Reconsidering trade and conflict simultaneity: The risk of emphasizing technique over substance

Abstract

Goenner (Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(5): 1–20, 2011) criticizes the simultaneous equations regression model (SEM) of bilateral trade flows (BT) and militarized interstate disputes (MID) developed by Keshk, Pollins and Reuveny (Journal of Politics 66(4): 1155–1179, 2004) and extended by Keshk, Reuveny and Pollins (Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27(1): 1–20, 2010). Like Hegre, Oneal and Russett (Journal of Peace Research 47(6): 763–774, 2010), he does not agree with Keshk, Reuveny and Pollins that a larger BT has no effect on MID. Unlike Hegre et al. (2010), who focus on the role of distance between capital cities on MID in Keshk et al.’s (2004) SEM, Goenner finds faults in their econometrics. Once these faults are fixed, he says, a larger BT reduces the probability of MID. His analysis is unconvincing. We believe our essay is of interest beyond the trade and conflict research community, as it illustrates the risk of emphasizing technique over substance.