713 Introduction Within trade–conflict research, there are two main schools of thought. One school, commonly associated with John Oneal & Bruce Russett (O&R), argues that trade promotes peace; the other, often associated with Katherine Barbieri, suggests that trade is associated with conflict. 1 O&R (Oneal et al., 1996; Oneal & Russett, 1997, 1999a,b; Russett & Oneal, 2001) and Barbieri (1995, 1996a,b, 2002) each provide empirical support for their positions. Gartzke & Li (2003) (G&L) argue that the discrepant findings can be explained by the use of alternative measures. G&L also argue that economic openness promotes peace and that Barbieri’s measure is inversely proportional to openness, whereas O&R’s measure is directly proportional to it. G&L believe Barbieri’s finding that interdependence is positively associated with conflict can be explained by her use of a measure that captures disconnectedness from the global economy, rather than interdependence. While G&L raise some important points, we believe their argument has problems. We agree with G&L that differences in measures can produce different results and © 2003 Journal of Peace Research, vol. 40, no. 6, 2003, pp. 713–719 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com [0022-3433(200311)40:6; 713–719; 038290] Measure for Mis-measure: A Response to Gartzke & Li* KATHERINE BARBIERI Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University RICHARD ALAN PETERS II Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University 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 analy- ses 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. * We would like to thank Han Dorussen, John Geer, and James Lee Ray for their helpful comments on our manu- script and Erik Gartzke & Quan Li for their cooperation in providing us with data and responding to questions. Data used here are available at http://www. vanderbilt.edu/psci/barbieri/. Stata Version 7 was used to perform the statistical analyses. Correspondence: katherine.barbieri@vanderbilt.edu. 1 For summaries of the trade–conflict literature, see Barbieri & Schneider (1999), Mansfield & Pollins (2001), and Schneider, Barbieri & Gleditsch (2003).