Measure for mis-measure: A response to Gartzke & Li

Barbieri & Peters (B&P) question Gartzke & Li's (G&L's) conclusion that the contradictory findings between Barbieri and Oneal & 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.