IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v43y1999i6p771-792.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution in Democracy-War Dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Sara McLaughlin Mitchell

    (Department of Political Science, Florida State University)

  • Scott Gates

    (Department of Political Science, Michigan State University)

  • HÃ¥vard Hegre

    (International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO))

Abstract

This article explores the evolutionary and endogenous relationship between democracy and war at the system level. Building on Kant, the authors argue that the rules and norms of behavior within and between democracies become more prevalent in international relations as the number of democracies in the system increases. The authors use Kalman filter analysis, which allows for the parameters in the models to vary over time. The results support the propositions that democratization tends to follow war, that democratization decreases the systemic amount of war, and that the substantive and pacific impact of democracy on war increases over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Scott Gates & HÃ¥vard Hegre, 1999. "Evolution in Democracy-War Dynamics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(6), pages 771-792, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:43:y:1999:i:6:p:771-792
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002799043006005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002799043006005
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002799043006005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan Reiter & Allan C. Stam III, 1998. "Democracy and Battlefield Military Effectiveness," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(3), pages 259-277, June.
    2. Doyle, Michael W., 1986. "Liberalism and World Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1151-1169, December.
    3. Lake, David A., 1992. "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 24-37, March.
    4. Dixon, William J., 1994. "Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 14-32, March.
    5. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    6. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Siverson, Randolph M. & Woller, Gary, 1992. "War and the Fate of Regimes: A Comparative Analysis," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(3), pages 638-646, September.
    7. Maoz, Zeev & Russett, Bruce, 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946–1986," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 624-638, September.
    8. John Oneal & Bruce Russett, 2000. "Comment: Why “an identified systemic model of the democracy-peace nexus” does not persuade," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 197-214.
    9. Thompson, William R., 1996. "Democracy and peace: putting the cart before the horse?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 141-174, January.
    10. Patrick James & Eric Solberg & Murray Wolfson, 1999. "An identified systemic model of the democracy-peace nexus," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 1-37.
    11. repec:cup:apsrev:v:87:y:1993:i:03:p:624-638_27 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Håvard Hegre, 2005. "Development and the Liberal Peace," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 31, pages 17-46.
    2. Owen, John M., 2016. "Global power shifts and the future of democracy: An evolutionary approach, with special attention to China," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2016-108, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Jason Enia & Patrick James, 2015. "Regime Type, Peace, and Reciprocal Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 523-539, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sebastian Rosato, 2011. "On the Democratic Peace," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Michael Mousseau, 2005. "Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 63-77, February.
    3. Jason Enia & Patrick James, 2015. "Regime Type, Peace, and Reciprocal Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 523-539, June.
    4. Kenneth A. Schultz, 2001. "Looking for Audience Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 32-60, February.
    5. Michael Mousseau, 1998. "Democracy and Compromise in Militarized Interstate Conflicts, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(2), pages 210-230, April.
    6. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.
    7. Brian Lai & Dan Reiter, 2000. "Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(2), pages 203-227, April.
    8. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.
    9. Alexandra Guisinger & Alastair Smith, 2002. "Honest Threats," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(2), pages 175-200, April.
    10. Michael J. Ireland & Scott Sigmund Gartner, 2001. "Time to Fight," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(5), pages 547-568, October.
    11. Michael Mousseau, 2000. "Market Prosperity, Democratic Consolidation, and Democratic Peace," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(4), pages 472-507, August.
    12. Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, 2017. "Dangerous bargains with the devil? Incorporating new approaches in peace science for the study of war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 98-116, January.
    13. Gerald L. McCallister, 2016. "Beyond Dyads: Regional Democratic Strength’s Influence on Dyadic Conflict," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 295-321, March.
    14. Christopher Gelpi, 2017. "Democracies in Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1925-1949, October.
    15. David Altman & Federico Rojas-de-Galarreta & Francisco Urdinez, 2021. "An interactive model of democratic peace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(3), pages 384-398, May.
    16. Suzanne Werner, 1998. "Negotiating the Terms of Settlement," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(3), pages 321-343, June.
    17. Steven V. Miller & Douglas M. Gibler, 2011. "Democracies, Territory, and Negotiated Compromises," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(3), pages 261-279, July.
    18. Kristopher W. Ramsay, 2008. "Settling It on the Field," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(6), pages 850-879, December.
    19. Joe Eyerman & Robert A. Hart Jr., 1996. "An Empirical Test of The Audience Cost Proposition," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(4), pages 597-616, December.
    20. William Reed & David H. Clark, 2000. "War Initiators and War Winners," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(3), pages 378-395, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:43:y:1999:i:6:p:771-792. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.