Jump to content
CarlaR

How to deal with Royal 10

Recommended Posts

For the most part I understand diversionary theory. I however do struggle with answering the Royal 10 impact against good teams that actually know what they're talking about. They'll usually provide world war 2 as an example of a diversionary war, or Russia invading Georgia and it is very appealing, especially to lay judges. If anyone has any suggestions/ ideas they would be greatly appreciated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk how effective this card is in debate round but the analytic usually makes enough sense. esp w/ US v China

 

Econ interdependence prevents war
Economic interdependence prevents war
Griswold, 7 (Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, 4/20/2007, Trade, Democracy and Peace, HYPERLINK "
http://www.freetrade.org/node/681"http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)

A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact.
The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War.
Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways.
First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies.
A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war.
The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free."
By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy.
A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. Aseconomies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk how effective this card is in debate round but the analytic usually makes enough sense. esp w/ US v China

 

Econ interdependence prevents war

Economic interdependence prevents war

Griswold, 7 (Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, 4/20/2007, Trade, Democracy and Peace, HYPERLINK "http://www.freetrade.org/node/681"http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)

 

A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact.

The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War.

Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways.

First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that as more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies.

A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war.

The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free."

By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy.

A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. Aseconomies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable.

Pretty sure diversionary theory answers this 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Increased growth and integration makes armed conflict more likely – also causes overspecialization which leads to financial collapse – prefer robust statistical backing

Royal 11 [Jedidiah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, “Integration, Vulnerability and Risk: A New Framework for Understanding the Economic-Security Nexus,” Idiosyncratic Risk and Mitigation, Chapter 3, pg. 55/AKG]

Here it is worth noting an important thematic divergence in the literature at the covariant and the idiosyncratic levels. As noted, nearly all research theories covered in chapter 2 are based on static ‘snapshots’ of a dyadic relationship. Volume of trade at a point in time tends to be the primary variable used to determine the likelihood of conflict between an integrated dyad. The theories covered in this chapter tend to focus more on transition, acknowledging that levels of integration and total growth change. They express viewpoints on how these transitions either increase or decrease incentives for states to engage in military conflict. As will be discussed in the case studies following, the notion of transition in an important element to a comprehensive view of the economic-security nexus. Theories that Suggest Idiosyncratic Shifts Resulting from Integration Lead to Conflict Our survey here first highlights a Marxist/realist tradition that suggests that as states become wealthier, they will increasingly be likely to translate that wealth into military capacity. Once the state owns a strong military advantage, it is likely to use it. Choucri and North (1975) pioneered this argument, known as ‘lateral pressure theory’, as a means of explaining correlation between growth and conflict. They suggest that ‘the combination of demand and capabilities will create the predisposition to reach beyond national boundaries to satisfy demands’ (Choucri and North 1975, 17). As such, Choucri and North believe that as a country becomes individually wealthier, its willingness to undertake foreign military commitments increases simultaneously. Realists also find a relationship between economic integration and idiosyncratic risk that results in a greater likelihood of conflict. Pollins (2008) argues that economic integration leads to a transnational reorganisation of production and accelerates the transitions between ascending and descending powers. This occurs on a global level with system-wide shifts in the distribution of power, but manifests itself in terms of security conditions primarily at a state level. As new states gain wealth and power, they begin to look outward. This ‘war chest’ theory is similar in character and consequence to ‘lateral pressure theory’, though the motivations differ. According to the former theory, a state becomes more conflict prone because it has the resources to be more successful in military conflict. According to the latter theory, proclivity towards conflict is due to a perceived requirement to fuel a growing economy. Others have argued that absolute, or individual, growth is less important than relative growth. Organski’s (1958) theory of ‘power transition’ relies on this concept. Major wars result from the preponderance of power transitioning from one primary state to another. Werner finds a measure of support for this theory, and concludes that ‘leaders make demands and initiate a process of negotiations that may ultimately result in conflict when they perceive that what they can rationally obtain via the threat of force differs from what they currently have’ (Werner 1999, 723). The creation of wealth winners and losers through integration provides a point of transition where domestic perceptions of the likelihood of victory change. This can reduce the overall potential for a mutually acceptable bargain to be struck prior to the use of military force. The bargaining theory of war suggests that asymmetry provides an obvious outcome that both parties can perceive, which brings the less powerful party to the negotiating table. Instead, parity between powers leads to miscalculation, because those parties are less able to perceive a clear winner. The existence of private information denies either side the ability to fully know the capabilities of the other, resulting in a greater opportunity for conflict. Reaching a negotiated alternative is less likely when miscalculation is more likely.4 Here again, domestic economic growth resulting from economic integration can change a national-level view of the potential for victory. According to this line of thinking, economic integration, specifically the process of economic growth through comparative advantage, redistributes wealth between and among nations. Those winners out of this process develop new needs for resources that naturally expand their interests further afield. Hegre has recently provided some statistical evidence that would appear to support this concept. Using a gravity model to determine how trade volumes between countries impact their absolute or individual level of economic wealth, Hegre finds that growth in power by any one state increases its likelihood to enter into inter-state disputes. He writes, ‘I show that a set of size variables – based on countries’ population and their military capabilities – significantly and strongly increases the probability of militarized dispute between countries’ (Hegre 2008, 586). When applied to the topic of this paper, the main point drawn out by the Choucri and North, Pollins, Organski and Hegre findings is that winners from economic integration are more likely to enter into foreign military disputes. Pollins and Schweller (1999) look specifically at the experience of the United States from 1790-1993, and found support for this conclusion. They find that US power has grown in sync with the extent to which it has integrated its economy within the global economy. This growth, at an individual level, has coincided with increases in US military engagements overseas. They suggest that ‘diversionary theory’, ‘war chest theory’, and ‘lateral pressure’ theory are all potential reasons for why this has occurred, acknowledging that the underlying rationale which may differ between administrations and global power conditions.5 These political science themes are not new to the economic-security nexus debate, yet the attention they have received in the past two decades has paled in comparison to the theories addressed in chapter 2. This lack of attention from the political science community is surprising, as national-level characteristics remain an active theme of political science research in other areas of international relations theory. Even more surprising is that the economic-security nexus debate has not yet considered the impact of economic integration on a state’s domestic economic conditions. Here a great wealth of economic research remains unexploited. One new area that is worthy of consideration within this context pertains to the theme of economic specialisation. The reordering of national economies in accordance with principles of competitive advantage encourages states to develop specialised industries. The process of specialisation is important for nations to obtain the greatest possible efficiency in order to maximise profit. However, it also creates vulnerability through a lack of diversification. For example, as technology advances, states with a particularly heavy reliance on an old technology will become losers in direct contrast to states that introduce the new technology. Specialisation increases any one state’s dependency on the system and on its specific partners. In parallel with realist thinking already highlighted, increased dependency generally leads to insecurity. States relatively less dependent can exploit the situation of states relatively more dependent, leading to increased opportunity for conflict. There is also growing evidence that specialisation is a primary determinant of whether a state is contagious to a broader financial crisis. Gande, et al. (2008) provide evidence to support three relevant conclusions for this paper. First, they conclude that an increase in the level of specialisation leads to an increase in the probability of financial crisis. Indeed, they even suggest that specialisation is the primary root of financial crises. Second, access to external finance decreases this probability, though it also creates incentives for debt induced risk-shifting that can lead to risky overinvestment and minimise the overall palliative effect. Third, government safety nets such as subsidies and bailouts lead to higher debt concentration of bank loans that further increase the likelihood of financial crisis.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I get the feeling that Royal says "Hey, here are some possible reasons why things happen. It could be one country's economic collapse, it could be another country's economic boost". 

 

Also

 

ROYAL sort of concludes that there is no definitive answer…

Jedidiah Royal 11, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, “Integration, Vulnerability and Risk: A New Framework for Understanding the Economic-Security Nexus,” From Chapter 7, “Conclusion,” p. 146-147, Master’s Thesis in Philosophy, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2011, http://unsworks.unsw…:10112/SOURCE01

The economic-security nexus debate is far from over. There are no ‘silver bullet’ answers, but instead a variety of threads in this these interwoven relationships. Going forward, the economic-security nexus remains a rich and promising field of both political science and economic study. Further work in this regard could focus on discerning the discrete interactions between the levels of risk, or developing quantitative models that capture the entirety of the broadened framework. As economic structures and technologies propel globalisation in new directions, it is hard to imagine a more important and worthwhile discipline of security studies than the economic-security nexus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the social services topic I read a plan that cost $420 trillion.  I was disappointed when no one ran spending.

 

 

As aff? lol 

Advantage one: reparations

Advantage two: dedev

 

 

And I mean shit, if you don't have an econ impact, why not dedev?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I mean shit, if you don't have an econ impact, why not dedev?

novice me ran diamond roads as a dedev aff

 

I hate novice me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As aff? lol 

 

The trick is to read your aff as a neg to it, saying stuff like "And *our aff* collapses the economy" etc, have the other team read your own aff advantages of solving the economy back at you as defense, then kick your "advantages" and concede to the case your opponent wrote and you have 100% guaranteed solvency and a pissed off neg team. 

 

And a 0-1 decision 

Edited by RainSilves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I get the feeling that Royal says "Hey, here are some possible reasons why things happen. It could be one country's economic collapse, it could be another country's economic boost". 

 

This is correct. The reason behind this is that the Royal card is cut from a review of literature -- so basically he's giving the arguments that other authors have given in favor of econ decline leads to war. Royal doesn't actually believe that as we can see from the other royal cards posted above. The studies he cites are just examples of one side of the argument, which Royal sets out to rebut in his paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...