[7] The philosophical roots of the commercial peace, closely related to the concept of doux commerce, can be traced back to Montesquieu, David Hume, Richard Cobden, Immanuel Kant, Joseph Schumpeter, Norman Angell, and classical economic theory.
"[10][2][8] In the early twentieth century Norman Angell reasoned that trade interdependence in modern economies makes war unprofitable.
[16] Stephen Gent and Mark Crescenzi have argued that economic interdependence has reduced interstate conflict over market power.
[20][21][22][23] Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman argue that interdependence may spur conflict by provoking competition for important nodes in global economic networks.
[28] A 2021 PNAS study found that trade openness considerably reduces the risks of conflict over strategic locations close to maritime choke points.
[4] The explanation is based on two aspects widely accepted in social science: (1) bounded rationality; and (2) divergent hierarchies between clientelism and contract-intensive economies.
In contrast, individuals in contract-poor societies will develop the habits of abiding by the commands of group leaders, and distrusting those from out-groups.
According to economic norms theory, the people in contract-rich nations enjoy a permanent and positive peace.
Consequently, contract-intensive nations not only avoid war with each other but engage in intense levels of mutual cooperation specifically aimed at promoting each other's material welfare.
In a 2019 analysis, Mosseau argued that voting patterns at the United Nations General Assembly support economic norms theory.
"[36] In contrast, they report that "income per capita, inflation, and banking sector development are the most robust predictors of life insurance consumption across countries and over time.
"[37] Thus, it is questionable as to whether life insurance truly "indicates a highly institutionalized norm of contracting in a society..." Another concern with Mousseau's explanation of capitalist peace theory is his omission of almost every Latin American intervention between 1816 and 1992, a fact that allows the author to conclude that "joint highly democratic dyads are about 3 times more likely … to resolve their militarized conflicts with mutual concessions’ (Mousseau, 1998, p. 210; see also Bremer, 1993).
[40] Stephen G. Brooks has argued in a number of studies that the globalization of finance and the rise of multinational companies have contributed to a more peaceful international system.
[42][43] In a 2005 study, he argues that conquest for economic purposes is pointless and counterproductive in an international system with extensive mobility of capital and elaborate global supply chains.
[42] In a 2013 study, he argued, "there are no longer any economic actors who will be favorable toward war and who will lobby the government with this preference... the current structure of the global economy now makes it feasible for foreign direct investment to serve as an effective substitute for conquest in a way that was not possible in previous eras.