Does War Impede Trade? A Response to Anderton & Carter
| Author | Jack S. Levy,Katherine Barbieri |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343301038005006 |
| Published date | 01 September 2001 |
| Date | 01 September 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
619
Introduction
The relationship between trade and war has
generated a lively debate.1Liberals argue that
trade promotes peace, since the fear of losing
commerce causes political decisionmakers to
refrain from engaging in war with important
trading partners. In Barbieri & Levy (1999),
we argued that trade ties do not always deter
war because war, in many cases, does not sig-
nificantly harm trading relationships. Thus,
liberals are incorrect in their argument that
leaders consider trade-related losses as an
important cost of conflict when calculating
the utility of going to war. Anderton &
Carter (2001) responded to our study by
offering evidence that trade does promote
peace. While Anderton & Carter make an
important contribution to the debate by
extending the analysis of the war–trade
relationship to major power dyads and by
suggesting new empirical tests, we are not yet
convinced.
We see three problems with Anderton &
Carter’s study. First, and most importantly,
they do not acknowledge sufficiently the
political dimension of trade or war. Second,
they attribute more specificity to commercial
liberal theory than actually exists. Third, the
authors’ empirical findings provide mixed
support for their argument. While Anderton
& Carter provide plausible evidence that war
impedes trade in some cases, the evidence is
not sufficient to support their conclusion
that on balance war significantly impedes
trade.
© 2001 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 38, no. 5, 2001, pp. 619–624
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)
[0022-3433(200109)38:5; 619–624; 019473]
Does War Impede Trade? A Response to Anderton
& Carter*
KATHERINE BARBIERI
Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University
JACK S. LEVY
Department of Political Science, Rutgers University
Anderton & Carter claim that war significantly diminishes trade, challenging the earlier argument by
Barbieri & Levy that there is no apparent systematic relationship between war and trade. Three main
problems with Anderton & Carter’s analyses are identified. First, and most importantly, they do not
pay sufficient attention to the political dimension of trade or war. Second, they attribute more speci-
ficity to commercial liberal theory than actually exists. Third, the authors’ empirical findings provide
mixed support for liberal theory. While Anderton & Carter advance the debate, there is not enough
evidence to support their conclusion that, on balance, war significantly impedes trade and that this fact
deters leaders from engaging in war.
* We thank Jon DiCicco, Bob Driskill, Bill Mabe, Brad
Palmquist, Jim Ray, and especially John Geer for their valu-
able comments.
1For summaries of the trade–conflict debate, see Mc-
Millan (1997) and Barbieri & Schneider (1999).
06barbieri (ds) 10/8/01 12:29 pm Page 619
at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jpr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial