비대칭 국제경제관계에서 자유주의 평화의 가능성
Likelihood of a Liberal Peace in International Relations in Asymmetry
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
이 논문은 비대칭 경제관계에서 상호의존이 분쟁에 미치는 영향을 계량적으로 분석하였다. 경제적 상호의존은 무역의 중요성, 대칭성, 상호의존성의 세 지수로 조작되었다. 통제변수는 지리적 근접성, 정권유형, 상대적 국력, 동맹, 탈냉전이다. 분석기간은 1950부터 2000년까지이다. 분석결과 중요성과 대칭성의 수준이 낮은 경우 둘 중 어느 하나가 증가하면 분쟁을 감소시키지만, 중요성과 대칭성이 모두 매우 높은 경우 분쟁 가능성을 증가시킨다는 것을 발견하였다. 이러한 경제적 상호의존과 분쟁의 비선형적 관계는 자유주의나 현실주의 이론에 의해 설명될 수 없다. 본 연구는 이러한 비선형적 관계를 다음과 같이 설명한다. 두 국가가 초기의 낮은 수준의 경제적 의존관계에서는 실질이익과 기대이익이 증가하기 때문에 분쟁가능성은 감소하고, 경제적 의존관계가 높은 수준으로 진행됨에 따라 실질이익과 기대이익은 감소하고, 그에 따라 제3의 대체무역국가가 확보되면서 분쟁 가능성은 증가한다.
Abstract
This paper analyzes the pacifying effect of economic linkages on interstate militarized disputes in asymmetry in economic size. Economic interdependence is measured in three dimensions: trade salience, trade symmetry, and their interactive terms, interdependence. The model consists of five control variables such as proximity, joint democracy level, relative capabilities, alliance, and post-cold war. The period under analysis is from 1950 to 2000. The key findings show that while increase in either salience or symmetry at its low level is more likely to reduce conflicts, increase in both salience or symmetry at their high level is more likely to increase conflicts. The non-linear relations between interdependence and conflicts can not be explained by either one of realism or liberalism. The non-linear relations could be inferred as follows: At the beginning of the economic relations which is in the low level of interdependence, two countries are less likely to engage in militarized disputes because they could have both higher real and expected gains from the ties. In contrast, as economic ties expand, which means the higher level of interdependence, two countries are more likely to fight because their real and expected gains gradually and relatively decrease.
참고문헌 (40)
- Barbieri, K., "The Liberal Illusion" (2002), University of Michigan Press
- Barbieri, K., "Economic interdependence: a path to peace or a source of interstate conflict", Journal of Peace Research, 33(1), pp.29~49 (1996)
- Beck, N., "Taking time seriously:time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable", American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), pp.1260~1288 (1998)
- Bennett, D. Scott, "EUGene: a conceptual manual", International Interactions, 26, pp.179~204 (2000)
- Benson, Michelle A., "The relevance of politically dyads in the study of interdependence and dyadic disputes", Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22, pp.113~133 (2005)
- Ethier, W., "Gains from trade and the size of a country", Journal of International Economics, 9, pp.127~129 (1979)
- Gasiorowski, M. J., "Economic interdependence and international conflict:some cross-national evidence", International Studies Quarterly, 30, pp.39~57 (1986)
- Gasiorowski, M. J., "Conflict interdependence : East-West trade and linkages in the era of detente", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 26(4), pp.709~729 (1982)
- Gelpi, C., "Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate", pp.44~59 (2003), University of Michigan Press
- Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, "Expanded trade and GDP data", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, pp.712~724 (2002)
- Gowa, Joanne, "Power politics and international trade", American Political Science Review, 87(2), pp.408~420 (1993)
- Head, A. C., "Country size, aggregate fluctuations, and international risk sharing", Canadian Journal of Economics, 28, pp.1096~1119 (1995)
- Hegre, Havard, "Development and the liberal peace: what does it take to be a trading state?", Journal of Peace Research, 37(1), pp.5~30 (2000)
- Hegre, Havard, "Size asymmetry, trade, and militarized conflict", The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(3), pp.403~429 (2004)
- Hegre, Havard, "Development and the liberal peace : what does it take to be a trading states?", Journal of Peace Research, 37(5), pp.30~49 (2000)
- Hegre, Havard, "Trade does promote peace: new simultaneous estimates of the reciprocal effects of trade and conflict", Journal of Peace Research, 47(6), pp.763~774 (2010)
- Keshk, Omar M. G., "Trade still follows the flag: the primacy of politics in a simultaneous model of interdependence and armed conflict", The Journal of Politics, 66(4), pp.1155~1179 (2003)
- Kim, Hyung Min, "The classical liberals were half right(or half wrong): new tests of the liberal peace, 1960-88", Journal of Peace Research, 42(5), pp.523~643 (2005)
- Klein, James P., "The new rivalry dataset : procedures and patterns", Journal of Peace Research, 43(3), pp.331~348 (2006)
- Mansfield, Edward E., "Power, Trade, and War" (1994), Princeton University Press
- Mansfield, E. D., "Globalization and Armed Conflict", pp.233~250 (2003), Rowman and Littlefield
- Mansfield, E. D., "The study of interdependence and conflict", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(6), pp.834~859 (2001)
- Mansfield, E. D., "Trade blocs, trade flows, and international conflict", International Organization, 54(4), pp.775~808 (2000)
- Marshall, Monty G., "Polity IV Project : Dataset Users’ Manual", Polity IV Project, ~ (2011)
- Mearsheimer, J., "Back to the future: instability in Europe after the Cold War", International Security, 15, pp.5~56 (1990)
- Oneal, John R., "New tests of the democratic peace: controlling for economic interdependence, 1950-1985", Political Research Quarterly, 50, pp.751~775 (1997)
- Oneal, John R., "The classical liberals were right: democracy, interdependence, and conflict, 1950-1985", International Studies Quarterly, 41, pp.267~294 (1997)
- Oneal, John R., "The Kantian peace: the Pacific benefits of democracy, interdependence, and international organizations", World Politics, 52(1), pp.1~37 (1999)
- Oneal, John R., "The liberal peace: interdependence, democracy, and international conflict, 1950-86", Journal of Peace Research, 33, pp.11~28 (1996)
- Polachek, S. W., "Conflict and trade", Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), pp.55~78 (1980)
- Polachek, S. W., "Liberalism and interdependence : extending the trade-conflict model", Journal of Peace Research, 36(4), pp.405~422 (1999)
- Pollins, B. M., "Does trade still follow the flag?", American Political Science Review, 83(2), pp.465~480 (1989)
- Reuveny, Rafael, "Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: New Perspectives on an Enduring Debate", pp.254~269 (2003), University of Michigan Press
- Reuveny, R., "The political economy of Israeli-Palestinian Interdependence", Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), pp.643~664 (1999)
- Reuveny, Rafael, "Bilateral trade and political conflict", cooperation: Do goods matter?, 1998, pp.35, 581~602
- Reuveny, Rafael, "International trade, political conflict", cooperation, and granger causality, 1996, pp.40, 943~970
- Russett, B., "Triangulating Peace" (2001), W. W. Norton & Company, Inc
- Russett, Bruce M., "The third leg of the Kantian tripod for peace : international organizations and militarized disputes, 1950-1985", International Organization, 52(3), pp.441~467 (1998)
- Rosencrance, R., "The Rise of the Trading State : Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World" (1986), Basic Books
- Sarkees, Meredith Reid, "Inter-state, intra-state, and extra-state wars: a comprehensive look at their distribution over time, 1816-1997", International Studies Quarterly, 47(1), pp.49~70 (2003)