dispatches from the new world of work

Economic Growth Insulates Against International Violence?

I've been "one of those" who has blithely proclaimed that globalization and the more general spread of wealth and modernity (China, India plus) is the most probable path to more or less universal peace and stability, instability in the Middle East notwithstanding.

Maybe.
Maybe not.

Consider these confident assertions from Europe, just prior to World War I, from The Guns of August, by Barbara Tuchman* (*I just finished a re-read):

"By impressive examples and incontrovertible argument [Norman] Angel [in his book, The Great Illusion] showed that given the present financial and economic interdependence of nations, the victor [in a war] would suffer equally with the vanquished; therefore war had become unprofitable; therefore no one would be so foolish as to start one."

[NB: Tuchman reports that Angel's book was published in 1910, four years before the Great War, translated into numerous languages, and studied by the highest level statesmen from the UK and all of Europe to Japan, with almost uniform nods of agreement.]

"New economic factors clearly prove the inanity of aggressive wars. ... Because of the interlacing of nations, war becomes every day more difficult and improbable."

[Lectures in 1910 by Viscount Esher, chairman of the UK's "War Commission" and senior advisor on foreign policy and the military; he believed that the Angel doctrine was as accepted in Germany as in the UK.]

This from Niall Ferguson, The War of the World, on the 1900s, the bloodiest century in human history by far: "The hundred years after 1900 were a time of unparalleled progress. In real terms, it has been estimated [that] average per capita global domestic product increased by little more than 50 percent between 1500 and 1870. Between 1870 and 1998, however, it increased by a factor of more than six and a half."

TP remark: Hmmmm.

Tom Peters posted this on 07/16/08.

Comments

The growth of wealth in China and India
makes both countries big consumers of energy.
If energy does indeed become scarce,
people will fight over it.
There are those that believe the real reason
we went into Iraq was to head off China in a quest for oil. If we can solve the energy problem , interdependancy might very well lead to
less violence. At the moment, global economic growth has lead to tight energy supplies. If this is not successfully dealt with, violence will ensue. Economic Growth might insulate against violence if no critical shortages arise due to growth.

Posted by x at July 16, 2008 9:34 AM

Fact-check inconsistencies: In the book itself, The Guns of August, on page 11, we find this: "Nineteen-ten was peaceful and prosperous, with the second round of Moroccan crises and Balkan wars still to come. A new book, The Great Illusion by Norman Angell, had just been published, which proved that war had become vain." Amazon.com, however, says that The Great Illusion was published in 1912. The cover of the book on Amazon.com shows Angel's name spelled this way. It seems the author would have been Sir Norman Angell (maybe he changed the spelling of his name? maybe a past editor got it wrong?), and it would take further research to find out the actual year. Anybody?

Posted by cathy mosca at July 16, 2008 10:46 AM

i would guess that war's are started by small groups who's motivation doesn't correlate with the general economic well being.

Posted by Priit at July 16, 2008 3:24 PM

Interlacing is one thing. Trade imbalances is another: if the issue is big enough and war is on the agenda, someone is going to do the math and say, "We've got nothing to lose" or "The risk is x but the 'benefit' is y so we attack."

And while the interlacing argument might apply to countries, does it still apply to larger trading blocs? You could argue that the current Afghanistan / Iraq wars are based around trading partners with similar self-interests.

Posted by Mark JF at July 16, 2008 4:01 PM

The thing is, people aren't as rational as we think we are. Decision making (even at the level of international relations... or should I say particularly at the level of international relations) is not really based on logical analysis of self interest or likely outcomes.

Similarly, New Coke made a whole lot of sense to the people at Coca Cola. Their decision was based on actual data from researching taste preferences of actual customers... but then it ended up as a spectacular flop, even though all indications were that it should have been a smash hit. But it turns out people don't make decisions about what to drink based solely on taste.

So, the rational assessment prior to WWI said it would be in nobody's interest to fight. War was irrational and unprofitable. But off they went...

where to buy viagra in canada

I'm of the opinion that, generally speaking, war is a bad idea. Sometimes you've got to do it, and sometimes you do it even if you don't have to, but on the scale of "Good Ideas," it ranks somewhere below New Coke. That's not going to stop people from doing it anyway because, like I said, real-world decision making is not a strictly rational process (and even when it is, we can still get it wrong).

Posted by The Dan Ward at July 16, 2008 6:43 PM

On the same topic but slightly different perspective - suggest a read of Naomi Klien's "The Shock Doctrine".

Paints a picture of economic transformation coming at a cost of human suffering. Discusses free market reforms in Chile, Russia, Iraq and other areas.

Strongly suggest a read.

brand viagra pharmacy

Posted by Peter at July 16, 2008 11:17 PM