This note examines how pandemics disrupt international relations by focusing on malaria, a globally endemic disease. It argues that longstanding diseases like malaria have the potential to weaken political ties between states and erode the benefits those ties produce.

📚 What Was Compared and Why

This analysis tests the proposition that higher domestic malaria exposure has a chilling effect on foreign governments’ willingness to establish or maintain diplomatic presence. The focus is on whether disease burden shapes both bilateral choices and a country’s overall diplomatic footprint.

📊 How the Evidence Was Gathered and Tested

• Uses directed-dyadic and monadic data to capture both pairwise diplomatic decisions and country-level outcomes.
• Employs empirical methods designed to address endogeneity and other identification concerns, ensuring estimates isolate the relationship between geographic malaria rates and diplomatic presence.

🔎 Key Findings

• Higher geographic malaria rates historically discouraged foreign governments from establishing diplomatic outposts on a country’s soil (directed-dyadic evidence).
• Countries with greater malaria exposure also receive fewer total diplomatic missions overall (monadic evidence).

⚖️ Why This Matters Now

These results show that persistent, endemic diseases can reshape diplomatic networks and reduce the material and informational benefits that come from foreign representation. The note discusses contemporary implications for diplomatic planning, international engagement, and health-informed foreign policy.