Economic Expansion and Security in Pre-WWI Europe 199 National exposure to the international economy Rising Falling State's difficulty mobilizing locally abundant resources Increases Decreases State's difficulty mobilizing locally Decreases Increases scarce resources FIGURE 1.Predicted changes in the difficulty of mobilizing locally abundant and locally scarce resources (in this case,land)that were becoming less expensive under the impact of trade.s Third,slow turnover in the officer corps combined with the fact that militaries are only infrequently tested in war often impede change,allowing obsolete weapons and outmoded operational concepts to linger.9 These two assumptions,when combined with the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, yield two sets of propositions about the ways in which changing national exposure to the internationaleconomy affects the economic constraints on a state's security.First, increasing exposure to the international economy will increase the state's difficulty of mobilizing resources in which the economy is abundantly endowed while decreas- ing the difficulty of mobilizing resources in which it is scarce.Declining exposure reverses these effects(see Figure 1).Second,increasing exposure to the international economy will cause states in which militarily relevant resources are locally abundant to experience a general tightening of economic constraints on their security,states in which these resources are locally scarce to experience a general relaxing of eco- nomic constraints,and states in which some militarily relevant resources are locally abundant but others locally scarce to experience a mixed movement of constraints. For this last group,the overall consequences of growing exposure to the international economy will be determined by the extent to which they can substitute locally scarce resources for those that are locally abundant.Again,declining exposure reverses these effects(see Figure 2). Preliminary Evidence:European Security Prior to World War I To probe the plausibility of my theory,I explore how well it captures the experiences of the five European great powers-Austria-Hungary,Britain,France,Germany,and 8.This second point also suggests that trade can affect the security interests of similarly endowed economies differently.depending on exogenous strategic circumstances.I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting these points. 9.Rosen 1991.(in this case, land) that were becoming less expensive under the impact of trade.8 Third, slow turnover in the officer corps combined with the fact that militaries are only infrequently tested in war often impede change, allowing obsolete weapons and outmoded operational conceptsto linger.9 These two assumptions, when combined with the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, yield two sets of propositions about the ways in which changing national exposure to the international economy affects the economic constraints on a state’s security. First, increasing exposure to the international economy will increase the state’s difficulty of mobilizing resources in which the economy is abundantlyendowed while decreas￾ing the difficulty of mobilizing resources in which it is scarce. Declining exposure reverses these effects (see Figure 1). Second, increasing exposure to the international economy will cause statesin which militarily relevant resources are locally abundant to experience a general tightening of economic constraints on their security,states in which these resources are locally scarce to experience a general relaxing of eco￾nomic constraints, and states in which some militarily relevant resources are locally abundant but others locally scarce to experience a mixed movement of constraints. For thislast group, the overall consequences of growing exposure to the international economy will be determined by the extent to which they can substitute locally scarce resources for those that are locally abundant. Again, declining exposure reverses these effects (see Figure 2). Preliminary Evidence: European Security Prior to World War I To probe the plausibility of my theory, I explore how well it capturesthe experiences of the Ž ve European great powers—Austria-Hungary, Britain, France, Germany, and 8. This second point also suggests that trade can affect the security interests of similarly endowed economies differently, depending on exogenous strategic circumstances. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting these points. 9. Rosen 1991. FIGURE 1. Predicted changes in the diffõculty of mobilizing locally abundant and locally scarce resources Economic Expansion and Security in Pre–WWI Europe 199