After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy

After War by Chris Coyne is a very powerful application of economic reasoning to help explain why it is so hard to export liberal democracy to failed nations states (either after a war or after the collapse of an existing regime). I highly recommend this book on this very important topic. It deepened my understanding of why exporting democracy is so hard while teaching me concepts that can be applied to other topics as well.Coyne uses real-world examples and does a great job explaining the terms and concepts he uses. The book covers 4 main themes:1.) There is gap between knowing what and knowing how – while we understand what we want to achieve, we do not understand how to actually achieve it. This is a powerful point made throughout the book and one that, unfortunately, is frequently ignored2.) The recognition of constraints – he notes culture as the key constraint, especially in the short term3.) The “Nirvana Fallacy” and negative unintended consequences4.) The need for an underlying shift in preferences and opportunities as a requirement for sustainable social changeThe chapter I learned the most from was Chapter 3 – “Why Can’t They All Get Along?” I feel that this chapter alone is worth the price of the book. It covers some very important concepts such as De Tocqueville’s “art of association” – how members of society come together to solve common problems without relying on government; Meta-Games (the overall goal) and nested games within that game and the challenges that result; and the role of change agents (these individuals often begin the process of change and can greatly help or hinder that effort). In addition to being relevant to “the political economy of exporting democracy”, all of these concepts also gave me more to think about in business transformation projects as well!Coyne properly concludes that: “there is no quick or easy fix to the problem caused by weak, failed, and conflict torn states”. I believe he also makes a very compelling case that we need to use “liberal means to liberal ends.” As he notes in the first chapter:"It is my contention that political, economic, and social change that is imposed at the point of a gun is more likely to be met with resistance and is less likely to 'stick' once occupiers exit the country. Among the key neglected mechanisms for fostering sustaining change is a commitment to non-intervention coupled with free trade and exchange, not just in physical goods and services but also in cultural products, ideas, beliefs, and institutions."Coyne has written a very valuable book on a very important topic. I highly recommend this book and I hope it gets the wide readership that it deserves.

I had expected "After War" to be an examination of post-conflict and reconstruction governance and recommend approaches to these issues. Instead, the focus of "After War" is to critique the use of force by liberal states (the US in particular) and recommend non-intervention and unilateral free trade as the most appropriate mechanisms for promoting democracy and freedom.While the merits (or otherwise) of using force to promote liberty are worth debating, as are the pros and cons of removing barriers to trade, "After War" takes a slightly simplistic view of the first issue and appears to be preaching to the converted on the latter rather than making a compelling argument to a critical audience. Coyne's discussion of the merits of intervention and reconstruction - although including some interesting analysis of post WW2 reconstruction and institution building in Germany and Japan in particular - tends towards a simplistic analysis of the objectives of each intervention. By not considering that intervention may have competing priorities to the institution of a liberal democracy (for example, averting an immediate humanitarian or national security threat), his assessment of the effectiveness of each intervention is skewed - a tendency compounded by Coyne's focus on those interventions that appear to support his case (Somalia and Iraq) and a disinterest in other contemporary interventions from Bosnia to East Timor. Coyne's arguments that intervention is almost always counterproductive should be tested against the literature that makes a case for a "Responsibility to Protect" (such as  A New World Order ).By contrast, Coyne's discussion of the merits of free trade was disappointingly shallow. While I am broadly in sympathy with his views, he has dedicated less than 10% of his book to what is largely a polemic for free trade that is not backed by even the level of analysis seen in his discussion of intervention/reconstruction. Similar arguments are made to much greater effect in  The Other Path: The Economic Answer to Terrorism  or  In Defense of Globalization: With a New Afterword  - if I wished to persuade a thoughtful sceptic of the merits of Coyne's views I would suggest looking at these works or similar instead.Overall, "After War", while providing some useful insights and provocative arguments, is not as convincing that a more considered treatment of these issues could be. Coyne's clear enthusiasm for limited government and free market economics - from the perspective of an academic economist - perhaps needed to be tempered by some broader views to be more compelling.

This book is more than an economic survey of why war is not the most rational manner in which to bring rouge nations in line. This book also provides great lessons on how to how to negotiate effectively in hostile and foreign environments (be it in the world of business or politics). Using economic models that make sense (accounting for the assumptions that all economic models make), the author has predicted/analyzed the reasons the US will not be able to reconstruct Iraq and/or Afghanistan.The author has built a framework which he has used to later analyze Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Everything that his framework talks of is coming true and for those who have reservations about US withdrawal from the troubled spots around the world should look at this book once.

Coyne relays his message with the economic way of thinking. He instructed me as an undergraduate and after his lectures I would leave thinking in a different way. He is an awesome writer and professor.

as promised