IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/restat/v108y2026i1p241-256.html

Poor Substitutes? Counterfactual Methods in Industrial Organization and Trade Compared

Author

Listed:
  • Keith Head

    (University of British Columbia Sauder School of Business and CEPR)

  • Thierry Mayer

    (Sciences Po, CEPII, and CEPR)

Abstract

Constant elasticity of substitution (CES) demand for monopolistically competitive firm varieties is a standard tool for models in international trade and macroeconomics. Intervariety substitution in this model follows a simple share proportionality rule. In contrast, the standard tool kit in industrial organization (IO) estimates a system in which cross-elasticities depend on similarity in observable attributes. The gain in realism from the IO approach comes at the expense of requiring richer data and greater computational challenges. This paper uses the data generating process of Berry et al. (1995), BLP, who established the modern IO method, to simulate counterfactual trade policy experiments. We use the CES model as an approximation of the more complex underlying demand system and market structure. Although the CES model omits key elements of the data generating process, the errors are offsetting, allowing it to fit BLP-based predictions closely. For aggregate outcomes, it turns out that incorporating non-unitary pass-through matters more than fixing over-simplified substitution patterns.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith Head & Thierry Mayer, 2026. "Poor Substitutes? Counterfactual Methods in Industrial Organization and Trade Compared," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 108(1), pages 241-256, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:108:y:2026:i:1:p:241-256
    DOI: 10.1162/rest_a_01369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01369
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/rest_a_01369?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:restat:v:108:y:2026:i:1:p:241-256. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: The MIT Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.