wow, here is a shocker! the Cato Institute publishes a report that promotes a libertarian view.

I wonder whether the author noticed the fact that the USA has a very free economy but yet it is always attacking some defenseless country somewhere around the globe? or, well, i guess if you count up all the wars that we have instigated based on natural resources (being highly centralized in nature) and added those to all the cold war planned economies that we have overthrown and left to fight their own civil wars, it probably makes the example of the USA being a free economy but always being at war something of a statistical anomaly.

and maybe what this really shows is that "democracy" is not all that democratic after all, and therefore not a very good benchmark....

Democratic Peace Theory states that democracies do not ever go to war against other democracies. Which none ever has--including the US. The examples people try to use for exceptions are ridiculous, like the ludicrous notion that Nicragua was a democracy before the US backed the contras.

Gartzke's conclusions on the surface are simply off-base--democracies don't make war on each other, period. Of course you have to define democracy, but if you just for example use Freedom House's definitions, you find that no free or partly-free nation has ever gone to war with another--ever. As in ever, ever. Statistically it is impossible to dismiss that as mere chance.

It *is* true that democracies are fairly unstable when they have an average GDP of under about $6500 per person, although so are autocracies. Indeed, it's been shown rather definitively that autocracies with enough average income stay stable. So it appears that free market economies tend to lend stability. Rudy Rummel--foremost expert on DPT--examines that issue in some depth right here.

I'll drop him a note about this new paper. My guess? Autocracies which are wealthy free market economies might indeed prove not to go to war very often. Then again, I expect you'll find they routinely slaughter their citizens, torture people, repress free speech and free press, and clamp down on numerous other everyday freedoms as well.

Whoops, sorry, that was the wrong link. Try this one.

If you look at how European (and American) democracies developed, I would say that economic development is probably more important as a cause of democracy than democracy as a cause of econ development. Also, you have a lot of Latin American democracies that have not attained a real level of econ development. Perhaps they need more time. However, I would suggest that it's the rising expectations of a consumer class that leads to political reform and a "gradual" transition to democracy.

Examples of my suggestion might include Japan and Korea. And then there's N Ireland. Have you heard about any IRA bombings lately? Since Ireland's economy has taken off, 400 years of sectarian violence has pretty much vanished.

Of course, the real test will be China. They're going with economic development in an autocratic system.

Can someone explain what the constrains on economic freedom were in Prussia prior to the Franco Prussian war or in Germany prior to WWI?

Oh, I see, tariffs.

Low Tariffs = No War. That's clever.

I am not sure that the Milner and Kubota findings provide a solid reason to question this study. Professor Geoffrey Garrett at UCLA has produced research to indicate that democracy often does not act in ways that support economic liberalization. His particular findings deal with the lack of welfare state retrenchment in democracies, explaining it in saying that voters more or less don't want to give up those policies that benefit them. I dont see why it would be any different in developing countries, where voters are (1) less informed about the benefits of trade liberalization and (2) likely to be more dependent on tariffs and other trade barriers. If voters in the US and EU still favor tariffs in many cases, why would voters in countries that are completely dependent on protectionist policies act any differently? I'd posit that they are *more* likely to vote for politicians who support protectionist measures.

Democratic Peace Theory states that democracies do not ever go to war against other democracies. Which none ever has--including the US..

Wrong. The US vs. Britain in the War of 1812. India vs. Pakistan in 1999. Russia vs. Chechnya (although a good argument can be made that neither was completely democratic). Also, the UK and France fought a number of wars by proxy in Africa in the late 1800s, which only stopped because they realized that they had a greater enemy in Germany.

Also, Britain maintained colonial rule over several countries that became democracies after Britain left: India, Israel, Ireland, possibly Singapore etc. So much for the idea that democracies may not suppress other democracies through military force.

What, exactly, makes governments decide to increase economic freedom in their own countries? One possibility is that democracies are more likely to do this than non-democracies.

A quick look at the economic policies of many third-world democracies, from Venezuela to Brazil to South Africa to India (and maybe soon Mexico as well), brings that proposition into question.

You all make great points but in the end pooh is still pooh.

I'm confused. What does any of this have to do with Natalie Holloway?

The economic freedom data is from 1970-1995. This is mostly the Cold War during which trade policies and ideologies were pretty parallel. Greece and Turkey came to the edge a few times during Cold War and backed off not because they did not fear the financial markets, but because they feared the US. Most studies on Democratic Peace, on the other hand, use the COW dataset that goes back to 1812. Therefore I think Democr Peace finding is much more robust.

Wrong. The US vs. Britain in the War of 1812. India vs. Pakistan in 1999. Russia vs. Chechnya (although a good argument can be made that neither was completely democratic). Also, the UK and France fought a number of wars by proxy in Africa in the late 1800s, which only stopped because they realized that they had a greater enemy in Germany.

And, of course, inter-democratic warfare was all the rage with the kids back in ancient Hellas.

Very interesting post. FYI, on a related note, a recent paper by Michael Hiscox and Scott Kastner finds that democracies that are open to trade and do not provide "substantial" social insurance are more prone to revert to non-democracies than democracies that are closed to trade or that maintain high levels of social insurance.

See the paper at
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hiscox/HiscoxKastnerISA.pdf

Very interesting post. FYI, on a related note, a recent paper by Michael Hiscox and Scott Kastner finds that democracies that are open to trade and do not provide "substantial" social insurance are more prone to revert to non-democracies than democracies that are closed to trade or that maintain high levels of social insurance.

See the paper at
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hiscox/HiscoxKastnerISA.pdf

About trade I believe that somehow, there are many other things to consider. I already have discussed that on my blog http://badbot.blogspot.com, feel free to visit it and comment.