The Mistreated Model: A Reply
This paper addresses the issues raised by Johnston et al. (2003) in relation to the spatial econometric treatment of the gravity model of trade in Porojan (2001). We show that the findings reported there are robust to alternative specifications. Furthermore, we indicate that the proposed formulation takes spatial effects into account while separating the impact of distance from far away trading partners from the 'neighborhood effect,' particularly within regional trading blocs. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003
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.:
- Ron Johnston & Les Hepple & Tony Hoare & Kelvyn Jones & Paul Plummer, 2003. "The Mistreated Model: Some Technical Comments on Porojan's Paper on 'Trade Flows and Spatial Effects'," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 11-14, January.
- Jeffrey A. Frankel & Ernesto Stein & Shang-Jin Wei, 1993.
"Continental Trading Blocs: Are They Natural, or Super-Natural?,"
NBER Working Papers
4588, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jeffrey A. Frankel & Ernesto Stein & Shang-Jin Wei, 1998. "Continental Trading Blocs: Are They Natural or Supernatural?," NBER Chapters, in: The Regionalization of the World Economy, pages 91-120 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- A. Porojan, 2001. "Trade Flows and Spatial Effects: The Gravity Model Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 265-280, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:openec:v:14:y:2003:i:1:p:15-17. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.