Estimates of U.S. Regional Commodity Trade Elasticities of Substitution
AbstractCountries and regions within countries frequently import and export from the same standard industrial classification (SIC) groupings. In describing international trade, the Armington assumption recognizes that imported goods may substitute imperfectly for domestically produced goods. Imports and domestically produced goods may differ in quality or composition. Elasticities of import substitution have been extensively estimated for international trade but limited information is available on elasticities of substitution for regional imports. One h ypothesis in the literature is that international trade elasticities should be considered as lower bounds for regional trade elasticities presumably because of fewer non-price trade restrictions. This research estimates regional elasticities of import substitution for 20 two-digit groupings using commodity trade date in the U.S. The range in elasticities is from 0.45 to 2.80 depending on the characteristics of the SIC grouping. These results tend to refute the hypothesis that international trade elasticities are lower bounds for regional trade elasticities for comparable goods.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Mid-Continent Regional Science Association in its journal Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy.
Volume (Year): 32 (2002)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ricardo C. Gazel, 1996. "Free trade agreements and interregional labor migration: the case of the U.S. and Canada," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 373-390.
- Mark D. Partridge & Dan S. Rickman, 1998. "Regional Computable General Equilibrium Modeling: A Survey and Critical Appraisal," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 21(3), pages 205-248, December.
- Clinton R. Shiells & Kenneth A. Reinert, 1993. "Armington Models and Terms-of-Trade Effects: Some Econometric Evidence for North America," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 299-316, May.
- Reinert, Kenneth A. & Roland-Holst, David W., 1992. "Armington elasticities for United States manufacturing sectors," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 631-639, October.
- Vargas, Eliecer E. & Shreiner, Dean F., 1999. "Modeling Monopsony Markets With Regional CGE: The Oklahoma Forest Products Industry Case," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 29(2).
- Giesecke, James A. & Madden, John R., 2013. "Regional Computable General Equilibrium Modeling," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, Elsevier.
- Garey C. Durden & Patricia E. Gaynor, 2014. "Publishing in The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy and an Evaluation (via Citation Counts) of JRAP’s Influence on Scholarship in Regional Science," Working Papers 14-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- Trink, Thomas & Schmid, Christoph & Schinko, Thomas & Steininger, Karl W. & Loibnegger, Thomas & Kettner, Claudia & Pack, Alexandra & Töglhofer, Christoph, 2010. "Regional economic impacts of biomass based energy service use: A comparison across crops and technologies for East Styria, Austria," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5912-5926, October.
- Haddad, Eduardo A. & Hewings, Geoffrey J.D., 2005. "Market imperfections in a spatial economy: some experimental results," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 476-496, May.
- Mark Partridge & Dan Rickman, 2010. "Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Modelling for Regional Economic Development Analysis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(10), pages 1311-1328.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.