Exploring Realist and Liberal Explanations of Armed Conflict Related to Economic Interdependence

"Over the course of the world's history war between states has existed as a constant possibility. War over land, over the acquisition of resources, over cultural norms and religion, misconceptions, quests for power, etc. There has never seemed to have been a shortage of reasons for war between states, there has however been a shortage of answers to truly explain the trend of why states take the risk of war knowing there is so much to be lost."(p.1) Since the mid-1880 economies have grown and developed to become more diverse and interconnected than ever before. While the economy has changed and interconnected states in new ways, the willingness of states to go into wars and risk economic instability comes into question. Realist theorists in this modern economy point to economic interdependence as a drain for a state and a potential detriment to success while liberal theorists see economic interdependence as a gateway to economic exchange and growth beyond the need for armed conflict. This research paper uses realist and liberal ideas present in the economic era created since the 1880s and analyzes the question of which theory does a better job of explaining the outcome of armed conflict between economically interdependent states. The findings of this paper indicate that both liberalism and realism offer explanations as to why the outcomes of economically interconnected conflicts end the way they do, pointing out the power that individual state policy choices in the direction of one theory over another have a large influence on the outcome of the entire event.No embargoAcademic Major: Philosophy, Politics and Economic