne. 1999. Ballots and Bullets: The Elusive Democratic Peace. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, C. W. J. 1969. Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods. Econometrica 37 (3):424–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., Kim, Soo Yeon, and Yoon, David H.. Dirty Pool. International Organization 55 (2):441–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegre, Håvard, and Kim, Soo Yeon. 2000. Conquest or Commerce? Statecraft in the Age of Interdependence. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Los Angeles, Calif.Google Scholar
Heldt, Birger. 1999. Domestic Politics, Absolute Deprivation, and the Use of Armed Force in Interstate Territorial Disputes, 1850–1990. Journal of Conflict Resolution 43 (4):451–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensel, Paul, Goertz, Gary, and Diehl, Paul. 2000. The Democratic Peace and Rivalries. Journal of Politics 64 (4): 1173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggers, Keith, and Gurr, Ted Robert. 1996. Polity III Data. May. Available at <http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~whmoore/polity/polity.html>..>Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1795] 1970. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Reprinted in Kant's Political Writings, edited by Reiss, Hans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 2001. Proper Nouns and Methodological Propriety: Pooling Dyads in International Relations Data. International Organization 55 (2):497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., Milner, Helen V., and Rosendorff, B. Peter. 2000. Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade. American Political Science Review 94 (2):305–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev. 1998. Realist and Cultural Critiques of the Democratic Peace: A Theoretical and Empirical Re-Assessment. International Interactions 24 (1):3–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce. 1993. Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review 87 (3):624–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, James D., Siverson, Randolph M., and Tabares, Tressa E.. 1998. The Political Determinants of International Trade: The Major Powers, 1907–90. American Political Science Review 92 (3): 649–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mousseau, Michael. 2000. Market Prosperity, Democratic Consolidation, and Democratic Peace. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (4): 472–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Lee Ray, James. 1997. New Tests of the Democratic Peace Controlling for Economic Interdependence, 1950–1985. Political Research Quarterly 50 (4): 751–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce M.. 1997. The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985. International Studies Quarterly 41 (2):267–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce M.. 1999a. Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict. Journal of Peace Research 36 (4): 423–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce M.. 1999b. Is the Liberal Peace Just an Artifact of Cold War Interests? Assessing Recent Critiques. International Interactions 25 (3): 213–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce M.. 1999c. The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations, 1886–1992. World Politics 52 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce M.. 2000. Causes of Peace, 1886–1992: Distributed-Lags Models of Conflict and Trade. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Peace Science Society (International), New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Oneal, John R., Oneal, Frances H., Maoz, Zeev, and Russett, Bruce. 1996. The Liberal Peace: Interdependence, Democracy, and International Conflict, 1950–1985. Journal of Peace Research 33 (1): 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce. 1995. And Yet It Moves. International Security 19 (4): 164–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce, and Oneal, John R.. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth. 2001. Democracy and Coercive Diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
StataCorp, . 1999. Stata Statistical Software, rel. 6.0. College Station, Tex.: Stata Corporation.Google Scholar