The Democratic Peace

The Democratic Peace J A Morrison Bruce Russett Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Lecture 8 Thursday, 3 March 2011

Admin • Sign-in Sheet • Get to work on those papers!

The Papers • Analyze Author’s Understanding of Relationship between Variables influencing International Politics • Consider Evidence if it is presented • Don’t test using “out of sample” evidence • Target audience: another student in the class • Add Value: Go Beyond Sophisticated Summary of piece

Lec 8: The Democratic Peace • What is the Democratic Peace? • What causes the Democratic Peace? • Does the Democratic Peace hold up? • How should the Democratic Peace influence policy? • The Relevance of the Democratic Peace

In short… The democratic peace (DP) is the fact that, “in the modern international system, democracies have almost never fought each other.” (Russett, 4)

What does this statement mean? Let’s unpack each of the statement’s three parts…

The democratic peace (DP) is the fact that, “in the modern international system, democracies have almost never fought each other.” (Russett, 4) The DP is a statistical regularity, an empirical fact. It is not a theory—although we do have theories to explain it and understand its implications.

The democratic peace (DP) is the fact that, “in the modern international system, democracies have almost never fought each other.” (Russett, 4) Democracies are less likely to go to war with one another. This does not mean that democracies are less likely to go to war with autocracies—just with other democracies.

The democratic peace (DP) is the fact that, “in the modern international system, democracies have almost never fought each other.” (Russett, 4) This phenomenon is claimed to have existed across a broad period of time and space. Russett specifically suggests: 1815-1993, the world over. (p 16)

Now, let’s define some of these terms.

So, border incursions, rogue commanders, terrorist attacks, &c., do not count. Warsare deliberate, large-scale military actions, accompanied by measurable bloodshed, carried out between states. See Russett, 12-14, for full details.

a large portion of the populace votes • the elections are contested • there are some limits on executive authority Democracies are regimes in which: Autocracies do not have these features. See Russett, 14-16, for full details.

The distinction between autocracies and democracies is actually continuous, with states being more or less autocratic/democratic rather than one or the other. The DP literature, though, treats this difference as discrete.

OK. So, we have this regularity: democracies don’t fight each other much. How, though, do we explain this regularity? What causes this?

I’m glad you asked, Hobbes—because I came up with an explanation even before the darned thing got started! Immanual Kant (1724-1804)

Written in 1795, Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace proposed that liberal/democratic states would be able to establish a separate peace among themselves.

(1) The design of constitutions (2) The cultivation of shared norms (3) The development of shared interests Kant suggested that three features would combine to allow this:

 Domestic institutions/political structures that influence policymaking process • Accountable leaders are less likely to engage in reckless wars – “audience costs” • Democracies take longer to mobilize (1) Constitutions

 Self-government creates respect for others’ right to self-government • Democracies don’t attempt to conquer other democracies • Democracies value communication and peaceful dispute resolution (2) Democratic Norms

 Democracies become interdependent through int’l integration • Democracies promote interests through trade • There could be a “capitalist peace”—a “McDonalds peace” (3) Shared Interests

Bruce Russett has borrowed heavily from Kant to explain the DP. He emphasizes Kant’s first two features as distinct mechanisms: domestic structures and democratic norms. (The third feature plays a smaller role.)

Wow, I’m smart. Such staying power! Could you, though, fit my stuff into the terms of PS 109? Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Hmm. If I were to classify the DP in terms of its level of analysis, where would I put it? What level of analysis do the DP theorists emphasize?

The DP is a unit-level analysis. The key independent variable—regime type—is found at the level of the states, the units.

Fascinating! But is this a rationalist approach focused on institutions and interests? Or is it a constructivist approach focused on norms & identities?

Depending on whether you think structure or norms matter more in creating the DP…

…the DP could be seen as turning on the configuration of domestic political institutions (a la Bailey, Goldstein, Weingast)…

…or it could be seen as turning on the identities and norms developed through state interaction (a la Goldstein & Keohane).

A lot of scholars have tried to slice and dice the facts that undergird the DP. Leading that charge has been Princeton’s Joanne Gowa.

Farber & Gowa attack both the DP’s theoretical explanation and its empirical veracity...

III. Does the DP Hold Up? Attacks on the Theory Attacks on the Empirics The Critics’ Conclusions

“In the end, any explanation of the distinctiveness of democratic foreign policies based on the distinctiveness of the norms underlying them is not testable. This is because no direct measures of norms related to interstate disputes exist. Proxy measures are not adequate substitutes because their use requires the assumption that they are, in fact, linked to norms governing interstate disputes, rather than merely reflecting underlying interests.” Farber & Gowa. “Polities and Peace.” p 126.

 We cannot test the influence of norms separate from the role of interests. Therefore, how can we know whether norms or interests have influenced observed foreign policies?

“The premise of the checks-and-balances argument is that constraints on would-be renegade leaders are much more effective in democratic than in autocratic polities. This is at odds, however, with the conventional finding that, while democracies seem to fight with each other less frequently than do other country pairs, they are just as likely to wage war as are other polities.” Farber & Gowa. “Polities and Peace.” p 127.

 Democratic structures should decrease all wars, not just wars with other democracies.

“In addition, the checks and balances characteristic of democratic polities do not seem to protect the public from politicians maximizing their own interests rather than social welfare in widely varied policy areas. For example, tariffs exist in most democracies despite their negative effects on real income…Moreover, evidence from the United States suggests that the costs of war tend to fall disproportionately on low-income constituents, whose rates of political participation are relatively low. The net effect, again, is to endow political officials with some freedom to maximize their own interests rather than social welfare. ” Farber & Gowa. “Polities and Peace.” p 127.

 Democratic leaders make lots of policies—like tariffs—that run contrary to the public interest.

III. Does the DP Hold Up? Attacks on the Theory Attacks on the Empirics The Critics’ Conclusions

F&G: The Data Matters! • Include pre-WWI data • Count wars individually (not by year) • Most war observations from WWI & WWII • World Wars swamp the results!

F&G’s Results Only peacetime period with statistical significance!

How do Farber & Gowa explain the observed DP between 1946 and 1980?

Farber & Gowa: the supposed “Democratic Peace” is really just a Cold War phenomenon. Can you say, “international structure determines IP outcomes”?

If I just act casually…

Aite. Let’s assume the DP exists as an empirical matter and that you can explain it. Guess what: I don’t care.

Kenneth Waltz would argue that, even if states with the same norms and institutions were peaceful among themselves, the cost of getting all states on the same page is prohibitively high.

The Democratic Peace