A highlight from Prof. Matthew Jackson, Professor of Economics at Stanford University


Extended faculty member of the santa fe institute and is split into the game theory. Society jackson was interested in gave. The and steady of susan and economic networks on bt has published many articles and books to books human network and social and economic networks matt. Thank you guilt heavy beer. Yeah thanks for doing this. So i want to start with one. Older people is entitled networks of military alliances wars and international trade usa be investigated the role of networks alliances in preventing multilateral interstate wars You said you. Plus show that in the absence of international trade note network. Alliances is peaceful and stable And then you also show that international trade in twos have speech networks now. This makes intuitive sense. Do be What data that. They're using to reach these conclusions. Yes so You know the the work covers two parts. One is sort of the the basic theory behind. What you just described why we need trade. And other things to stabilize Conflict and eliminated and the other is a set of of analyses of of data and most of the data that's available on conflict in the world comes is what's known as the correlates of war data set and it's a data set that's been collected for the past. I guess almost more than two hundred years now. it so it covers from the napoleonic wars the present and it covers all kinds of different conflict so it can be major wars like the second world war or it could be something small like a a dispute over fishing rights where there's you know some involvement and and so it's it covers a whole series of different types of conflict so so because we're looking at wars and and conflicts against trade. Can we can t really show. They did that data. Yeah so i think you know what the the basic data shows in what you're pointing out. It's hard to get causal inference out of this so what you see. Is you see a lot of conflict. Just repeated over and over and over from eighteen fifteen through about nineteen fifty and then you see A great decrease in it. So if you look at the the amount of major conflicts in the world pre one thousand nine hundred fifty to post nineteen fifty. It's dropped by about a factor of ten. And you know this isn't a situation where we can. We have like a controlled experiment where we have one world where we have trade in another world where we don't have trade and then we compare them so we can't do a controlled experiment to tell whether that's the causal reason for this but what we can do is is take a very close look at when countries begin to trade and then when their conflicts and how that correlates with who has what kind of military power. What kind of trade alliances are there. How much trade is going on. How many trade partners people have when conflicts occur and so forth so really careful statistical analysis can at least show us that that having a lot of trade predicts that you're gonna have a more peaceful world but we can't be sure that that's the reason for it so i just want to be a i don't know if it's in the paper was one base to perhaps look at Been gloss happened out lebanon. Trade was between the countries right. Is that something that be could do. Yeah exactly so so. There's sort of two main things that predict whether countries go to war One is how much trade they have together and another is whether or not they have a lot of trade partners. So if i trade with a lot of countries I tend not to go to war much at all. And and then there's a second thing. If you and i trade together we tend not to go to war and the more we trade. The less likely we are to go to war. So for instance. If i in paper what we find is if we if we look at two countries and if you increase the amount that they trade by one standard deviation sort of one average amount in the data you get a seventeen times decrease in the chances that they are going to be at war with each other. So it's it's pretty dramatic.

Coming up next