Citation

Gartzke E, Li Q. J. Peace Res. 2003; 40(6): 727-732.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2003, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/00223433030406008

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Oneal and Barbieri and Peters offer divergent critiques of Gartzke and Li, who present a mathematical identity between competing operationalizations of dyadic interdependence, and show that the relationship one finds between conflict and commerce depends on how one constructs one's dyadic indicator of trade. Oneal seems to accept the identity, but not some of its implications. Barbieri and Peters challenge the identity and offer contrasting results. Here, we show that Barbieri and Peters's results are due to their model specification, which Gartzke and Li argue involves omitted variable bias.