IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v22y2005i2p113-133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads in the Study of Interdependence and Dyadic Disputes

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle A. Benson

    (Department of Political Science University at Buffalo SUNY Buffalo, New York, USA, mbenson2@buffalo.edu)

Abstract

The role of dyadic trade dependence in reducing conflict has been a subject of some dispute in the recent literature. Liberals have presented strong evidence that a higher level of trade dependence leads to lower probabilities of dyadic disputes, while an equally compelling literature has generated evidence that elevated levels of trade dependence generally increase the likelihood of disputes, or that dependence only decreases the likelihood of conflict for certain pairs of states under specific conditions. Unfortunately, the direct comparison of these competing perspectives has been hindered by the use of different estimation techniques, variable measurements, data sets, and samples. While recent work has attempted to provide a more systematic analysis of the effect of different data sets and sample choices on the relationship between interdependence and conflict (Schneider, Barbieri, & Gleditsch, 2003), no theoretical reason has been put forward as to why estimation results for some samples should differ from others. This paper employs three different data sets (Russett & Oneal, 2001; Barbieri, 2002; and Gleditsch, 2002) to test the effects of sample choice, especially that of politically relevant dyads, on the relationship between interdependence and conflict. Following Polachek, Robst, and Chang (1999) I note that the gains from trade are not homogeneous across dyad type; thus, the use of a politically relevant sample leads to biased estimates of the relationship between trade and conflict. Using a model that has been found to be critical of the liberal perspective (Barbieri, 2002), the results show that trade dependence does not have the same impact on conflict for dyads of different sizes. In sum, dyads with larger economies and high levels of trade salience have lower probabilities of conflict than dyads with smaller economies and equivalent amounts of trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle A. Benson, 2005. "The Relevance of Politically Relevant Dyads in the Study of Interdependence and Dyadic Disputes," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 113-133, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:22:y:2005:i:2:p:113-133
    DOI: 10.1080/07388940590948556
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/07388940590948556
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07388940590948556?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward D. Mansfield & Helen V. Milner & B. Peter Rosendorff, 2015. "Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Edward D Mansfield (ed.), THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE, chapter 7, pages 127-143, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Gowa, Joanne, 1989. "Bipolarity, Multipolarity, and Free Trade," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1245-1256, December.
    3. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    4. David H. Bearce & Eric O'N. Fisher, 2002. "Economic Geography, Trade, and War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(3), pages 365-393, June.
    5. Mansfield, Edward D. & Pevehouse, Jon C., 2000. "Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(4), pages 775-808, October.
    6. Polachek, Solomon W, 1997. "Why Democracies Cooperate More and Fight Less: The Relationship between International Trade and Cooperation," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(3), pages 295-309, August.
    7. Solomon William Polachek, 1980. "Conflict and Trade," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(1), pages 55-78, March.
    8. Yi Feng, 2000. "Measuring international conflict: Developing cross‐country time‐series data," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 287-319, March.
    9. Dixon, William J., 1994. "Democracy and the Peaceful Settlement of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(1), pages 14-32, March.
    10. Allen C. Head, 1995. "Country Size, Aggregate Fluctuations, and International Risk Sharing," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 28(4b), pages 1096-1119, November.
    11. Solomon W. Polachek & John Robst & Yuan-Ching Chang, 1999. "Liberalism and Interdependence: Extending the Trade-Conflict Model," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 36(4), pages 405-422, July.
    12. Mark Gasiorowski & Solomon W. Polachek, 1982. "Conflict and Interdependence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(4), pages 709-729, December.
    13. Pollins, Brian M., 1989. "Does Trade Still Follow the Flag?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 465-480, June.
    14. Gowa, Joanne & Mansfield, Edward D., 1993. "Power Politics and International Trade," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 408-420, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jason Enia & Patrick James, 2015. "Regime Type, Peace, and Reciprocal Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 523-539, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tobias Böhmelt, 2010. "The Impact of Trade on International Mediation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(4), pages 566-592, August.
    2. Edward D. Mansfield & Brian M. Pollins, 2001. "The Study of Interdependence and Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 834-859, December.
    3. Lin Scott Y. & Seiglie Carlos, 2014. "Same Evidences, Different Interpretations – A Comparison of the Conflict Index between the Interstate Dyadic Events Data and Militarized Interstate Disputes Data in Peace-Conflict Models," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 347-372, April.
    4. Massoud Tansa G. & Magee Christopher S., 2012. "Trade and Political, Military, and Economic Relations," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 1-39, May.
    5. Solomon W. Polachek, 2002. "Trade-Based Interactions: an Interdisciplinary Perspective," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 19(2), pages 1-21, September.
    6. Chang, Yuan-Ching & Polachek, Solomon W. & Robst, John, 2004. "Conflict and trade: the relationship between geographic distance and international interactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 491-509, September.
    7. Lingyu Lu & Cameron G. Thies, 2010. "Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 347-368, September.
    8. Fuchs, Andreas & Klann, Nils-Hendrik, 2013. "Paying a visit: The Dalai Lama effect on international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 164-177.
    9. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2008. "Power or Plenty," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(2), pages 213-242, April.
    10. Patrick J. McDonald, 2004. "Peace through Trade or Free Trade?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 547-572, August.
    11. Rafael Reuveny & John Maxwell, 1998. "Free Trade and Arms Races," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(6), pages 771-803, December.
    12. Håvard Hegre, 2005. "Development and the Liberal Peace," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 31, pages 17-46.
    13. Raul Caruso, 2006. "A Trade Institution as a Peaceful Institution? A Contribution to Integrative Theory," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(1), pages 53-72, February.
    14. (ed.), 0. "Research Handbook on Economic Diplomacy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16053.
    15. Parlow, Anton, 2011. "Does trade promote peace? squared: a gravity equation in a rectangular panel world," MPRA Paper 36430, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Polachek, Solomon, 2004. "How Outsourcing Affects Bilateral Political Relations," IZA Discussion Papers 1334, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Timothy M Peterson, 2011. "Third-party trade, political similarity, and dyadic conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 48(2), pages 185-200, March.
    18. Han Dorussen & Hugh Ward, 2011. "Disaggregated Trade Flows and International Conflict," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 25, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Reuven Glick & Alan M. Taylor, 2010. "Collateral Damage: Trade Disruption and the Economic Impact of War," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 102-127, February.
    20. James D. Morrow, 1997. "When Do “Relative Gains†Impede Trade?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 12-37, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:22:y:2005:i:2:p:113-133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.