Oneal and Barbieri & Peters offer divergent critiques of Gartzke & Li, who present a mathematical identity between competing operationalizations of dyadic interdependence, and show that the relationship one finds between conflict and commerce depends on how one constructs one’s dyadic indicator of trade. Oneal seems to accept the identity, but not some of its implications. Barbieri & Peters challenge the identity and offer contrasting results. Here, we show that Barbieri & Peters’s results are due to their model specification, which Gartzke & Li argue involves omitted variable bias.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, James E., 1979. ‘A TheoreticalFoundation for the Gravity Equation’ , American Economic Review69 (March): 106–116 .
2.
Barbieri, Katherine, 1996. ‘EconomicInterdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?’ , Journal of Peace Research33(1): 29–49 .
3.
Barbieri, Katherine, 2002. The Liberal Illusion: Does Trade Promote Peace? Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press .
4.
Barbieri, Katherine & Richard Alan Peters II,2003. ‘Measure for Mis-measure: A Response to Gartzke & Li’ , Journal of Peace Research40(6): 713–719 .
5.
Beck, Nathaniel; Jonathan N. Katz & RichardTucker, 1998. ‘Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series–Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable’ , American Journal of Political Science42(4): 1260–1288 .
6.
Crescenzi, Mark J. C., 2002. ‘Interdependence and Conflict: When Does Symmetry Matter?’ , Conflict Management and Peace Science20(1): 73–92 .
7.
Crescenzi, Mark J. C., 2003. ‘Economic Exit,Interdependence, and Conflict’ , Journal of Politics65(3): 809–832 .
8.
Deardorff, Alan V., 1998. ‘Determinants ofBilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?’, in Jeffrey A. Frankel, ed., The Regionalization of the World Economy. Chicago, IL & London: University of Chicago Press (7–32).
9.
Gartzke, Erik & Quan Li, 2003a. ‘Measure forMeasure: Concept Operationalization and the Trade Interdependence–Conflict Debate’ , Journal of Peace Research40(5): 553–571 .
10.
Gartzke, Erik & Quan Li, 2003b. ‘War, Peace, and the Invisible Hand: Positive Political Externalities of Economic Globalization’ , International Studies Quarterly47(4): 561–586 .
11.
Gartzke, Erik; Quan Li & Charles Boehmer,2001. ‘Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict’ , International Organization55(2): 391–438 .
12.
Li, Quan & David Sacko, 2002. ‘The(IR)Relevance of Interstate Militarized Disputes to International Trade’ , International Studies Quarterly46(1): 11–44 .
13.
Oneal, John R., 2003. ‘MeasuringInterdependence and Its Pacific Benefits: A Reply to Gartzke & Li’ , Journal of Peace Research40(6): 721–725 .
14.
Polachek, Solomon; Yuan-Ching Chang & JohnRobst, 1999. ‘Liberalism and Interdependence’ , Journal of Peace Research36(4): 405–422 .
15.
Wagner, R. Harrison, 1988. ‘EconomicInterdependence, Bargaining Power, and Political Influence’ , International Organization41(3): 461–483 .
