Economic
Peace Theory vs Democratic Peace Theory
The democratic peace theory is a better theory than the
economic peace theory because it is more stable.
The
general idea of the economic peace theory is that states that trade with each
other do not go to war with each other; and a common indicator that two or more
states are going to going war is when they call off trade with each other.
(Peace Lecture, Professor Shirk) However, if evaluating this theory from a
realist point of view if one of the states involved in the trade relationship
is stronger economically that state could potentially take advantage of the
“weaker” state since it would not hurt the stronger state as much. However, if
the “weaker” state is providing a natural resource that is necessary for
survival and they are the only state that has that natural resources the
stronger state is least likely to go to war. Also, since three measurements of
power are military strength, reputation, and economic strength, and in order to
maintain a strong, effective military strength in war that strains economic
strength. The McDonalds theory (Peace Lecture, Professor Shirk) is
absurd because most probably have McDonalds and still declare war on each other
having something as small as a fast-food restaurant in common is not going to
keep states from going to war with each other.
The democratic peace theory is more stable because based
on history democratic states tended to unite for the common goal for example
during the cold war there was the “red scare” and although the United States
was the main democratic state involved. World War II The allied powers were
mostly democratic states that united for the common goal of spreading democracy
and preventing Nazi Germany from being a major power. Also, the Vietnam War
United States went to war with Vietnam in an effort to prevent South Vietnam
from becoming Communist similar to Korea in the aspect of being half successful
because both North Vietnam and North Korea are not democracies but South
Vietnam and South Korea are both democracies? War tends to happen because of
terrorism which usually occurs because of some type of difference especially
cultural differences. Therefore, because the democracies have that in common
and have the same agenda of spreading democracy they are more likely to see
each other as teammates and therefore will be less likely to go to war with one
another.
Democracies do tend to be stronger than non-democratic
states and therefore tend to have different outcomes with audience cost depending
on their choices. If a democratic state’s leader publicly announces that they
declare on another country and they pull back the public is less likely to
revolt? However, with an autocratic state if the leader declares war and the
either pull back or even worse lose the war that will make the leader look
weaker and more likely lead to uprisings and that leader being overthrown
because seeing another state defeat their leader who oppressed them can take
away their fear of that leader. For example, after President Obama announced
that United States was going to war with ISIS, if he decided to announce that
we are leaving there is a fifty fifty chance that the public will be outraged
for dropping out on what is seen as our responsibility however, there’s are
others who may be fed up with United States jumping into every other states’
affairs.
I think its true that the DPT is definitely a stronger argument that the McDonalds Theory. However, I think it is important to note that there are some underlying economic ties in the DPT. For the most part, nations like to trade with other nations that have similar ideals to themselves. This causes many democracies to create trade pacts with one another. While I don't think that a state will not fight another because they have a McDonalds, a democracy will not fight another one just because they share the same ideals. Often times these nations are intertwined economically which causes them to not want to fight as well because it would weaken both of their respective positions. This is why we have seen countries, with both different government and economic systems, go to war more than those who are similar
ReplyDeleteI think you make some really good points here. Both theories certainly have their respective flaws. I would argue that while people in a democracy do not necessarily "revolt," there are still significant costs to a leader failing or reneging on their original plan that extend beyond a 50% disapproval. In the 2006 Midterm elections, the Democrats enjoyed a wave election that gave them control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years. A main reason for this result was the public dissatisfaction with Bush's strategy in Iraq. I would use this example as proof that the democracies actually force a leader to be held accountable for his or her decisions, which often influences the decisions that are made. This is not to say that the DPT is perfect, but I think that audience costs are responsible for increasing a leader's accountability to the public rather than diminishing it.
ReplyDeleteYou make a really interesting point here. I hadn't really even thought about the instability of the economic peace theory before reading this. If two countries trade agreement is abolished, will those countries automatically become enemies? Probably not, but I do think economic ties are more important to IR than you may give them credit for. I also think you need to clarify what you mean by a "better" theory. More reliable? Stronger argument? Etc.
ReplyDeleteMy argument was that the democratic peace theory is more reliable than the economic peace theory. Sorry for any confusion. It would be great if the solution to creating world peace was as simple as having a McDonalds in every state but unfortunately, it is more complex than this.
ReplyDelete