Student Type
Graduate
University
University of Virginia
Country
United States
Document Type
Conference Paper
Description/Abstract
The classical economic interdependence argument states that trade and investment between countries make conflict less likely, because they increase the opportunity costs of war. War means that trade and investment will dry up, to the detriment of society as a whole. The increased opportunity costs of war (vis-`a-vis peace) means war will be less likely to occur between interdependent states. Certain strands of realism have challenged this assertion. They argue that expectations that trade will decline in future can be a strong incentive for initiating conflict. Giving increasing political and economic tensions between the world’s superpowers – the USA and the PRC – the question of whether interdependence leads to peace or conflict is more relevant than ever. I add to this literature by unpacking international trade flows in a world of complex global value chains (GVCs). I argue that both the classical and revisionist accounts fail to consider that it does not just matter how much you trade: exactly what goods you trade is important as well. Specifically, I introduce a new variable to help explain under what conditions economic interdependence can induce peace or conflict: internationally sourced inputs of traded goods.
Disciplines
American Politics | Asian Studies | Comparative Politics | International Economics | International Relations | Political Economy
DOI
10.25776/6m19-5b88
Session Title
Insight Into US-China Relations
Location
Virtual (Webb Center, Isle of Wight Room)
Start Date
2-10-2023 12:00 AM
End Date
2-10-2023 12:00 AM
Upload File
wf_yes
Included in
American Politics Commons, Asian Studies Commons, Comparative Politics Commons, International Economics Commons, International Relations Commons, Political Economy Commons
Complex Global Value Chains and Economic Interdependence: A New Look at the Opportunity Costs Argument
Virtual (Webb Center, Isle of Wight Room)
The classical economic interdependence argument states that trade and investment between countries make conflict less likely, because they increase the opportunity costs of war. War means that trade and investment will dry up, to the detriment of society as a whole. The increased opportunity costs of war (vis-`a-vis peace) means war will be less likely to occur between interdependent states. Certain strands of realism have challenged this assertion. They argue that expectations that trade will decline in future can be a strong incentive for initiating conflict. Giving increasing political and economic tensions between the world’s superpowers – the USA and the PRC – the question of whether interdependence leads to peace or conflict is more relevant than ever. I add to this literature by unpacking international trade flows in a world of complex global value chains (GVCs). I argue that both the classical and revisionist accounts fail to consider that it does not just matter how much you trade: exactly what goods you trade is important as well. Specifically, I introduce a new variable to help explain under what conditions economic interdependence can induce peace or conflict: internationally sourced inputs of traded goods.