Built to Last: Understanding the Link between Democracy and Conflict in the International System

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.我们重新审视Gartzke与Weisiger（2014）提出的核心主张：国际体系中的和平与冲突由发展水平与二元差异（dyadic difference）所驱动，而非民主或强大的民主共同体。在此过程中，我们指出了其理论论证中存在的重要矛盾之处。同时，我们发现其实证检验存在大量不稳健性与错误。修正后的实证分析支持如下结论：具备实质影响力的全球民主共同体能够抑制军事化暴力的爆发。此外，我们证明，对包含Gartzke与Weisiger提出的"dyadic difference"变量的模型进行准确解读，实际上能够支持双边民主能够缓解冲突的结论。我们建议，未来应更具成效地开展政权动态、政治经济学与暴力行为之间相互依存关系的研究。这包括：针对市场结构的形成及其和平效应开展更完善的理论构建，将全球经济效应与民主效应视作互补关系，采用严格遵循逻辑的研究设计，以及延续共享可复现研究文件的学术惯例。