While the relationship between economic interdependence and military conflict remains the subject of debate, recent research has begun to focus more on the micro-foundations underlying any such relationship. At least three arguments are commonly used to link economic integration with a reduced likelihood of military conflict: economic ties act as a constraint by raising the costs of conflict; economic ties facilitate communication and hence reduce the likelihood of dangerous miscalculations; and economic integration transforms state goals, making them conflict less with the goals of other states. Because all three causal mechanisms posit a similar outcome--economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of military conflict--testing them against each other is difficult; as such, the use of detailed case studies would seem a promising approach, since this mode of analysis allows for a close examination of the dynamics driving observed policy changes in particular countries. After summarizing the logic of each of the three arguments, I test them against each other using a case study of the relationship between Mainland China and Taiwan. While I do not find unambiguous support for any of the three causal mechanisms, I find the evidence, on balance, to be more consistent with the informational and transformational arguments than it is with the constraint argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]