Measure for Mis-measure: A Response to Gartzke & Li*
| Author | Katherine Barbieri,Richard Alan Peters |
| Published date | 01 November 2003 |
| Date | 01 November 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00223433030406006 |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
713
Introduction
Within trade–conflict research, there are two
main schools of thought. One school,
commonly associated with John Oneal &
Bruce Russett (O&R), argues that trade
promotes peace; the other, often associated
with Katherine Barbieri, suggests that trade
is associated with conflict.1O&R (Oneal et
al., 1996; Oneal & Russett, 1997, 1999a,b;
Russett & Oneal, 2001) and Barbieri (1995,
1996a,b, 2002) each provide empirical
support for their positions. Gartzke & Li
(2003) (G&L) argue that the discrepant
findings can be explained by the use of
alternative measures. G&L also argue that
economic openness promotes peace and that
Barbieri’s measure is inversely proportional
to openness, whereas O&R’s measure is
directly proportional to it. G&L believe
Barbieri’s finding that interdependence is
positively associated with conflict can be
explained by her use of a measure that
captures disconnectedness from the global
economy, rather than interdependence.
While G&L raise some important points, we
believe their argument has problems.
We agree with G&L that differences in
measures can produce different results and
© 2003 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 40, no. 6, 2003, pp. 713–719
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com
[0022-3433(200311)40:6; 713–719; 038290]
Measure for Mis-measure: A Response to
Gartzke & Li*
KATHERINE BARBIERI
Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University
RICHARD ALAN PETERS II
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt
University
Barbieri & Peters (B&P) question Gartzke & Li’s (G&L’s) conclusion that the contradictory findings
between Barbieri and Oneal & Russett on the trade–conflict question can be explained by their use of
alternative measures. There are problems with G&L’s analysis. First, G&L’s findings are based on analy-
ses with measures incompatible with Barbieri’s. Second, G&L adopt measures that are not truly dyadic.
Third, G&L draw erroneous conclusions from their mathematics. B&P explain these problems and
present empirical analyses that show that even when controlling for economic openness, as G&L
propose, dyadic interdependence is still positively associated with conflict. B&P find support for G&L’s
conclusion that openness promotes peace.
* We would like to thank Han Dorussen, John Geer, and
James Lee Ray for their helpful comments on our manu-
script and Erik Gartzke & Quan Li for their cooperation
in providing us with data and responding to questions.
Data used here are available at http://www.
vanderbilt.edu/psci/barbieri/. Stata Version 7 was used
to perform the statistical analyses. Correspondence:
katherine.barbieri@vanderbilt.edu.
1For summaries of the trade–conflict literature, see
Barbieri & Schneider (1999), Mansfield & Pollins (2001),
and Schneider, Barbieri & Gleditsch (2003).
68S 06barbieri (ds) 3/10/03 1:22 pm Page 713
To continue reading
Request your trial