Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A Quantile-based Test of Protection for Sale Model

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

This paper proposes a new test of the Protection for Sale (PFS) model by Grossman and Helpman (1994). Unlike existing methods in the literature, our approach does not require any data on political organization. We use quantile and IV quantile regressions to do so using the data from Gawande and Bandyopadhyay (2000). Surprisingly, the results do not provide any evidence favoring the PFS model. We also explain why previous work may have inadvertently found support for it.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/edg_wp12.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney in its series Working Paper Series with number 12.

as in new window
Length: 51
Date of creation: 01 Jun 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:uts:ecowps:12

Contact details of provider:
Postal: PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
Phone: +61 2 9514 7777
Fax: +61 2 9514 7711
Email:
Web page: http://www.uts.edu.au/about/uts-business-school/economics
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Protection for Sale; Lobbying; Political Economy; Quantile Regression;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. Susumu Imai & Hajime Katayama & Kala Krishna, 2013. "A Quantile-based Test of Protection for Sale Model," Working Paper Series 12, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
  2. Facchini, Giovanni & van Biesebroeck, Johannes & Willmann, Gerald, 2003. "Protection for Sale with Imperfect Rent Capturing," Economics Working Papers 2004,01, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
  3. Imai, Susumu & Katayama, Hajime & Krishna, Kala, 2009. "Protection for sale or surge protection?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 675-688, August.
  4. Devashish Mitra, 1999. "Endogenous Lobby Formation and Endogenous Protection: A Long-Run Model of Trade Policy Determination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1116-1134, December.
  5. Kishore Gawande & Usree Bandyopadhyay, 2000. "Is Protection for Sale? Evidence on the Grossman-Helpman Theory of Endogenous Protection," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(1), pages 139-152, February.
  6. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
  7. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1992. "Protection For Sale," NBER Working Papers 4149, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Devashish Mitra & Dimitrios D. Thomakos & Mehmet A. Ulubaşoglu, 2002. ""Protection For Sale" In A Developing Country: Democracy Vs. Dictatorship," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 497-508, August.
  9. Phillip McCalman, 2004. "Protection for Sale and Trade Liberalization: an Empirical Investigation," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(1), pages 81-94, 02.
  10. Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2004. "The Effects of 401(K) Participation on the Wealth Distribution: An Instrumental Quantile Regression Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(3), pages 735-751, August.
  11. Josh Ederington & Jenny Minier, 2008. "Reconsidering the empirical evidence on the Grossman-Helpman model of endogenous protection," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(2), pages 501-516, May.
  12. Victor Chernozhukov & Christian Hansen, 2005. "An IV Model of Quantile Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(1), pages 245-261, 01.
  13. Xenia Matschke, 2005. "Costly Revenue-Raising and the Case for Favoring Import-Competing Industries," Working papers 2005-28, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Apr 2007.
  14. Giovanni Maggi & Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg, 1999. "Protection for Sale: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1135-1155, December.
  15. Bombardini, Matilde, 2008. "Firm heterogeneity and lobby participation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 329-348, July.
  16. Chernozhukov, Victor & Hansen, Christian, 2006. "Instrumental quantile regression inference for structural and treatment effect models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 491-525, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Susumu Imai & Hajime Katayama & Kala Krishna, 2007. "Is Protection Really for Sale? A Survey and Directions for Future Research," Working Papers 1151, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  2. Vincent Rebeyrol & Julien Vauday, 2008. "Live or let die : intra-sectoral lobbying on entry," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne bla08036, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
  3. Susumu Imai & Hajime Katayama & Kala Krishna, 2006. "Protection for Sale or Surge Protection?," Working Papers 1114, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  4. Susumu Imai & Hajime Katayama & Kala Krishna, 2013. "A Quantile-based Test of Protection for Sale Model," Working Paper Series 12, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
  5. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00331298 is not listed on IDEAS
  6. repec:hal:journl:halshs-00282331 is not listed on IDEAS
  7. repec:hal:cesptp:halshs-00331298 is not listed on IDEAS
  8. Julien Vauday, 2008. "Heterogeneous lobbying efficiency," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne bla08053, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uts:ecowps:12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Duncan Ford).

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.