Mansfield, Edward and Brian Pollins. "The Study of Interdependence and Conflict: Recent Advances, Open Questions, and Directions for Future Research". The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.25, No.6 (2001): 834-859.

Mansfield, Edward and Brian Pollins. "The Study of Interdependence and Conflict: Recent Advances, Open Questions, and Directions for Future Research". The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.25, No.6 (2001): 834-859.

• This article weighs in on the debate about the effects of economic interdependence on political relations, laying out all contemporary arguments for and against these ideas (835).
• One of the major Liberal theories about why economic independence lessens conflict rests on the claim that warfare and free trade are both primarily by resource acquisition, meaning increased economic freedom makes war a less attractive option as its benefits decrease and costs rise (835-836, 838).
• A popular theory for explaining decreased chances of conflict between a pair of nations with strong trade and economic ties is that the increased contact created by this intercourse produces a sense of community between citizens and governmental officials making conflict and distrust less likely (836).
• Another common idea behind why increased trade decreases the likelihood of war is that free trade depends on peace for large profits to be maintained. This means that actors with commercial interests, like unions and large exporters, will pressure domestic officials to avoid war (836).
• Realists contend that the effects of international trade are not constant, but shift depending on the sector and circumstances. Trade in critical sectors, like coal or steel, will do more to prevent war than marginal sectors. Similarly, a significant amount of trade needs to occur for a deterrent to exist (836).
• States also have political reasons to reduce or minimize their dependence on foreign trade, which leave them more exposed internationally if war were to breakout. This means that although free trade is beneficial, protectionist policies may be safer, undermining full economic cooperation (837).
• The Liberal theory of peace coming with increased economic interconnectedness is also undermined by historical precedent, which indicates that non-economic factors are critical in decisions to go to war. The economic connectedness of Europe did little to stop the First World War (837).
• Some scholars argue that in asymmetric trade relationships, the constraints of economic interdependence only apply to a single dependent partner, whereas the dominant partner in the relationship is able to act or be aggressive without significant fear of economic costs (849).
• Research studies have shown that just as economic relations between states seems to effect the rates of conflict between them, the nature of inter-state relationships is critical in determining the sort of economic relationship does states will have, making the two relationships mutually reinforcing (838).
• A source mine of large data studies on the relationship between economic relations and conflict is available between page 838 and page 840.
• An explanation of contemporary research backing both Liberal and Realist theories, as well as an outline for future research, is available from page 841 to page 851.
• Specifically, more work needs to be done establishing the contingencies under which Liberal or Realist theories will accurately predict behavior. Right now both theories claim to be universal, something clearly not true. Instead, more work needs to be done establishing when certain theories will be accurate (844-846).
• There are two primary definitions of the term 'economic interdependence'. One means that economic factors in one country affect those in another, like transnational inflation; the other means that economic connections are strong and would be costly to terminate. They are termed sensitivity and vulnerability, respectively (847).
• There is a huge deal of disagreement within the field about how economic interdependence should be measured. Oftentimes the total trade between nations is used, but this does not give a full picture. Augmenting this figure with calculations of percentage of total trade to determine relative importance is also not sufficient for a full measure of interdependence (848).
• The current system of measurement cannot capture the salience of current trade relations. This means that even countries with strong trade are not interdependent if all of their trade could be replaced at minimal cost by another country, something not reflected in current measurements (848-849).
• Developing common definitions of conflict would also help in improving the quality of research. Different datasets used in research also establish different benchmarks for conflict (852-854).