Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace The democratic peace Lecture at HEI, 19 April 2007 Course E 584 Topics in Peace Research Nils Petter Gleditsch Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW at International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) & Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace The democratic peace – a survey Levels of analysis A brief history Empirical status Theoretical status Extensions?

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Defining and measuring democracy Political system that ensures citizens access to political influence through democratic elections Democratic institutions resolve disagreements through voting or negotiation The median voter’s preferences are decisive for political decisions Polity: A country is democratic if the executive power has been chosen through open and competitive elections, participation in the political system is open and competitive, and the legislative branch is at least as powerful as the executive Level of participation not included (alternative measure: Vanhanen’s Polyarchy index; SIP index) Human rights not included (alternative measure: Freedom House) Sources: Jaggers & Gurr (1995), Marshall, Jaggers & Gurr (2004), Gates et al. (2006), Freedom House, annual, Vanhanen (2000)

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Levels of analysis Dyadic level do democracies fight one another? Monadic level I – interstate war are democracies generally peaceful? Monadic level II – colonial war do democracies fight colonial war more or less frequently? Monadic level III – political change do politically unstable countries fight more frequently? System level more democracy in the world – more peace? Intrastate war (26 April) do democracies experience more or less civil war?

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace History of the democratic peace Kant's Zum ewigen Frieden The classical studies of war – Richardson, Sorokin, Wright Babst (1964, 1972) Singer & Small (1976), Correlates of War Project Rummel (1983), Doyle (1983, 1986) Maoz & Russett (1992, 1993), Russett (1993) - and then the take-off

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace A pioneer on World War I Allied andassociated powers Centralpowers Elective governments Non-elective governments Elective governments Non-elective governments Australia Belgium Canada Great Britain France Italia Brazil New Zealand South Africa United States 10 China Costa Rica Cuba Greece Guatemala Haiti Honduras Japan Liberia Luxemburg Montenegro Nicaragua Panama Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Siam 190 Austria-Hungary Bulgaria Germany Turkey 4 Source: Babst (1964: 11, Table 1). World War I participants omitted (not independent): India, Hejaz, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace - and on World War II AlliesAxispowers Elective governments Non-elective governments Elective governments Non-Elective governments (Finland) 7 Source: Babst (1964: 12, Table 2)

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Empirical status at the dyadic level A strong relationship Down to a low level of violence Has survived the end of the Cold War Survives controls for third variables, with some caveats Democracy not a necessary condition for peace Reverse causality? What about covert action?

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Empirics at the dyadic level TypeTwoOneNoMissingAll of conflictdemocr.democr.democr.datadyad-years (n) p War ,351 < Armed conflict ,129 < MID ,015 < War ( > 1000 deaths) 1816–2002 Armed conflict ( > 25 deaths) 1946–2002 MID (militarized interstate disputes) 1816– source of error: fisheries conflicts Source: Gleditsch & Hegre (2004: 296, Table 1).

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace The normative explanation Democracies are governed by nonviolent norms and practice When a democracy is facing another democracy known to be governed by the same principles, these norms can be externalized When facing a country not governed by the same norms, it cannot expect nonviolent norms to be reciprocated A borderline case: both countries are democratic but do not recognize one another as such

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace The structural explanation The citizens can place constraints on political leaders, who are accountable to them Executive authorities are accountable to other institutions The debate between the institutions and the citizens is public Political mobilization and decision-making take time in democratic systems Political leaders tend to be removed if their actions fail

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace The signaling explanation In a world of complete information the weaker party would always concede to the stronger War occurs where the parties have incomplete information or problems with committing themselves Crises are public events used to signal intentions to the opponent but also to the domestic public When signaling to the opponent, each side has an incentive to bluff Democracies have higher domestic audience costs and their signals are therefore more credible The security dilemma is therefore modified between democracies, which are able to clearly signal to each other Fearon (1994)

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace The interest-based explanation Democracies refrain from fighting each other because they have common interests in the international system Democracies get little out of conquest, since the spoils have to be divided by many Power in democracies is dispersed and such countries are not the best targets for conquest Democracies tend to be trading states rather than warfare states Gartzke (1998)

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace The monadic interstate democratic peace Rummel’s 'freedom proposition' Still debated Fewer multivariate analyses Fits better after the end of the Cold War Clear relationship for war casualties No difference in terms of who starts a war But clear difference for onset of new wars Democracies join ongoing conflicts Democracies build alliances Politically mixed dyads are the most hazardous Theoretical expectations at the monadic level?

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Monadic interstate empirics All Type ofNon-Missingcountry- conflict Dem. dem.datayears (n) p War , Armed conflict , MID ,853 < War ( > 1000 deaths) 1816–2002 Armed conflict ( > 25 deaths) 1946–2002 MID (militarized conflicts) 1816–2001 Source: Gleditsch & Hegre (2004: 303, Table 2

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Colonial war Difficult to test dyadically Monadic test – under certain conditions Most colonies conquered by democracies Democracies overrepresented in colonial wars – but only before 1945 Multivariate analyses – democracies participate less in colonial war Norm change after 1945

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Alternative hypotheses The colonized territories AssumptionFrequency of colonial war Mostly democratic GenerousLess frequently for democracies ProportionalNeutralNo correlation with democracy Mostly undemocratic UngenerousMore frequently for democracies Source: Ravlo, Gleditsch & Dorussen (2003: 525, Table 1)

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Bivariate analysis of colonial wars Source: Ravlo, Gleditsch & Dorussen (2003: 535, Table 2) Period Democratic countries’ share of all country-years Democratic countries’ share of all country-years with war r Colonialism (1816–1869) ** Imperialism (1870–1945) *** Decolonization (1946–92) *** 1816–

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Multivariate analysis of colonial wars Source: Ravlo, Gleditsch & Dorussen (2003: 535, Table 2?) VariableAreaColonialismImperialismDecolonizationAll years DemocracyEurope-+-- DemocracyOutside---- Poisson analysis, controls for great power, alliances, number of colonies, urbanization, other conflicts - negative relationship (democratic states fight less) + positive relationship (democratic states fight more)

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace The democratic peace at the system level Gleditsch & Hegre (1997) More democracies – more peace (generalized from the dyadic level) no difference (generalized from the monadic level) an inverted U-shaped relationship Will a higher number of democracies lead non-democracies to change their behavior? (By norm change or force.) Empirical tests few and mixed

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Empirics at the system level Source: Gleditsch & Hegre (2004)

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace System-level study of battle deaths Risk of battle death, 1946–2002 (bivariate) Controlling for trade and membership in IGOs Democracy  = -6.4* p=0.08  = -4.4* p = 0.09 N5751 R2R Source: Lacina, Russett & Gleditsch (2005)

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Democratization and war Mansfield & Snyder (1995): Democratization is dangerous Oneal & Russett (1997), Russett & Oneal (2001): It is not! Ward & Gleditsch (1998): Dangers of democratization soon outweighed by level effect Failed democratization is dangerous Mansfield & Snyder (2002a,b, 2005): Incomplete democratization is dangerous Limitations: Change vs. level, longer-term effects, neighborhood effect

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Limitations of the democratic peace Does it only apply to consolidated democracies? Does it only apply to rich democracies? (10 May) How is it modified by change? How is it modified by regional patterns? Democratic interventionism (2 May) Case study evidence disputed Lack of theory or theoretical overdetermination?

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Extensions of the democratic peace The liberal peace - democracy, economic integration, international organizations The cooperative peace - do democracies cooperate more? A civil peace? (26 April) - do democracies have fewer civil wars? Genocide, 'democide', 'politicide’ (26 April) - power kills or ’more murder in the middle’? Military expenditure - Democracies are less militarized Interventions (2 May) - Democracies attract fewer interventions

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace References (1) Babst, Dean V., 'Elective Governments – A Force for Peace', Wisconsin Sociologist 3(1): 9–14 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce & Randolph M. Siverson, 1995: ’War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Type and Political Accountability’, American Political Science Review 89(4): 841–855 Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce; James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson & Alastair Smith, et al ‘Testing Novel Implications from the Selectorate Theory of War, World Politics 56(3): 363–388 Chan, Steve, 1997: ’In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise’, Mershon International Studies Review 41(1): 59–91 Doyle, Michael W., 1983: ’Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, part 1: 12(3) 205–235, part 2: 12(4): 323–353 Doyle, Michael W., ’Liberalism and World Politics’, American Political Science Review 80(4): 1151–1169 Fearon, James D., ‘Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes’, American Political Science Review 88(3): 577–592 Freedom House, annual. Freedom in the World 2005 – The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. [Earlier editions from various publishers.] See also Gartzke, Erik, ‘Kant We All Just Get Along? Opportunity, Willingness, and the Origins of the Democratic Peace’, American Journal of Political Science 42(1): 1–27 Gates, Scott; Håvard Hegre, Mark P. Jones & Håvard Strand, ‘Institutional Inconsistency and Political Instability: Polity Duration, 1800– 2000’, American Journal of Political Science 50 (4): 893–908 * Gleditsch, Nils Petter & Håvard Hegre, ’Peace and Democracy: Three Levels of Analysis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(2): 283–310 Gleditsch, Nils Petter & Håvard Hegre, ‘Fred og demokrati [Peace and democracy], in Knut Midgaard & Bjørn Erik Rasch, eds, Demokrati – vilkår og virkninger. Sec. Ed. Oslo & Bergen: Fagbokforlaget (293–322) Jaggers, Keith & Ted Robert Gurr, 'Tracking Democracy ’ s Third Wave with the Polity III Data', Journal of Peace Research 32(4): 469 – 482 Kant, I. 1795: Zum ewigen Frieden. [English edition: Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Reprinted in Hans Reiss, ed., Kant’s Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lacina, Bethany; Bruce Russett & Nils Petter Gleditsch, 'The Declining Risk of Death in Battle', paper presented to the 46th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, 2–5 March Macmillan, John, ‘Liberalism and the Democratic Peace’, Review of International Studies 30(2): 179–200

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace References (2) Mansfield, Edward D. & Jack Snyder, 1995: ’Democratization and the Danger of War’, International Security 20(1): 5–38 Mansfield, Edward D. & Jack Snyder, 2002a. ‘Incomplete Democratization and the Outbreak of Military Disputes’, International Studies Quarterly 46(4): 529–549 Mansfield, Edward D. & Jack Snyder, 2002b. ‘Democratic Transitions, Institutional Strength, and War’, International Organization 56(2): 297–337 Mansfield, Edward D., & Jack Snyder, Electing to Fight. Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Marshall, Monty; Keith Jaggers & Ted Robert Gurr, The Polity IV Project, Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2004, Mousseau, Michael, Håvard Hegre & John R Oneal, ‘How the Wealth of Nations Conditions the Liberal Peace’, European Journal of International Relations 9(2): 277–314 Oneal, John R. & Bruce Russett, ‘The Classic Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict’, International Studies Quaterly 41(2): 267–294 Ravlo, Hilde; Nils Petter Gleditsch & Han Dorussen, ‘Colonial War and the Democratic Peace’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 47(4): 520–548 Richardson, Lewis Fry, Statistics of Deadly Quarrels. Edited by Quincy Wright & C.C. Lienau. Pittsburgh, PA: Boxwood. Rosato, Sebastian, ‘The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory’, American Political Science Review 97(4): 585–602. See also ‘Forum’, with articles by David Kinsella; Branislav L. Slantchev, Anna Alexandrova & Erik Gartzke; Michael W. Doyle; and Sebastian Rosato, American Political Science Review 99(3): 453–472 Rummel, Rudolph J., 1983: ’Libertarianism and International Violence’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 27(1): 27–71 Rummel, Rudolph J., 1994: ’Focus on: Power, Genocide and Mass Murder’, Journal of Peace Research 31(1): 1–10 Rummel, Rudolph J., 1995: ’Democracies ARE Less Warlike Than Other Regimes’, European Journal of International Relations 1(4): 457–479 Russett, Bruce & Harvey Starr, ’From Democratic Peace to Kantian Peace Theory: Democracy and Conflict in the International System’, i Manus Midlarsky, ed., Handbook of War Studies II. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press (93–128) Russett, Bruce, Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. * Russett, Bruce & John Oneal, ‘Democracy Reduces Conflict’, ch. 3 in Triangulating Peace. Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York, Norton (81–124) Small, Melvin & J. David Singer, 1976: ’The War-Proneness of Democratic Regimes’, Jerusalem Journal of »International Relations 1(1): 50–69 Vanhanen, Tatu, ‘A New Dataset for Measuring Democracy’, Journal of Peace Research 37(2): 251–265 Ward, Michael D. & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, 1998: ’Democratizing for Peace’, American Political Science Review 92(1): 51–62 Wright, Qunicy, 1965 [1942]: A Study of War. Second Edition with a Commentary on War since Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press * Required reading

Environmental Conflict? The democratic peace Next week Civil Peace – the democratic peace at the intrastate level