Abstract
Given the impact that rapid shifts in globalization can have for societies and the relevance that the topic holds today, it seems wise to continue to investigate the various ways that shifts in globalization patterns impact intrastate and interstate dynamics. This chapter examines the relationship between such precipitous changes, termed globalization shocks, and the propensity to use interstate military force. In this regard, it is evident that globalization shocks weaken governments and mobilize dissent. A well-worn argument in the interstate conflict literature claims that governments that face significant domestic challenges may turn to the international arena to bolster their domestic political standing. Such struggling governments may use interstate military force both to divert elite and popular attention from domestic problems and to rally the population around their leadership (Fordham in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2017). Given such possible diversionary incentives, it seems reasonable to expect that globalization shocks may at times be associated with the use of interstate military force. Substantial globalization shocks may not only increase the probability that intrastate force is used, but they may increase as well the probability that interstate force is employed. To test this presumption, the chapter builds on a notable empirical study that finds a positive relationship between globalization shocks and civil conflict (Nieman in International Interactions 37:263–292, 2011). The chapter’s results suggest that globalization shocks are related to an increased probability of initiating foreign military intervention, but only for well-established democracies that are highly enmeshed in the global community. Advanced western democracies have a propensity to launch supportive military interventions when they experience globalization shocks, but not hostile military interventions. A similar relationship between shock and intervention is not found for other states. Although more research is needed on the subject, these results suggest that OECD Chief Economist Boone’s concerns about the potential ramifications of rapid deglobalization may be well founded. Stark increases or decreases in globalization levels may not only have wide-ranging domestic consequences, but they may also affect interstate relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
D. Rodrik, Harvard University, quoted in Wong and Swanson (2022).
- 2.
Cited in Wong and Swanson (2022).
- 3.
Elbadawi and Hegre (2008) find no relationship when looking at economic globalization and economic shocks alone.
- 4.
Annual globalization rankings produced by the KOF Swiss Institute at ETH Zurich provide considerable support for this demarcation. The top ranks of the index are largely populated by advanced Western democracies, with some variation. Of course, this proxy represents a first cut at understanding the globalization shock-interstate military force relationship. It would be valuable to analyze different, more nuanced measures in the future.
- 5.
- 6.
Variable 09, “Direction of Intervention,” provides this information in IMI. When a state initiated both a supportive and a hostile intervention in the same year, it is coded for each type of intervention.
- 7.
Since some countries initiated two or more interventions in a single year, I also estimate negative binomial estimates of count dependent variables of different intervention types. Results remain consistent.
- 8.
The IMI definition of multinational intervention is consistent with Regan’s (2002: 102). Missions taken in concert by multiple actors are considered unilateral so long as individual national militaries retain strategic and operational autonomy.
- 9.
Updates to the KOF index can be found at: https://kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html.
- 10.
Minorites at Risk Project (2009). The countries included in the MAR Western democracies categorization are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (West and unified), Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.
- 11.
Computed using the mchange command in Stata.
- 12.
As a robustness check, Model 6 was estimated with Firth’s penalized likelihood regression which accounts for rare events with dichotomous dependent variables. Globalization shock remained positive and significant at the .01 level.
- 13.
- 14.
The US initiated the most interventions in our sample, 55. The next most frequent intervener was France, with 40 total interventions.
- 15.
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director General of the World Trade Organization, argued in 2022 that “re-globalization - deeper, more diversified international markets remain our best bet for supply resilience.” Quoted in Wong and Swanson (2022).
References
Algan, Y., Guriev, S., Papaioannou, E., & Passari, E. (2017). The European trust crisis and the rise of populism. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 309–400.
Ballard-Rosa, C., Malik, M. A., Rickard, S. J., & Scheve, K. (2021). The economic origins of authoritarian values: Evidence from local trade shocks in the United Kingdom. Comparative Political Studies, 54(13), 2321–2353.
Bisbee, J., Mosley, L., Pepinsky, T. B., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2020). Decompensating domestically: The political economy of anti-globalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(7), 1090–1102.
Bisbee, J., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2020). Shocking the Vulnerable: Job Insecurity. New York University.
Bueno De Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2005). The logic of political survival. MIT Press.
Bussmann, M., & Schneider, G. (2007). When globalization discontent turns violent: Foreign economic liberalization and internal war. International Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 79–97.
Carter, E. B. (2020). Diversionary cheap talk: Economic conditions and US foreign policy rhetoric, 1945–2010. International Interactions, 46(2), 163–198.
Colantone, I., & Stanig, P. (2018a). Global competition and Brexit. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 201–218.
Colantone, I., & Stanig, P. (2018b). The trade origins of economic nationalism: Import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 936–953.
Deiwiks, C., Cederman, L.-E., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2012). Inequality and conflict in federations. Journal of Peace Research, 49(2), 289–304.
DeRouen, K., Jr., & Peake, J. (2002). The dynamics of diversion: The domestic implications of presidential use of force. International Interactions, 28(2), 191–211.
Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091–1110.
Dreher, A., Gaston, N., & Martens, P. (2008). Measuring globalization. Springer.
Elbadawi, I., & Hegre, H. (2008). Globalization, economic shocks, and internal armed conflict. Defence and Peace Economics, 19(1), 37–60.
Ezcurra, R., & Manotas, B. (2017). Is there a link between globalisation and civil conflict? The World Economy, 40(12), 2592–2610.
Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 75–90.
Fernandes, A. P., & Winters, L. A. (2021). Exporters and shocks: The impact of the Brexit vote shock on bilateral exports to the UK. Journal of International Economics, 131 (C).
Flaten, R. D., & De Soysa, I. (2012). Globalization and political violence, 1970–2008. International Interactions, 38(5), 622–646.
Fordham, B. O. (2002). Another look at “Parties, voters, and the use of force abroad”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(4), 572–596.
Fordham, B. O. (2017). More than mixed results: What we have learned from quantitative research on the diversionary hypothesis. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
Gordell, K. M., & Volgy, T. J. (2022). Political shocks in foreign policy and international politics: An alternative approach. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 28(2), 109–126.
Guiso, L., Herrera, H., Morelli, M., & Sonno, T. (2017). Demand and supply of populism. Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Guiso, L., Herrera, H., Morelli, M., & Sonno, T. (2019). Global crises and populism: The role of Eurozone institutions. Economic Policy, 34(97), 95–139.
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2005). Right or robust? The sensitive nature of repression to globalization. Journal of Peace Research, 42(6), 679–698.
Hays, J. C. (2009). Globalization and the new politics of embedded liberalism. Oxford University Press.
Hays, J., Junghyun Lim, J., & Spoon, J.-J. (2019). The path from trade to right-wing populism in Europe. Electoral Studies, 60, 102038.
Haynes, K. (2016). Diversity and diversion: How ethnic composition affects diversionary conflict. International Studies Quarterly, 60(2), 258–271.
Healy, A., & Lenz, G. S. (2017). Presidential voting and the local economy: Evidence from two population-based data sets. Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1419–1432.
Jensen, J. B., Quinn, D. P., & Weymouth, S. (2017). Winners and losers in international trade: The effects on US presidential voting. International Organization, 71(3), 423–457.
Johnson, J. C., & Barnes, T. D. (2011). Responsibility and the diversionary use of force. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(5), 478–496.
Kanbur, R. (2015). Globalization and inequality. In Handbook of income distribution, vol. 2, pp. 1845–1881. Elsevier.
Karakaya, S. (2018). Globalization and contentious politics: A comparative analysis of nonviolent and violent campaigns. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 35(4), 315–335.
Kisangani, E. F., & Pickering, J. (2009). The dividends of diversion: Mature democracies’ proclivity to use diversionary force and the rewards they reap from it. British Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 483–515.
Kisangani, E. F., & Pickering, J. (2022). African Interventions. Cambridge University Press.
Lai, B., & Slater, D. (2006). Institutions of the offensive: Domestic sources of dispute initiation in authoritarian regimes, 1950–1992. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 113–126.
Leblang, D., & Peters, M. E. (2022). Immigration and Globalization (and Deglobalization). Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 377–399.
Long, S. B., & Pickering, J. (2022). Disparity and diversion: Domestic economic inequality and MID initiation. Foreign Policy Analysis, 18 (1).
Malgouyres, C. (2017). Trade shocks and far-right voting: Evidence from French presidential elections. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 21.
Mansfield, E. D., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Support for free trade: Self-interest, sociotropic politics, and out-group anxiety. International Organization, 63(3), 425–457.
Margalit, Y. (2019). Political responses to economic shocks. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 277–295.
McGrew, A. (2011). The logics of economic globalization. In A. McGrew, & J. Ravenhill (Eds.) Global political economy, pp. 275–311. Oxford University Press.
Miller, R. A. (1999). Regime type, strategic interaction, and the diversionary use of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 43(3), 388–402.
Milner, H. V., & Mukherjee, B. (2009). Democratization and economic globalization. Annual Review of Political Science, 12(1), 163–181.
Minorities at Risk Project. (2009). Minorities at risk dataset. Center for International Development and Conflict Management. Retrieved from http://www.mar.umd.edu/. Accessed 15 June 2022.
Mitchell, S. M., & Prins, B. C. (2004). Rivalry and diversionary uses of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(6), 937–961.
Nieman, M. D. (2011). Shocks and turbulence: Globalization and the occurrence of civil war. International Interactions, 37(3), 263–292.
Oneal, J. R., & Tir, J. (2006). Does the diversionary use of force threaten the democratic peace? Assessing the effect of economic growth on interstate conflict, 1921–2001. International Studies Quarterly, 50(4), 755–779.
Olzak, S. (2011). Does globalization breed ethnic discontent? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(1), 3–32.
Pearson, F. S., & Baumann, R. A. (1993). International military intervention, 1946 1988. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Data Collection 6035. The University of Michigan.
Peksen, D., & Lounsbery, M. O. (2012). Beyond the target state: Foreign military intervention and neighboring state stability. International Interactions, 38(3), 348–374.
Pickering, J., & Kisangani, E. F. (2009). The International Military Intervention dataset: An updated resource for conflict scholars. Journal of Peace Research, 46(4), 589–599.
Pickering, J., & Kisangani, E. F. (2023). Foreign Military Intervention and Cabinet Government Stability. Political Research Quarterly. Forthcoming.
Powell, J. M. (2014). Regime vulnerability and the diversionary threat of force. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(1), 169–196.
Regan, P. M. (2002). Third-party interventions and the duration of intrastate conflicts. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(1), 55–73.
Rosenau, J. N. (2003). Distant Proximities. Princeton University Press.
Segev, E., Tago, A., & Watanabe, K. (2022). Could leaders deflect from political scandals? cross-national experiments on diversionary action in Israel and Japan. International Interactions, 48(5), 1056–1069.
Solt, F. (2011). Diversionary nationalism: Economic inequality and the formation of national pride. The Journal of Politics, 73(3), 821–830.
Tarar, A. (2006). Diversionary incentives and the bargaining approach to war. International Studies Quarterly, 50(1), 169–188.
Wong, E., & Swanson, A. (2022). Ukraine war and pandemic force nations to retreat from globalization. New York Times, March 22. Retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/us/politics/russia-china-global-economy.html
Yeh, Y.-Y., & Wu, C. (2020). Diversionary behavior for weak states: A case study of Taiwan. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 55(2), 221–234.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pickering, J. (2023). Globalization Shocks and Foreign Military Intervention. In: Thompson, W.R., Volgy, T.J. (eds) Shocks and Political Change. Evidence-Based Approaches to Peace and Conflict Studies, vol 11. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1498-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1498-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-1497-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-1498-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)