Measure for Mis-measure: A Response to Gartzke & Li*

Katherine Barbieri and Richard Alan Peters

Journal of Peace Research, 2003, vol. 40, issue 6, 713-719

Abstract: Barbieri & Peters (B&P) question Gartzke & Li’s (G&L’s) conclusion that the contradictory findings between Barbieri andOneal & 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 analyses 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.

Date: 2003
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/40/6/713.abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:joupea:v:40:y:2003:i:6:p:713-719

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Peace Research from Peace Research Institute Oslo
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().