2013Conflict Management and Peace ScienceRequires access

Mission accomplished: A reply to Reuveny and Keshk

Cullen F. Goenner

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

Reuveny and Keshk (“Reconsidering trade and conflict simultaneity: The risk of emphasizing technique over substance,” this issue, 2013) argue that the econometric techniques used by Goenner ( Conflict Management and Peace Science 28(5): 459–477, 2011) to test and control for endogeneity when estimating the relationship between trade and conflict lack substance. Both sets of authors propose the use of instrumental variable methods, which are known by econometricians to be the natural remedy for estimation with potentially endogenous regressors. Where Goenner (2011) and Reuveny and Keshk (2013) agree is that theory should guide variable selection and the model’s specification. Yet they differ in that, while econometric tests cannot replace theory, one should not trust the appropriateness of the model’s specification based on theory alone – one should also verify. Otherwise, as Goenner (2011) notes, attempts to control for endogeneity may fail.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Reuveny and Keshk (“Reconsidering trade and conflict simultaneity: The risk of emphasizing technique over substance,” this issue, 2013) argue that the econometric techniques used by Goenner ( Conflict Management and Peace Science 28(5): 459–477, 2011) to test and control for endogeneity when estimating the relationship between trade and conflict lack substance. Both sets of authors propose the use of instrumental variable methods, which are known by econometricians to be the natural remedy for estimation with potentially endogenous regressors. Where Goenner (2011) and Reuveny and Keshk (2013) agree is that theory should guide variable selection and the model’s specification. Yet they differ in that, while econometric tests cannot replace theory, one should not trust the appropriateness of the model’s specification based on theory alone – one should also verify. Otherwise, as Goenner (2011) notes, attempts to control for endogeneity may fail.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Reuveny and Keshk (“Reconsidering trade and conflict simultaneity: The risk of emphasizing technique over substance,” this issue, 2013) argue that the econometric techniques used by Goenner ( Conflict Management and Peace Science 28(5): 459–477, 2011) to test and control for endogeneity when estimating the relationship between trade and conflict lack substance. Both sets of authors propose the use of instrumental variable methods, which are known by econometricians to be the natural remedy for estimation with potentially endogenous regressors. Where Goenner (2011) and Reuveny and Keshk (2013) agree is that theory should guide variable selection and the model’s specification. Yet they differ in that, while econometric tests cannot replace theory, one should not trust the appropriateness of the model’s specification based on theory alone – one should also verify. Otherwise, as Goenner (2011) notes, attempts to control for endogeneity may fail.

Key concepts: Endogeneity, Simultaneity, Instrumental variable, Economics, Econometrics, Control (management), Specification, Estimation

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Mission accomplished: A reply to Reuveny and Keshk — Research Paper | ScholarLens