This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Barbieri, K. Articles by Pollins, B. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Trading Data

Evaluating our Assumptions and Coding Rules

University of South Carolina, USA

Omar M.G. Keshk

The Ohio State University, USA

Brian M. Pollins

The Ohio State University, USA

Some scholars have rushed to judgment about the nature of the relationship between trade and conflict, making strong assumptions about the data upon which their conclusions rest. In this paper, we test these assumptions, showing that they are often not warranted and, thus, pose threats to many of our conclusions about trade’s impact on conflict. We discuss official trade statistics; the treatment of missing trade data; and problems with some decision rules being adopted within our research community. We introduce the new Correlates of War (COW) Trade Data Set; discuss the rationale behind our coding decisions; and compare this data set with other sets. The end result is a series of findings that should help our field advance its understanding of the often difficult issue of trade’s relationship with international conflict.

Key Words: COW Trade Data Set • IMF data • imputed data • militarized interstate disputes • missing data • trade • trade and conflict • trade data • trade statistics

Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 26, No. 5, 471-491 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0738894209343887


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?