Measuring Interdependence and Its Pacific Benefits: A Reply to Gartzke & Li
| Published date | 01 November 2003 |
| Author | John R. Oneal |
| DOI | 10.1177/00223433030406007 |
| Date | 01 November 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
721
Gartzke & Li’s ‘Measure for Measure’ (2003)
usefully clarifies the mathematical relation-
ships linking trade dependence, openness, and
trade share. As they note, I have considered
this issue, too, but less thoroughly (Oneal,
2003). We agree on three major points: (1)
high trade dependence, indicated by the lower
bilateral trade-to-GDP ratio in each dyad,
reduces the likelihood of violent interstate
conflict; (2) openness, measured by the total
trade-to-GDP ratio for the same state, also
has important pacific benefits; and (3) trade
share, the ratio of bilateral to total trade, is
not a good measure of economic inter-
dependence, because it does not capture the
economic (and hence political) importance
of states’ bilateral trade. Our disagreements
are relatively minor but worth discussing
briefly.
First, Gartzke & Li conclude that their
analyses help to explain why the bilateral
trade-to-GDP measure may be less robust in
dyadic studies of militarized disputes than is
the measure of economic openness. Trade
dependence has been investigated much more
thoroughly than openness, however, so it is
too early to accept the premise of their con-
clusion. More importantly, Gartzke & Li
consider only the statistical significance of
the two measures of interdependence, not
their substantive effects on the probability of
conflict. In fact, a one-standard-deviation
increase in trade dependence reduces the risk
of violence much more than does a similar
change in openness; and with the best trade
and GDP data (Gleditsch, 2002), the esti-
mated coefficients of the two variables are
equally significant.
© 2003 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 40, no. 6, 2003, pp. 721–725
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com
[0022-3433(200311)40:6; 721–725; 038291]
Measuring Interdependence and Its Pacific
Benefits: A Reply to Gartzke & Li*
JOHN R. ONEAL
Department of Political Science, University of Alabama
Gartzke & Li’s ‘Measure for Measure’ usefully clarifies the mathematical relationships linking trade
dependence, openness, and trade share. Oneal and Gartzke & Li agree on all major points: (1) high trade
dependence, indicated by the lower bilateral trade-to-GDP ratio in each dyad, reduces the likelihood of
violent interstate conflict; (2) openness, measured by the total trade-to-GDP ratio for the same state,
also has important pacific benefits; and (3) trade share, the ratio of bilateral to total trade, is not a good
measure of economic interdependence, because it does not capture the economic (and hence political)
importance of states’ bilateral trade. The substantive benefits of both trade dependence and openness can
easily be shown. Oneal analyzes militarized interstate disputes using the best available data for trade
and conflict and controls for duration dependence. With all dyads included, a one standard-deviation
increase in dependence lowers the risk of a fatal dispute by 62%; such an increase in openness reduces it
by 25%. These results are consistent with more than 30 published or forthcoming studies that show
that economic interdependence reduces the likelihood of interstate conflict.
* The data used in this article can be found at
http://www.bama.ua.edu/~joneal/jprreply. Correspondence:
joneal@bama.ua.edu.
68S 07oneal (ds) 3/10/03 1:23 pm Page 721
To continue reading
Request your trial