IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v40y2003i5p553-571.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measure for Measure: Concept Operationalization and the Trade Interdependence-Conflict Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Gartzke
  • Quan Li

Abstract

While most quantitative studies find a negative relationship between economic interdependence and interstate disputes, research by Barbieri finds that interdependence precipitates conflict. Participants in the debate suggest several causes, but we show that alternative variable constructions are sufficient to account for the discrepant findings. A simple formal equivalence unites respective operationalizations of dyadic interdependence used by Oneal & Russett ( trade dependence , trade ij /GDP i ) and Barbieri ( trade share , trade i /trade i ) with the consensus construction of monadic trade openness (trade i /GDP i ). We also show that Barbieri's trade share is negatively correlated with openness . Arguments in the article are verified through large-sample quantitative regression analyses of the two competing dyadic variable constructions and trade openness on MID onset. The results of these dyadic regression analyses show that trade share increases the probability of MID onset, trade dependence decreases the probability of MID onset and, correspondingly, that trade openness is negatively correlated with MID onset.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Gartzke & Quan Li, 2003. "Measure for Measure: Concept Operationalization and the Trade Interdependence-Conflict Debate," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 40(5), pages 553-571, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:40:y:2003:i:5:p:553-571
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/40/5/553.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jong-Wha Lee & Ju Hyun Pyun, 2016. "Does Trade Integration Contribute to Peace?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 327-344, February.
    2. Manuchehr Irandoust, 2018. "Militarism and globalization: Is there an empirical link?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 1349-1369, May.
    3. Susan Ariel Aaronson & M. Rodwan Abouharb & K. Daniel Wang, 2015. "The Liberal Illusion Is Not a Complete Delusion: The WTO Helps Member States Keep the Peace Only When It Increases Trade," Global Economy Journal (GEJ), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 455-484, December.
    4. Verdier, Thierry, 2010. "Ouverture, conflits et capacité étatique : une perspective d’économie politique," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 86(4), pages 415-449, décembre.
    5. Peter A.G. van Bergeijk, 2009. "Economic Diplomacy and the Geography of International Trade," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13518.
    6. Christos Kollias & Suzanna-Maria Paleologou, 2017. "The Globalization and Peace Nexus: Findings Using Two Composite Indices," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 871-885, April.
    7. Erich Weede, 2011. "The Capitalist Peace," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Weede Erich, 2006. "Globale Ordnungspolitik im Zeitalter amerikanischer Hegemonie: Kritische Anmerkungen dazu, wie man Demokratie und Kapitalismus nicht verbreiten kann / Global Order in the Era of American Hegemony," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 57(1), pages 371-392, January.
    9. Christopher J. Coyne & Anne R. Bradley, 2019. "Ludwig von Mises on war and the economy," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(3), pages 215-228, September.
    10. Firanchuk, Alexander (Фиранчук, Александр), 2017. "Illegal Re-Export and Analysis of the Effectiveness of the Russian Food Embargo in 2014 [Незаконный Реэкспорт И Анализ Эффективности Российского Продовольственного Эмбарго 2014 Года]," Working Papers 041705, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:joupea:v:40:y:2003:i:5:p:553-571. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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://www.prio.no/ .

    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.