CAPITALIST PEACE 167 The notion of a capitalist peace is hardly new. claims of classical liberal political economists like Mon- Montesquieu,Paine,Bastiat,Mill,Cobden,Angell,and tesquieu,Richard Cobden,and Norman Angell.As with others saw in market forces the power to end war.Unfortu- previous research,this study finds support for a liberal nately,war continued,leading many to view as overly op- peace,though the key causal variables,and some major timistic classical conceptions of liberal peace.This study policy implications,are considerably changed. can be seen as part of an effort to reexamine capitalist peace theory,revising arguments in line with contempo- rary insights much as Kantian claims were reworked in Two Traditions of Liberal Peace response to evolving evidence of a democratic peace. Existing empirical research on the democratic peace, while addressing many possible alternatives,provides an Liberal scholarship details two paths to peace,one domi- incomplete and uneven treatment of liberal economic nated by democracy,the other guided by the philosophy processes.Most democratic peace research examines trade of market economics.This article briefly reviews each tra- in goods and services but ignores capital markets and of- dition,offering a few critical comments. fers only a cursory assessment of economic development (Maoz and Russett 1992).Several studies explore the im- pact of interests,though these have largely been dismissed The Political Tradition by democratic peace advocates(Oneal and Russett 1999a; Democratic peace research most often attributes its Russett and Oneal 2001).These omissions or oversights intellectual genesis to Kant's essay Perpetual Peace, help to determine the democratic peace result and thus though scholars like Abbe de Saint-Pierre,Rousseau,and shape subsequent research,thinking,and policy on the Bentham all provided similar arguments prior to Kant. subject of liberal peace.This study offers evidence that Early twentieth-century scholar-statesmen like Woodrow liberal economic processes do in fact lead to peace,even Wilson and Nicolas Murray Butler advanced the pacific ef- accounting for the well-documented role of liberal pol- fects of democracy in their writings,and to a lesser extent itics.Democracy cohabitates with peace.It does not,by in practice.After a cold war hiatus,contemporary politi- itself,lead nations to be less conflict prone,not even to- cians like Bill Clinton and George W.Bush have again ward other democracies. picked up the banner of liberal peace in an era of U.S. The argument and evidence provided here are bound hegemony. to draw criticism.Skepticism in the face of controversial Early statistical work questioned the liberal convic- claims is natural,reasonable,even essential for the cumu- tion that democracies are generally less warlike(cf.Wright lation of knowledge.The democratic peace observation 1942).Babst(1964,1972)was the first to identify the spe- is supported by an exceptionally large and sophisticated cial dyadic observation.5 Small and Singer(1976)drew at- body of research.2 At the same time,excessive deference to tention to the topic,paradoxically by seeking to establish previous conclusions privileges conventional wisdom.3 A that Kant was wrong.Rummel(1979,1983,1985)argued willingness to doubt that which we have come to believe for a libertarian peace,incorporating,amongother things, is a hallmark of scientific inquiry.Indeed,the weight of free markets:"The more freedom that individuals have existing evidence does not directly contradict this study in a state,the less the state engages in foreign violence" as previous research has typically failed to address the (1983,27).Doyle (1983a,1983b,1997)examines three traditions of liberalism exemplified by Kant,Machiavelli, 2Empirical regularity cannot be the only reason for broad inter- est in the democratic peace.As Cederman(2003)points out,the relationship between the frequency and intensity of wars is also 4See Jacob(1974)for a compilation of essays.Ceadel notes of the period that"The argument that 'republican'regimes were necessary "lawlike"(literally a power rule).This relationship has generated for peace,...,was already a near-commonplace of Anglo-American little interest and received almost no attention since its discovery radicalism"(2000,16). by Richardson (1960). 3Accumulation is not cumulation.Replication offers a limited form s"Ultimately,the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. of robustness.As one author puts it,"Is it surprising that repeat- Democracies don't attack each other"(Clinton 1994)."Democra- edly testing the same primary independent and dependent variables cies don't go to war with each other....I've got great faith in generally produces the same results?"(Van Belle 2006,14).Jervis democracies to promote peace"(Bush 2004). (1976)offers an entertaining parable based on the writings of A.A. Milne.While out hunting"woozles,"Piglet and Winnie-the-Pooh Even proponents appear to acknowledge that democratic pacifism mistake their own tracks in the snow for those of their elusive prey. is at best a considerably weaker phenomenon than the dyadic rela- As the two frightened characters circle back on their own trail,the tionship (Benoit 1996;Chan 1984;Ray 2001;Rousseau et al.1996; "evidence"of woozles mounts.... Rummel 1996;Weede 1984).CAPITALIST PEACE 167 The notion of a capitalist peace is hardly new. Montesquieu, Paine, Bastiat, Mill, Cobden, Angell, and others saw in market forces the power to end war. Unfortu￾nately, war continued, leading many to view as overly op￾timistic classical conceptions of liberal peace. This study can be seen as part of an effort to reexamine capitalist peace theory, revising arguments in line with contempo￾rary insights much as Kantian claims were reworked in response to evolving evidence of a democratic peace. Existing empirical research on the democratic peace, while addressing many possible alternatives, provides an incomplete and uneven treatment of liberal economic processes. Most democratic peace research examines trade in goods and services but ignores capital markets and of￾fers only a cursory assessment of economic development (Maoz and Russett 1992). Several studies explore the im￾pact of interests, though these have largely been dismissed by democratic peace advocates (Oneal and Russett 1999a; Russett and Oneal 2001). These omissions or oversights help to determine the democratic peace result and thus shape subsequent research, thinking, and policy on the subject of liberal peace. This study offers evidence that liberal economic processes do in fact lead to peace, even accounting for the well-documented role of liberal pol￾itics. Democracy cohabitates with peace. It does not, by itself, lead nations to be less conflict prone, not even to￾ward other democracies. The argument and evidence provided here are bound to draw criticism. Skepticism in the face of controversial claims is natural, reasonable, even essential for the cumu￾lation of knowledge. The democratic peace observation is supported by an exceptionally large and sophisticated body of research.2 At the same time, excessive deference to previous conclusions privileges conventional wisdom.3 A willingness to doubt that which we have come to believe is a hallmark of scientific inquiry. Indeed, the weight of existing evidence does not directly contradict this study as previous research has typically failed to address the 2Empirical regularity cannot be the only reason for broad inter￾est in the democratic peace. As Cederman (2003) points out, the relationship between the frequency and intensity of wars is also “lawlike” (literally a power rule). This relationship has generated little interest and received almost no attention since its discovery by Richardson (1960). 3Accumulation is not cumulation. Replication offers a limited form of robustness. As one author puts it, “Is it surprising that repeat￾edly testing the same primary independent and dependent variables generally produces the same results?” (Van Belle 2006, 14). Jervis (1976) offers an entertaining parable based on the writings of A. A. Milne. While out hunting “woozles,” Piglet and Winnie-the-Pooh mistake their own tracks in the snow for those of their elusive prey. As the two frightened characters circle back on their own trail, the “evidence” of woozles mounts. ... claims of classical liberal political economists like Mon￾tesquieu, Richard Cobden, and Norman Angell. As with previous research, this study finds support for a liberal peace, though the key causal variables, and some major policy implications, are considerably changed. Two Traditions of Liberal Peace Liberal scholarship details two paths to peace, one domi￾nated by democracy, the other guided by the philosophy of market economics. This article briefly reviews each tra￾dition, offering a few critical comments. The Political Tradition Democratic peace research most often attributes its intellectual genesis to Kant’s essay Perpetual Peace, though scholars like Abbe de Saint-Pierre, Rousseau, and Bentham all provided similar arguments prior to Kant.4 Early twentieth-century scholar-statesmen like Woodrow Wilson and Nicolas Murray Butler advanced the pacific ef￾fects of democracy in their writings, and to a lesser extent in practice. After a cold war hiatus, contemporary politi￾cians like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have again picked up the banner of liberal peace in an era of U.S. hegemony.5 Early statistical work questioned the liberal convic￾tion that democracies are generally less warlike (cf. Wright 1942). Babst (1964, 1972) was the first to identify the spe￾cial dyadic observation.6 Small and Singer (1976) drew at￾tention to the topic, paradoxically by seeking to establish that Kant was wrong. Rummel (1979, 1983, 1985) argued for a libertarian peace, incorporating, among other things, free markets: “The more freedom that individuals have in a state, the less the state engages in foreign violence” (1983, 27). Doyle (1983a, 1983b, 1997) examines three traditions of liberalism exemplified by Kant, Machiavelli, 4See Jacob (1974) for a compilation of essays. Ceadel notes of the period that “The argument that ‘republican’ regimes were necessary for peace, . . ., was already a near-commonplace of Anglo-American radicalism” (2000, 16). 5“Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don’t attack each other” (Clinton 1994). “Democra￾cies don’t go to war with each other. . . . I’ve got great faith in democracies to promote peace” (Bush 2004). 6Even proponents appear to acknowledge that democratic pacifism is at best a considerably weaker phenomenon than the dyadic rela￾tionship (Benoit 1996; Chan 1984; Ray 2001; Rousseau et al. 1996; Rummel 1996; Weede 1984)