The Hazard of War: Reassessing the Evidence for the Democratic Peace

@article{Raknerud1997TheHO,
  title={The Hazard of War: Reassessing the Evidence for the Democratic Peace},
  author={Arvid Raknerud and H{\aa}vard Hegre},
  journal={Journal of Peace Research},
  year={1997},
  volume={34},
  pages={385 - 404}
}
In this article, we re-examine the statistical evidence for the democratic peace at the dyadic level. We also investigate the seeming paradox that democracies are engaged in war as often as autocracies at the nation level. From the extensive literature on democracy and peace we have selected as our point of departure two influential contributions (one by Stuart Bremer, the other by Zeev Maoz & Bruce Russett), both of which analyse the relationship between democracy and peace at the dyadic level… 

The Democratic Peace: Weighing the Evidence and Cautious Inference†

The greater peacefulness of jointly democratic pairs of states is an important finding in research on the causes of war. Here, we outline a set of criteria for evaluating critiques of such robust

A Test for Reverse Causality in the Democratic Peace Relationship

Several studies have suggested the possibility of reverse causation in the `democratic peace' relationship: that the well-known extreme rarity of wars between democratic nations may be partially or

Disputes, Democracies, and Dependencies: A Reexamination of the Kantian Peace

Militarized interstate disputes are widely thought to be less likely among democratic countries that have high levels of trade and extensive participation in international organizations. We reexamine

Peace and Democracy

Peace and regime type can be examined at the dyadic, nation, and system levels. At the dyadic level, it is well established that democracies rarely if ever fight each other. At the national level,

In and Out of War and Peace: Transitional Models of International Conflict

Dyad-year data on international conflict are simultaneously qualitative and serially dependent. Extending Beck, Katz, and Tucker’s (1998) methodological contribution, I propose transitional models

Dangerous Dyads Revisited: Democracies May Not Be That Peaceful After All

In recent years, the quantitative international relations literature has increasingly paid attention to the potential problem of serially correlated observations in time-series cross-section (TSCS)

The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985

The liberals believed that economic interdependence, as well as democracy, would reduce the incidence of interstate conflict. In this article, we test both their economic and their political

Democratizing for peace

The argument that democratization can bring about war is a powerful critique suggesting limits to the linkage between democracy and peace. This research examines this claim. Our findings demonstrate

Democracy and Peace: General Law or Limited Phenomenon?

and Kolin Hand, its systems programmer, for allowing us to undertake some of our larger computational eeorts. All data analyses and statistical graphs were generated using S-PLUS, Abstract Recent

DEM OCRATI ZATI ON AND WA R I N THE CONTEX T OF TI M E AND SPA CE

Ward and Gleditsch (1998) showed that democratization reduces war proneness; as contemporary poli ties become more democratic, the probabili ty that they will be involved in interstate war declines.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 35 REFERENCES

Polities and Peace

In this paper, we review the central claim of a growing literature: that is, that democratic states rarely, if ever, wage war against and are very unlikely to engage in militarized disputes with

The Liberal Peace: Interdependence, Democracy, and International Conflict, 1950-85

The classical liberals believed that democracy and free trade would reduce the incidence of war. Here we conduct new tests of the `democratic peace', incorporating into the analyses of Maoz & Russett

A Tale of Two Democratic Peace Critiques

Of approximately 100 empirical democratic peace articles published in journals and papers presented at conferences over the last 10 years, none identifies a positive and statistically significant

The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950–1985

The liberals believed that economic interdependence, as well as democracy, would reduce the incidence of interstate conflict. In this article, we test both their economic and their political

The Insignificance of the Liberal Peace

This article challenges "The Liberal Peace" described in work by Michael Doyle from three standpoints. First, it questions whether the statistical tests (which were performed and published by

Pacific unions: a reappraisal of the theory that ‘democracies do not go to war with each other’

  • Raymond Cohen
  • Political Science
    Review of International Studies
  • 1994
Considerable support has emerged over recent years among scholars of international relations for the theory that ‘democracies do not go to war with each other.’ Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr note

The Transformation of the Western State: The Growth of Democracy, Autocracy, and State Power Since 1800

This article uses POLITY II, a new dataset on the authority traits of 155 countries, to assess some general historical arguments about the dynamics of political change in Europe and Latin America

Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?

This article investigates the long-standing liberal hypothesis that trade ties facilitate interstate peace. Rather than assuming that trade will always promote peace, the author highlights the need

Alliance, contiguity, wealth, and political stability: Is the lack of conflict among democracies a statistical artifact? 1

Scholars increasingly are accepting the empirical generalization that democracies almost never go to war with each other, and infrequently even engage in militarized disputes with each other. It has

Joining the Club of Nations: Political Development and International Conflict, 1816–1976

This study examines the relationships between regime formation, regime change, and international conflict. A distinction is made between evolutionary and revolutionary state formation processes as