On Ignoring Missing Data and the Robustness of Trade and Conflict Results: A Reply to Barbieri, Keshk, and Pollins

Journal article

Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede (2010) On Ignoring Missing Data and the Robustness of Trade and Conflict Results: A Reply to Barbieri, Keshk, and Pollins, Conflict Management and Peace Science 27 (2): 153–157.

Download Final publication
.pdf

This is the Version of Record of the publication, available here in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. This publication may be subject to copyright: please visit the publisher’s website for details. All rights reserved.

Download Reviewed, pre-typeset version
.pdf

This is the Reviewed, pre-typeset version of the article. The final, definitive version can be found at the journal’s website. This publication may be subject to copyright: please visit the publisher’s website for details. All rights reserved.

Read the article here

Barbieri, Keshk, and Pollins (2009) introduce a new Correlates of War trade data set and express various opinions on issues related to analyzing data on trade and how these may impact our inferences on the relationship between trade and conflict. Since there are 33 references to my name in their paper and the authors believe the expanded trade that I have generated to be highly problematic, I respond to some of the issues raised, clarify the specific sources of disagreement, and outline my thoughts on how trade data can be improved and best used in empirical analyses. Barbieri et al. (2009) could be interpreted as suggesting that inferences on the pacifying effect of trade on conflict are fragile and sensitive to decisions on the data. However, their paper in my view provides few new empirical results and does not change my own interpretation of the evidence that dyadic trade reduces the risk of conflict.

An error has occurred. This application may no longer respond until reloaded. Reload 🗙