Not loving thy neighbour as thyself
Trade, democracy and military expenditure explanations underlying India-Pakistan rivalry
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3917904 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Syed Mansoob Murshed (0000-0002-8360-033X, Birmingham Business School; Institute of Social Studies (ISS); and Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW), PRIO, corresponding author), Dawood Mamoon (Pakistan Institute of Trade and Development (PITAD), Islamabad, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 463-476 |
| Publication date | 2010-07-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Peace Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-3433 • E-ISSN: 1460-3578 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343310364577 |
| OpenAlex | W2018507211 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 27 |
This article analyses whether greater international trade, democracy and reduced military spending lower hostility between India and Pakistan. Conflict between the two nations can be best understood in a multivariate framework where variables such as economic performance, multilateral trade with the rest of the world, bilateral trade, military expenditure, democracy scores and population are simultaneously taken into account. The empirical investigation is based on time series econometrics from 1950- 2005, allowing causality to be examined. The results suggest that reduced bilateral trade, greater military expenditure, less development expenditure, lower levels of democracy, lower growth rates and less general trade openness are all conflict enhancing, albeit with lags in some cases. Moreover, there is reverse causality between bilateral trade, militarization and conflict; low levels of bilateral trade and high militarization are conflict enhancing, but conflict also reduces bilateral trade and raises militarization. Economic growth is conflict mitigating, but the reverse is not true. Globalization, or greater openness to trade with the rest of the world, is the most significant driver of a liberal peace, corroborating a modified form of the capitalist peace, rather than a common democratic political orientation suggested by the pure form of the Kantian liberal peace
Bilateral trade · Democracy · Development economics · Economics · Globalization · International economics · International trade · Macroeconomics · Market economy · Militarization · Openness to experience · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Rivalry · Defense, Military, and Policy Studies · International Development and Aid · Law · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · Psychology · Social Psychology
Triangulating Peace
Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root
Macroeconomics and Reality
Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods
The MID 3 data set, 1993–2001
Electing to Fight
Make Trade Not War
The MID3 Data Set, 1993—2001
Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1816–1992
Geographic Proximity, Trade, and International Conflict/Cooperation
Intergovernmental Organizations and the Kantian Peace
Conflict and Trade
Peace through Trade or Free Trade
Structural Equivalence and International Conflict
The Classical Liberals Were Right
The Capitalist Peace
Bilateral Trade and Political Conflict/Cooperation
The Classical Liberals Were Half Right (or Half Wrong)
Sleeping with the Enemy
Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications
Development and the Liberal Peace
Trends in World Airline Patterns
The Impact of War on Trade
Trade networks and the Kantian peace
Liberalism and World Politics
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,2 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2024 (14) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |