On Disruption of Trade by War: A Reply to Barbieri & Levy
| Date | 01 September 2001 |
| Published date | 01 September 2001 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343301038005007 |
| Author | Charles H. Anderton,John R. Carter |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
625
Introduction
Based upon their interrupted times-series
analysis of seven dyads, Katherine Barbieri &
Jack Levy (1999: 463) found that ‘in most
cases war does not have a significant impact
on trading relationships’. In Anderton &
Carter (2001), we extended Barbieri &
Levy’s research by studying the impact of war
on trade for 27 dyads. Contrary to Barbieri
& Levy, we found that the weight of the evi-
dence favored the conclusion that war dis-
rupts trade. Barbieri & Levy (2001) respond
that we do not provide sufficient evidence to
warrant this conclusion. We disagree with
Barbieri & Levy’s assessment and reply here
to their concerns in three areas: (1) theoreti-
cal considerations, (2) methodological con-
cerns, and (3) interpretation of results.
Theoretical Considerations
In Anderton & Carter (2001), we began with
three premises upon which the trade-
promotes-peace hypothesis could rest: (1)
societies achieve salient economic gains from
their trading relationships; (2) serious conflict
among societies disrupts trade; and (3)
premises 1 and 2 enter the calculus of political
decisionmakers. In the remainder of Anderton
& Carter (2001), we focused exclusively on a
special case of premise 2, specifically, that war
disrupts trade. We did not further address the
trade-promotes-peace hypothesis, except as
needed to guide our empirical measurement of
trade. More particularly, we neither directly
tested nor stated conclusions about the trade-
promotes-peace hypothesis. Hence, we are
surprised that much of Barbieri & Levy’s
response focuses on the trade-promotes-peace
hypothesis, as in statements like the following
(2001; emphasis added):
there is not enough evidence to support their
conclusion that . . . war significantly impedes
trade and that this fact deters leaders from
engaging in war. [p. 619]
Anderton & Carter (2001) responded to our
study by offering evidence that trade does
promote peace. [p. 619]
Nevertheless, we find it difficult to argue that
leaders would be so concerned about trade-
related losses . . . that it would influence a
© 2001 Journal of Peace Research,
vol. 38, no. 5, 2001, pp. 625–628
Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)
[0022-3433(200109)38:5; 625–628; 019474]
On Disruption of Trade by War: A Reply to
Barbieri & Levy
CHARLES H. ANDERTON & JOHN R. CARTER
Department of Economics, College of the Holy Cross
This response counters Barbieri & Levy’s assessment of Anderton & Carter’s empirical study of the dis-
ruption of trade by war. A close examination of Anderton & Carter’s results shows significant trade dis-
ruption in 17 of 19 long war dyads and in 21 of 27 dyads in total. These results constitute reasonably
strong evidence that war disrupts trade.
07anderton (ds) 10/8/01 12:30 pm Page 625
at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012jpr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
To continue reading
Request your trial