The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements
Abstract
Over the past fifty years, barriers to international trade have decreased substantially. A key source of this decline in protectionism has been the proliferation of agreements among countries to liberalize commerce. In this article, we analyze the domestic political conditions under which states have concluded such agreements and, more generally, explore the factors affecting interstate economic cooperation. We argue that interstate cooperation on commercial issues depends heavily on the political regime types of participants: as states become more democratic, they are increasingly likely to conclude trade agreements. To test our claim, we examine whether the regime types of states have influenced their propensity to form and expand preferential trading arrangements (PTAs) during the period since World War II. We find that democratic countries are about twice as likely to form a PTA as autocratic countries, and that pairs of democracies are roughly four times as likely to do so as autocratic pairs. These results provide strong evidence that democracies are more commercially cooperative than less democratic countries.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Penn World Table (Mark 5): An Expanded Set of International Comparisons, 1950-1988
Summers, R., & Heston, A. (1991) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2937941 · Cited by 3,429
Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990
Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511804946 · Cited by 2,845
Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard
(2011) · The Encyclopedia of Political Science · doi:10.4135/9781608712434.n14 · Cited by 9
Cited by
Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international trade?
Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2007) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.02.005 · Cited by 2,692
Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach
Tomz, M. (2007) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818307070282 · Cited by 699
Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict
Mansfield, E. D., & Pevehouse, J. C. (2000) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081800551361 · Cited by 384
Self-citationHANKLA, C. R., & KUTHY, D. (2013) · International Studies Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2012.00753.x · Cited by 61
The Politics of Foreign Direct Investment in Authoritarian Regimes
Bastiaens, I. (2016) · International Interactions · doi:10.1080/03050629.2015.1065699 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Mansfield, E. D., Milner, H. V., & Rosendorff, B. P.
- Venue
- International Organization
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 477-513
- ISSN
- 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5088
- OpenAlex
- W2165819037
- Cited by
- 802
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 29.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/002081802760199863
- The paper
- Mansfield, E. D., Milner, H. V., & Rosendorff, B. P. (2002). Why Democracies Cooperate More: Electoral Control and International Trade Agreements. International Organization. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081802760199863
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.