| Summary/Abstract |
We revisit Gartzke and Weisiger's (2014) claim that development and dyadic difference, rather than democracy or a strong democratic community, drive peace and conflict in the international system. In so doing, we identify important inconsistencies in their theoretical argument. We also find extensive instability and errors in their empirical tests. Corrected analyses support the conclusion that a materially strong global democratic community dampens the onset of militarized violence. In addition, we show that an accurate interpretation of models including Gartzke and Weisiger's “dyadic difference” variable actually supports the conclusion that dyadic democracy reduces conflict. We recommend moving toward a more productive analysis of the interdependence between regime dynamics, political economy, and violence. This involves better theorizing about the emergence of market structures and their pacifying effects, treating global economic and democratic effects as complementary, research designs that carefully adhere to logic, and a continued practice of sharing replication files.
|