This paper assesses an important attempt to measure 'trade orientation' by a World Bank economist, David Dollar. Recognising the difficulties in measuring trade openness, Dollar (1992) produced an index of outward orientation. He adjusted national price levels with factor endowments, and used the difference between actual and predicted price levels as a measure of real exchange rate distortion. Although the 'Dollar index' was produced almost ten years ago and has been subject to various criticisms, it still remains the most popular measure of trade openness. First, this paper argues that the critics have not been entirely successful in discrediting the index. It goes on to produce alternative theoretical and empirical evidence that suggests that the Dollar index has fundamental flaws, and thus has no relevance to the debate on trade orientation and should be abandoned.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 17 (2003) Issue (Month): 3 (July) Pages: 309-326 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
References listed on IDEAS 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.:
David Dollar & Aart Kraay, 2004.
"Trade, Growth, and Poverty,"
Economic Journal,
Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(493), pages F22-F49, 02.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions: