In:
Journal of Peace Research, SAGE Publications, Vol. 40, No. 6 ( 2003-11), p. 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.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0022-3433
,
1460-3578
DOI:
10.1177/00223433030406006
Language:
English
Publisher:
SAGE Publications
Publication Date:
2003
detail.hit.zdb_id:
1490712-4
SSG:
3,6
Bookmarklink