Goenner (Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28(5): 1-20, 2011) criticizes the simultaneous equations regression model (SEM) of bilateral trade flows (BT) and militarized interstate disputes (MID) developed by Keshk, Pollins and Reuveny (Journal of Politics 66(4): 1155-1179, 2004) and extended by Keshk, Reuveny and Pollins (Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27(1): 1-20, 2010). Like Hegre, Oneal and Russett (Journal of Peace Research 47(6): 763-774, 2010), he does not agree with Keshk, Reuveny and Pollins that a larger BT has no effect on MID. Unlike Hegre et al. (2010), who focus on the role of distance between capital cities on MID in Keshk et al.'s (2004) SEM, Goenner finds faults in their econometrics. Once these faults are fixed, he says, a larger BT reduces the probability of MID. His analysis is unconvincing. We believe our essay is of interest beyond the trade and conflict research community, as it illustrates the risk of emphasizing technique over substance.
展开▼
机译：Goenner（冲突管理与和平科学，28（5）：1-20，2011）批评了Keshk，Polins和Reuveny（）制定的双边贸易流量（BT）和军事化州际争端（MID）的联立方程回归模型（SEM）。政治杂志66（4）：1155-1179，2004），并由Keshk，Reuveny和Pollins进行了扩展（冲突管理与和平科学，27（1）：1-20，2010）。像Hegre，Oneal和Russett（Journal of Peace Research 47（6）：763-774，2010）一样，他不同意Keshk，Reuveny和Pollins的观点，即较大的BT对MID没有影响。与Hegre等人不同。 Goenner等人（2010）在Keshk等人（2004）的SEM中着重研究了首都之间的距离对MID的作用，Goenner发现了计量经济学中的缺陷。他说，一旦修复了这些故障，较大的BT就会降低MID的可能性。他的分析令人信服。我们认为，我们的论文在贸易和冲突研究界之外很受关注，因为它表明了强调技术胜于实质的风险。
展开▼
