Referee Paper: The Colombian Exchange and Conflict in Asia
Recommendation
I recommend revising and resubmitting this research paper.
Critical Review
The research paper provides invaluable insight into the relationship between the Colombian Exchange and Conflict in Asia. It establishes that a permanent increase in productivity shock due to the introduction of New World crops led to a rise in conflicts in Asia, largely driven by the rapacity effect. The research findings contradict conventional wisdom, suggesting positive productivity shocks reduce conflicts. While the analysis results contradict the general assumption that increased productivity promotes cooperation through multiple trade and social channels leading to peace, the paper overlooks that the assumption only holds where no confounding effects exist. Human beings and states are opportunistic and tend to desire to expand their welfare. In economics, the general view is that rational and welfare-maximizing individuals make decisions. Therefore, the research does not in detail highlight how the rapacity effect in that expanded following the Colombina Exchange differs from what typically occurs in current societies.
The major concern of the argument presented in the paper is whether the identified rapacity effect violates the common assumption that increased productivity leads to more peace. Further, the paper does not in detail identify whether the increased levels of productivity in modern societies have limited rapacity effects. Without discussing these issues, it is difficult to conclude that the increased conflicts during the Columbian exchange period significantly contradict the general perspective that a general increase in production shock can reduce conflicts.
The research notes that the rapacity effect was common among states and communities of unequal power. Even in the current society, where it is generally accepted that productivity reduces conflicts, there are possibilities of rapacity effects. To mitigate against the rise of conflicts, countries have established agreements under various organizations such as the EU, COMESA, OECD, ITO, among others. The organizations enforce and compel peaceful cooperation of nations that are not equal militarily and politically. Even with the organizations’ efforts, there are usually cases of countries being accused of unfair trade practices, such as the trade dispute between the United States and China. The UN Peace Treaty has also reduced the incentives for stronger nations to invade weaker ones, particularly due to the possibility of economic sanctions and the weaker country attracting military support from other equally strong countries. In this regard, the paper should clarify whether the militaristic tendencies experienced during the Columbian Exchange significantly differ from patterns in current society or were enabled by various confounding factors.
Analysis
The paper provides great insight into how the Colombian Exchange promoted conflicts in Asia. It particularly notes that increased productivity fueled geopolitical competition and conflicts over resources. While the research establishes that conflicts were more likely to occur in regions with higher degrees of geopolitical competition and stratification, it does not elaborate on whether similar patterns and trends are in modern societies. Notably, the researchers assert that the incentive for conflict was greater when the rewards from resource appropriation were greater than the costs of war. The conflicts typically manifested themselves in the form of military conquest, economic exploitation, and territorial expansion, particularly of a weaker nation by one that is stronger. Without a clear difference on whether the rapacity effect is unique to the Columbian Exchange, it is difficult to establish a strong case against the assumption that a permanent increase in productivity reduces the risks of conflicts.
Additionally, there are minor discussions on the motives for the conflicts and the key perpetrators of these wars. In particular, the paper fails to discuss whether there was an increase in internal conflicts, such as civil wars and succession battles, following increased productivity. The paper only briefly mentions that a strong nation was more likely to invade a country or region with a weak military enjoying an increase in productivity. Without a discussion on the possible benefits of cooperating with a more productive region instead of conquest, it is difficult to establish a solid argument on whether a permanent increase in productivity reduced or increased the risks of conflicts. For example, there needs to be details on whether emerging productive regions that were willing to collaborate with existing strong nations were invaded. There should also be a discussion on whether there existed competition among strong nations to expand their territories, which encouraged the nations to conquer any rising productive regions or lose the territory to their rivals. The information is crucial for establishing the motive for the increased conflicts and determining whether the occurrences significantly contradict the view that productivity leads to reduced risk of conflicts.
The discussion on the impacts of population density and urbanization on incidences provides insight into the cultural and social environment of people during the Columbian Exchange era. In particular, the research asserts that regions with intra-group and inter-group diversity experienced higher conflict incidences following gains in caloric suitability. However, there would be a need to establish if the conflicts were primarily due to unique characteristics of urban environments, such as a lack of common values and loyalty or the incentive to conflict due to potential rewards of resource appropriation.
The research employs detailed statistical tests to establish the correctness of the findings. Overall, the approach used in data collection and analysis of findings is appropriate. However, there is a need to include recent data to establish whether the conflicts in Asia during the Columbian Exchange era differ from those experienced in the 21st century. Since the hypothesis that increased productivity promotes peace, a comparison of data on recent conflicts, particularly those that occurred after the colonial era, can explain if the results of the findings from the Columbian Exchange era are significantly different.
The overall conclusion of the research provides a detailed summary of the research’s findings. It particularly notes the complex interplay between productivity shocks, conflict dynamics, and geopolitical competition, contributing to scholarly debates and policy discussions on development, security, and peace. However, the conclusion fails to relate the conflicts in Asia during the Columbian Exchange to those that have occurred in the 21st century. Providing a comparison of the commonalities or differences between the conflicts during these two periods is vital for enabling the establishment of strong and reliable policies.
Additionally, the research should highlight whether the existing policies and international security framework to promote development and peace are effective, considering the issues raised in the research. Despite the existence of the United Nations as the primary institution for promoting peace and development among all countries, various conflicts exist globally. While it is clear that much needs to be done to promote peace, security, and development, identifying the specific policy issues can contribute to the debate on the issues raised in this paper.
Minor Issues
You should include a map of the recent conflicts and indicate the motivation for the war. The map will help compare and establish whether the issues identified in the research as motivation for conflicts in Asia during the Columbian Exchange era are still valid today. It will also contribute to advancing the scholarly debate on the topic and policies on peace and development.