Erik Gartzke in “The Capitalist Peace” creates a model in order to see if democracy itself leads to peace or if there is other factors correlated to democracy but are actually responsible for the previously found trend. After his analysis, he found that capitalism, not democracy, is the driving force to lower conflicts between democracies. One point of his points is that new global capital markets provide states outlets for communication and peace negotiations not present before. States have other He then claims that transitioning to a democratic state actually increases tension that could lead to conflicts. While making these conclusions, he admits that his model could potentially be used to support the previous conclusions that democracy is the reason behind peace. His solution to this potential problem is to gather more data; additional information would be able to support or tear down his analysis and model. The last part caught my eye while I was reading this paper. He is open to the possibility of being wrong and says that finding information that would, something not extremely common in research papers. …show more content…
The authors use three Kantian constraints in their analysis: democracies use less force, trade creates incentives to remain in peaceful relations, and international organizations promote peace in several ways. They find that the trend could be partially explained using a Kantian system, and democracy and trade could be applied to situations outside of the Cold War era in a moderate, but significant amounts. When the Kantian variable values increased, every pair was less likely to be in a