Trading Data

TLDR

Scholars have hastily judged the trade‑conflict relationship, relying on questionable data assumptions. The study tests these assumptions, revealing they are often unwarranted and threaten conclusions about trade’s impact on conflict. The authors examine official trade statistics, missing data handling, and decision rules, then introduce the new COW Trade Data Set, explaining its coding rationale and comparing it to existing datasets. The study yields findings that advance understanding of trade’s relationship with international conflict.

Abstract

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.