IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boc/bocoec/1075.html

Commercial Rivalry as Seller Incidence Shifting: Non-parametric Accounting of the China Shock

Author

Listed:
  • James E. Anderson

    (Boston College)

Abstract

Intense US-China commercial rivalry is quantified in this paper with novel non-parametric relative resistance sufficient statistics. The accounting method minimizes the demand specification error variance in revealed resistances. China’s manufacturing seller incidence falls (seller price rises) 7.6% yearly as China’s sales share quadruples over 2000-14. US seller incidence rises 4.1% yearly as US sales share halves. Domestic trade shares closely fit revealed relative resistances with trade elasticity equal to one. Industrial policy pays for itself in suggestive projections. A 10% rise in US 2014 sales share reduces seller incidence 6.0%, exports rise and net benefit is positive.

Suggested Citation

  • James E. Anderson, 2024. "Commercial Rivalry as Seller Incidence Shifting: Non-parametric Accounting of the China Shock," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 1075, Boston College Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:boc:bocoec:1075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/wp1075.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hanoch, Giora, 1975. "Production and Demand Models with Direct or Indirect Implicit Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 395-419, May.
    2. Simonovska, Ina & Waugh, Michael E., 2014. "The elasticity of trade: Estimates and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 34-50.
    3. Dominick Bartelme & Arnaud Costinot & Dave Donaldson & Andrés Rodríguez-Clare, 2025. "The Textbook Case for Industrial Policy: Theory Meets Data," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 133(5), pages 1527-1573.
    4. Costas Arkolakis & Arnaud Costinot & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 2012. "New Trade Models, Same Old Gains?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 94-130, February.
    5. Matsuyama, Kiminori & Ushchev, Philip, 2022. "Destabilizing effects of market size in the dynamics of innovation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/6apm7lruv088iagm4rv2c33jtg is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Thierry Mayer & Keith Head, 2002. "Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mismeasurement Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade," Working Papers 2002-01, CEPII research center.
    8. Waugh, Michael E. & Ravikumar, B., 2016. "Measuring openness to trade," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 29-41.
    9. Arthur Lewbel & Krishna Pendakur, 2009. "Tricks with Hicks: The EASI Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 827-863, June.
    10. Steven Berry & Amit Gandhi & Philip Haile, 2013. "Connected Substitutes and Invertibility of Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(5), pages 2087-2111, September.
    11. James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2010. "The Changing Incidence of Geography," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2157-2186, December.
    12. Rodrigo Adao & Arnaud Costinot & Dave Donaldson, 2017. "Nonparametric Counterfactual Predictions in Neoclassical Models of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(3), pages 633-689, March.
    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. Nelson Lind & Natalia Ramondo, 2023. "Trade with Correlation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(2), pages 317-353, February.
    2. Ravikumar, B. & Santacreu, Ana Maria & Sposi, Michael, 2019. "Capital accumulation and dynamic gains from trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 93-110.
    3. Velasquez, Agustin, 2025. "The Leisure Gains from International Trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Duan, Yuwan & Ji, Ting & Lu, Yi & Wang, Siying, 2021. "Environmental regulations and international trade: A quantitative economic analysis of world pollution emissions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    5. Heerman, Kari E. & Sheldon, Ian M., "undated". "Increased economic integration in the Asia-Pacific Region: What might be the potential impact on agricultural trade?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274279, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Liu, Chen & Ma, Xiao, 2018. "China's Export Surge and the New Margins of Trade," MPRA Paper 103970, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Oct 2020.
    7. 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.
    8. Agnosteva, Delina E. & Anderson, James E. & Yotov, Yoto V., 2019. "Intra-national trade costs: Assaying regional frictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 32-50.
    9. Bolatto, Stefano & Moramarco, Graziano, 2023. "Gains from trade and their quantification: Does sectoral disaggregation matter?," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 44-68.
    10. Rodrigo Adão & Costas Arkolakis & Federico Esposito, 2019. "General Equilibrium Effects in Space: Theory and Measurement," NBER Working Papers 25544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Ahmad Lashkaripour & Volodymyr Lugovskyy, 2017. "National Differentiation and Industry-Wide Scale Effects," CAEPR Working Papers 2017-004, Center for Applied Economics and Policy Research, Department of Economics, Indiana University Bloomington.
    12. Morris M. Kleiner & Evan J. Soltas, 2019. "A Welfare Analysis of Occupational Licensing in U.S. States," Staff Report 590, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    13. Costinot, Arnaud & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2014. "Trade Theory with Numbers: Quantifying the Consequences of Globalization," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 197-261, Elsevier.
    14. Benedikt Heid & Mario Larch & Yoto V. Yotov, 2021. "Estimating the effects of non‐discriminatory trade policies within structural gravity models," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 376-409, February.
    15. Ikizler, Burcin & Pehlivan, Ayse Ozgur, 2020. "New trade models, different distributions, same old results?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    16. Hu, Yushan & Zhang, Penglong, 2021. "Semiparametric estimation of varying trade elasticities in gravity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    17. Heid, Benedikt & Larch, Mario, 2016. "Gravity with unemployment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 70-85.
    18. Farrokhi, Farid & Lashkaripour, Ahmad & Pellegrina, Heitor S., 2024. "Trade and technology adoption in distorted economies," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    19. Mauro Lanati, 2013. "Estimating the elasticity of trade: the trade share approach," LEM Papers Series 2013/10, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Borusyak, Kirill & Jaravel, Xavier, 2024. "Are trade wars class wars? The importance of trade-induced horizontal inequality," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:boc:bocoec:1075. 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/debocus.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.