The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads in the Study of Interdependence and Dyadic Disputes

Abstract

The role of dyadic trade dependence in reducing conflict has been a subject of some dispute in the recent literature. Liberals have presented strong evidence that a higher level of trade dependence leads to lower probabilities of dyadic disputes, while an equally compelling literature has generated evidence that elevated levels of trade dependence generally increase the likelihood of disputes, or that dependence only decreases the likelihood of conflict for certain pairs of states under specific conditions. Unfortunately, the direct comparison of these competing perspectives has been hindered by the use of different estimation techniques, variable measurements, data sets, and samples. While recent work has attempted to provide a more systematic analysis of the effect of different data sets and sample choices on the relationship between interdependence and conflict (Schneider, Barbieri, & Gleditsch, 2003), no theoretical reason has been put forward as to why estimation results for some samples should differ from others. This paper employs three different data sets (Russett & Oneal, 2001; Barbieri, 2002; and Gleditsch, 2002) to test the effects of sample choice, especially that of politically relevant dyads, on the relationship between interdependence and conflict. Following Polachek, Robst, and Chang (1999) I note that the gains from trade are not homogeneous across dyad type; thus, the use of a politically relevant sample leads to biased estimates of the relationship between trade and conflict. Using a model that has been found to be critical of the liberal perspective (Barbieri, 2002), the results show that trade dependence does not have the same impact on conflict for dyads of different sizes. In sum, dyads with larger economies and high levels of trade salience have lower probabilities of conflict than dyads with smaller economies and equivalent amounts of trade.