IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331671.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Applying the gravity approach to sector trade: Who bears the trade costs?

Author

Listed:
  • Cheptea, Angela
  • Gohin, Alexandre
  • Huchet Bourdon, Marilyne

Abstract

Thanks to its empirical success, the gravity approach is widely used to explain trade patterns between countries. In this article we question the simple application of this approach to product/sector-level trade on two grounds. First, we demonstrate that the traditional Armington version of gravity must be altered to properly account for the fact that sector expenditures are not strictly equal to sector productions because some trade costs are incurred outside the sector of interest. Secondly, we show empirically that collecting/using good data on sector-level trade and expenditure is extremely crucial for the quality of econometric estimations. Above all one should strictly adhere to the requirements of the theoretical frameworks in order to obtain unbiased and accurate estimates of the different parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheptea, Angela & Gohin, Alexandre & Huchet Bourdon, Marilyne, 2008. "Applying the gravity approach to sector trade: Who bears the trade costs?," Conference papers 331671, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331671/files/3781.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    2. Bernard Hoekman & Francis Ng & Marcelo Olarreaga, 2004. "Agricultural Tariffs or Subsidies: Which Are More Important for Developing Economies?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 18(2), pages 175-204.
    3. Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 2002. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(2), pages 281-316, April.
    4. Baldwin, Richard, 2007. "Trade Effects of the Euro: a Comparison of Estimators," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 22, pages 780-818.
    5. Baldwin, Richard & Taglioni, Daria, 2006. "Gravity for Dummies and Dummies for Gravity Equations," CEPR Discussion Papers 5850, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Jon Haveman & David Hummels, 2004. "Alternative hypotheses and the volume of trade: the gravity equation and the extent of specialization," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 199-218, February.
    7. Alexandre Gohin, 2006. "Assessing CAP Reform: Sensitivity of Modelling Decoupled Policies," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 415-440, September.
    8. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    9. Balistreri, Edward J. & Hillberry, Russell H., 2007. "Structural estimation and the border puzzle," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 451-463, July.
    10. Antoine Bouët & Jean‐Christophe Bureau & Yvan Decreux & Sébastien Jean, 2005. "Multilateral Agricultural Trade Liberalisation: The Contrasting Fortunes of Developing Countries in the Doha Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(9), pages 1329-1354, September.
    11. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1989. "The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 143-153, February.
    12. Will Martin & Kym Anderson, 2006. "Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6889.
    13. Robert C. Feenstra & James R. Markusen & Andrew K. Rose, 2001. "Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 430-447, May.
    14. Hélène Erkel‐Rousse & Daniel Mirza, 2002. "Import price elasticities: reconsidering the evidence," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 282-306, May.
    15. Paul S. Armington, 1969. "A Theory of Demand for Products Distinguished by Place of Production (Une théorie de la demande de produits différenciés d'après leur origine) (Una teoría de la demanda de productos distinguiénd," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 16(1), pages 159-178, March.
    16. Wilson, John S. & Otsuki, Tsunehiro, 2004. "To spray or not to spray: pesticides, banana exports, and food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 131-146, April.
    17. Kerkelä, Leena & Lehtonen, Heikki & Niemi, Jyrki, 2005. "The Impacts of WTO Export Subsidy Abolition on the Agri-food Industry in the EU: A Preliminary Assessment," Discussion Papers 375, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    18. Egger, Peter, 2004. "On the Problem of Endogenous Unobserved Effects in the Estimation of Gravity Models," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 19, pages 182-191.
    19. Keith Head & John Ries, 2001. "Increasing Returns versus National Product Differentiation as an Explanation for the Pattern of U.S.-Canada Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 858-876, September.
    20. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2007. "Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international trade?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 72-95, March.
    21. Alexandre Gohin, 2006. "Assessing CAP reform: sensitivity of modelling decoupled policies," Post-Print hal-01931639, HAL.
    22. David Hummels & James Levinsohn, 1995. "Monopolistic Competition and International Trade: Reconsidering the Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 799-836.
    23. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-959, December.
    24. Bruno Henry de Frahan & Mark Vancauteren, 2006. "Harmonisation of food regulations and trade in the Single Market: evidence from disaggregated data," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(3), pages 337-360, September.
    25. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1990. "The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model, the Linder Hypothesis and the Determinants of Bilateral Intra-industry Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(403), pages 1216-1229, December.
    26. Alan V. Deardorff, 2011. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robert M Stern (ed.), Comparative Advantage, Growth, And The Gains From Trade And Globalization A Festschrift in Honor of Alan V Deardorff, chapter 24, pages 267-293, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    27. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2001. "The growth of world trade: tariffs, transport costs, and income similarity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-27, February.
    28. C. F. Bach & S. E. Frandsen & H. G. Jensen, 2000. "Agricultural and Economy‐Wide Effects of European Enlargement: Modelling the Common Agricultural Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 162-180, May.
    29. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-116, March.
    30. Harrigan, James, 1996. "Openness to trade in manufactures in the OECD," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-2), pages 23-39, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Woltjer, Geert & Tabeau, Andrzej, 2008. "Land supply and Ricardian rent," Conference papers 331674, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. repec:hal:journl:hal-00729335 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dennis Novy, 2013. "Gravity Redux: Measuring International Trade Costs With Panel Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 101-121, January.
    4. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2008. "International Trade Integration: A Disaggregated Approach," CEPR Discussion Papers 7103, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. James Harrigan, 2001. "Specialization and the Volume of Trade: Do the Data Obey the Laws?," NBER Working Papers 8675, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Kareem, Fatima Olanike & Martinez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2016. "Fitting the Gravity Model when Zero Trade Flows are Frequent: a Comparison of Estimation Techniques using Africa's Trade Data," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 230588, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    7. Jacks, David S. & Meissner, Christopher M. & Novy, Dennis, 2011. "Trade booms, trade busts, and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 185-201, March.
    8. Tamaş Anca, 2020. "Why should the gravity model be taught in business education?," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 422-433, July.
    9. Scott L. Baier & Amanda Kerr & Yoto V. Yotov, 2018. "Gravity, distance, and international trade," Chapters, in: Bruce A. Blonigen & Wesley W. Wilson (ed.), Handbook of International Trade and Transportation, chapter 2, pages 15-78, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 131-195, Elsevier.
    11. Simone Juhasz Silva & Douglas Nelson, 2012. "Does Aid Cause Trade? Evidence from an Asymmetric Gravity Model," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 545-577, May.
    12. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2011. "Gravity, trade integration, and heterogeneity across industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 206-221.
    13. Shumilov, Andrei, 2016. "Особенности Оценивания Гравитационных Моделей Международной Торговли [Estimating Gravity Models of International Trade: A Survey]," MPRA Paper 75371, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2012. "Understanding interstate trade patterns," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 158-166.
    15. Hayakawa, Kazunobu, 2013. "How serious is the omission of bilateral tariff rates in gravity?," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 81-94.
    16. Lionel Fontagné & Michaël Pajot & Jean-Michel Pasteels, 2002. "Potentiels de commerce entre économies hétérogènes : un petit mode d’emploi des modèles de gravité," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 152(1), pages 115-139.
    17. Yilmazkuday, Hakan, 2009. "How Important is Technology? A Counterfactual Analysis," MPRA Paper 16838, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Olper, Alessandro & Raimondi, Valentina, 2008. "Agricultural market integration in the OECD: A gravity-border effect approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 165-175, April.
    19. Zhang, Daowei & Li, Yanshu, 2009. "Forest endowment, logging restrictions, and China's wood products trade," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 46-53, March.
    20. Nicolas Péridy, 2005. "Towards a New Trade Policy Between the USA and Middle‐East Countries:Estimating Trade Resistance and Export Potential," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 491-518, April.
    21. Cipollina, Maria & Salvatici, Luca, 2007. "EU and developing countries: an analysis of preferential margins on agricultural trade flows," Working Papers 7219, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    International Relations/Trade; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;

    JEL classification:

    • F11 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Neoclassical Models of Trade
    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General

    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:ags:pugtwp:331671. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.