Trade Costs, Conflicts, and Defense Spending

Seitz, Michael; Tarasov, Alexander und Zakharenko, Roman (1. Juli 2013): Trade Costs, Conflicts, and Defense Spending. Münchener Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Beiträge (VWL) 2013-11

Abstract

This paper develops a quantitative model of trade, military conflicts, and defense spending. Trade liberalization between two countries reduces probability of an armed conict between them, causing both to cut defense spending. This in turn causes a domino effect on defense spending by other countries. As a result, both countries and the rest of the world are better off. We estimate the model using data on trade, conflicts, and military spending. We find that, after reduction of costs of trade between a pair of hostile countries, the welfare effect of worldwide defense spending cuts is comparable in magnitude to the direct welfare gains from trade.

• Dokumententyp: Paper
• Keywords: general equilibrium, gains from trade, defense spending
• Fakultät: Volkswirtschaft ; Volkswirtschaft > Munich Discussion Papers in Economics
• Themengebiete: 300 Sozialwissenschaften > 330 Wirtschaft
• JEL Classification: C5, C6, F13, F51, H56
• Sprache: Englisch

Literaturliste

Acemoglu, D. and P. Yared (2010). Political limits to globalization. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Barbieri, Katherine, O. M. G. K. and B. Pollins (2009). Trading data: Evaluating our assumptions and coding rules. Conflict Management and Peace Science 26 (5), 471-479.

Broda, C. and D. E. Weinstein (2006). Globalization and the gains from variety. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 (2), 541-585.

Feenstra, R. C., R. E. Lipsey, H. Deng, A. C. Ma, and H. Mo (2005, January). World trade flows: 1962-2000. Working Paper 11040, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ghosen, F., G. Palmer, and S. Bennett (2004). The mid 3 data set 1993 2001: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science 21, 133-154.

Glick, R. and A. M. Taylor (2010). Collateral damage: Trade disruption and the economic impact of war. The Review of Economics and Statistics 92 (1), 102-127.

Hegre, H., J. R. Oneal, and B. Russett (2010). Trade does promote peace: New simultaneous estimates of the reciprocal effects of trade and conflict. Journal of Peace Research 47 (6),763-774.

Martin, P., T. Mayer, and M. Thoenig (2008). Make trade not war? Review of Economic Studies 75 (3), 865-900.

Martin, P., T. Mayer, and M. Thoenig (2012). The geography of conicts and regional trade agreements. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 4 (4), 1-35.

Mayer, T. and S. Zignago (2011). Notes on cepiis distances measures: The geodist database.

Polachek, S. W. and C. Seiglie (2007). Trade, peace and democracy: an analysis of dyadic dispute. Handbook of Defense Economics 2, 1017-1073.

Singer, J. D., S. Bremer, and J. Stuckey (1972). Capability distribution, uncertainty, and major power war, 1820-1965. in bruce russett (ed). Peace, War, and Numbers, 19-48. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Stinnett, D. M., J. Tir, P. F. Diehl, P. Schafer, and C. Gochman (2002). The correlates of war (cow) project direct contiguity data, version 3.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science 19 (2), 59-67.

Stoica, P. and B. C. Ng (1998). On the cramer-rao bound under parametric constraints. Signal Processing Letters, IEEE 5 (7), 177-179.

Vicard, V. (2012). Trade, conflict, and political integration: Explaining the heterogeneity of regional trade agreements. European Economic Review 56 (1), 54-71.

Zeev, M. (2005). Dyadic mid dataset (version 2.0). http://psfaculty.ucdavis.edu/zmaoz/dyadmid.html.