IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v61y2024i4p659-672.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Microchips and sneakers: Bilateral trade, shifting power, and interstate conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Yuleng Zeng

    (Department of Political Science, University of Salzburg)

Abstract

Strong commercial ties promote peace as states shun the opportunity costs of economic disruption. However, trade also enriches and empowers states, rendering them more capable of enforcing long-term settlements. Given economic disruption does not last forever, countries can be incentivized to trade short-term economic losses for long-term political or territorial gains. This trade-off can restrict or even reverse the pacifying effect of commerce as it renders states incapable of committing to existing peaceful deals. I argue the scope condition hinges on the existing power imbalance and the security externalities of trade, defined as states’ abilities to translate trade gains into (potential) military power. For countries where the existing power gap is not extreme, the impact of bilateral strategic trade is contingent upon a country’s trade externality relative to its opponent’s. Although increased bilateral trade can be peace-promoting when the relative externality is small, the pacifying effects can dissipate as a relatively weaker state becomes more capable of exploiting trade gains. Building on recent work in network analysis, I propose a new measurement of trade externalities to test the above theory and find supporting results.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuleng Zeng, 2024. "Microchips and sneakers: Bilateral trade, shifting power, and interstate conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(4), pages 659-672, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:61:y:2024:i:4:p:659-672
    DOI: 10.1177/00223433231153902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433231153902
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00223433231153902?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. David J. Lektzian & Christopher M. Sprecher, 2007. "Sanctions, Signals, and Militarized Conflict," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 415-431, April.
    2. Timothy M Peterson, 2020. "Reconsidering economic leverage and vulnerability: Trade ties, sanction threats, and the success of economic coercion," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(4), pages 409-429, July.
    3. Mansfield, Edward D. & Pevehouse, Jon C., 2000. "Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(4), pages 775-808, October.
    4. Meijer, Hugo, 2016. "Trading with the Enemy: The Making of US Export Control Policy toward the People's Republic of China," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190277697.
    5. Krainin, Colin, 2017. "Preventive War as a Result of Long-Term Shifts in Power," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 103-121, January.
    6. Fearon, James D., 2018. "Cooperation, Conflict, and the Costs of Anarchy," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(3), pages 523-559, July.
    7. Reuven Glick & Alan M. Taylor, 2010. "Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 102-127, February.
    8. Yuleng Zeng, 2021. "Biding time versus timely retreat: Asymmetric dependence, issue salience, and conflict duration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(4), pages 719-733, July.
    9. Carter, David B. & Signorino, Curtis S., 2010. "Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 271-292, July.
    10. Cullen F Goenner, 2010. "From toys to warships: Interdependence and the effects of disaggregated trade on militarized disputes," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 47(5), pages 547-559, September.
    11. Debs, Alexandre & Monteiro, Nuno P., 2014. "Known Unknowns: Power Shifts, Uncertainty, and War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 1-31, January.
    12. Polachek, Solomon & Xiang, Jun, 2010. "How Opportunity Costs Decrease the Probability of War in an Incomplete Information Game," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(1), pages 133-144, January.
    13. Gartzke, Erik & Li, Quan & Boehmer, Charles, 2001. "Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 391-438, April.
    14. Fearon, James D., 2018. "Cooperation, Conflict, and the Costs of Anarchy—CORRIGENDUM," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(3), pages 759-759, July.
    15. Gowa, Joanne & Mansfield, Edward D., 1993. "Power Politics and International Trade," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 408-420, June.
    16. Powell, Robert, 1991. "Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1303-1320, December.
    17. Nils B. Weidmann & Doreen Kuse & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, 2010. "The Geography of the International System: The CShapes Dataset," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 86-106, February.
    18. Pavel Yakovlev & Brandon Spleen, 2022. "Make concentrated trade not war?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 661-686, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Brandon J Kinne, 2014. "Does third-party trade reduce conflict? Credible signaling versus opportunity costs," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(1), pages 28-48, February.
    2. Timothy M Peterson, 2011. "Third-party trade, political similarity, and dyadic conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 48(2), pages 185-200, March.
    3. Aysegul Aydin, 2010. "The deterrent effects of economic integration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 47(5), pages 523-533, September.
    4. Yuleng Zeng, 2021. "Biding time versus timely retreat: Asymmetric dependence, issue salience, and conflict duration," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(4), pages 719-733, July.
    5. Xiang Jun & Primiano Christopher B. & Huang Wei-hao, 2015. "Aggressive or Peaceful Rise? An Empirical Assessment of China’s Militarized Conflict, 1979–2010," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(3), pages 301-325, August.
    6. Edward D. Mansfield & Brian M. Pollins, 2001. "The Study of Interdependence and Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 834-859, December.
    7. Yuleng Zeng, 2020. "Bluff to peace: How economic dependence promotes peace despite increasing deception and uncertainty," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(6), pages 633-654, November.
    8. Fuchs, Andreas & Klann, Nils-Hendrik, 2013. "Paying a visit: The Dalai Lama effect on international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 164-177.
    9. J Tyson Chatagnier & Haeyong Lim, 2021. "Does the WTO exacerbate international conflict?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 58(5), pages 1068-1082, September.
    10. Håvard Hegre, 2005. "Development and the Liberal Peace," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 31, pages 17-46.
    11. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2006. "Power Positions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(1), pages 3-27, February.
    12. Seitz, Michael & Tarasov, Alexander & Zakharenko, Roman, 2015. "Trade costs, conflicts, and defense spending," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 305-318.
    13. Francesco Amodio & Leonardo Baccini & Michele Di Maio, 2021. "Security, Trade, and Political Violence," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-37.
    14. James D. Morrow, 1997. "When Do “Relative Gains†Impede Trade?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 12-37, February.
    15. Yue Lu & Wei Gu & Ka Zeng, 2021. "Does the Belt and Road Initiative Promote Bilateral Political Relations?," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 29(5), pages 57-83, September.
    16. Philippe Martin & Thierry Mayer & Mathias Thoenig, 2012. "The Geography of Conflicts and Regional Trade Agreements," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 1-35, October.
    17. Vicard, Vincent, 2012. "Trade, conflict, and political integration: Explaining the heterogeneity of regional trade agreements," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 54-71.
    18. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Jana von Stein & Erik Gartzke, 2008. "International Organizations Count," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(2), pages 175-188, April.
    19. Garfinkel, Michelle R. & Syropoulos, Constantinos & Zylkin, Thomas, 2022. "Prudence versus predation and the gains from trade," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    20. David Lektzian & Glen Biglaiser, 2014. "The effect of foreign direct investment on the use and success of US sanctions," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(1), pages 70-93, February.

    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:joupea:v:61:y:2024:i:4:p:659-672. 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://www.prio.no/ .

    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.