IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A test of trade theories when expenditure is home biased

  • Marius Brülhart

    ()

    (HEC - LAUSANNE - École des HEC, Université de Lausanne Département d'économétrie et économie politique - Université de Lausanne)

  • Federico Trionfetti

    ()

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - Université de la Méditerranée - Aix-Marseille II - Université Paul Cézanne - Aix-Marseille III - Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) - CNRS : UMR6579)

We develop a criterion to distinguish two dominant paradigms of international trade theory: homogeneous-goods perfectly competitive models, and differentiated-goods monopolistically competitive models. Our analysis makes use of the pervasive presence of home-biased expenditure. It predicts that countries' relative output and their relative home biases are positively correlated in differentiated-goods sectors (the “home-bias effect”), while no such relationship exists in homogeneous-goods sectors. This discriminating criterion turns out to be robust to a number of generalisations of the baseline model. Our empirical results, based on a world-wide cross-country data set, suggest that the differentiated-goods model fits particularly well for the machinery, precision engineering and transport equipment industries, which account for some 40 percent of sample manufacturing output.

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://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/36/65/30/PDF/DT2009-01.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by HAL in its series Working Papers with number halshs-00366530.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 08 Mar 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00366530
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00366530/en/
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/

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. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2004. "The empirics of agglomeration and trade," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 59, pages 2609-2669 Elsevier.
  2. Leamer, Edward E. & Levinsohn, James, 1995. "International trade theory: The evidence," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 26, pages 1339-1394 Elsevier.
  3. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2000. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 485, Boston College Department of Economics.
  4. Donald R. Davis, 1997. "The home market, trade, and industrial structure," Staff Reports 35, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  5. Davis, Donald R. & Weinstein, David E., 1999. "Economic geography and regional production structure: An empirical investigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 379-407, February.
  6. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-59, December.
  7. Keith E. Maskus, 1991. "Comparing International Trade Data and Product and National Characteristics Data for the Analysis of Trade Models," NBER Chapters, in: International Economic Transactions: Issues in Measurement and Empirical Research, pages 17-60 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Marius BRÜLHART & Federico TRIONFETTI, 2000. "Public Expenditure and International Specialisation," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'Econométrie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 00.23, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
  9. Donald R. Davis & David E. Weinstein, 1998. "An Account of Global Factor Trade," NBER Working Papers 6785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Kristian Behrens & Andrea R. Lamorgese & Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano & Takatoshi Tabuchi, 2005. "Testing the 'home market effect' in a multi-country world: A theory-based approach," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 561, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
  11. Russell Hillberry & David Hummels, 2002. "Explaining Home Bias in Consumption: The Role of Intermediate Input Trade," NBER Working Papers 9020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. Takatoshi Tabuchi & Kristian Behrens & Andrea R. Lamorgese, 2004. "Testing the Home Market Effects in a Multi-country World: The Theory," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 595, Econometric Society.
  13. Hummels, David & Levinsohn, James, 1995. "Monopolistic Competition and International Trade: Reconsidering the Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 110(3), pages 799-836, August.
  14. Crozet, Matthieu & Trionfetti, Federico, 2008. "Trade costs and the Home Market Effect," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 309-321, December.
  15. Santos Silva, J.M.C & Tenreyro, Silvana, 2005. "The Log of Gravity," CEPR Discussion Papers 5311, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  16. Federico Trionfetti, 2001. "Using home-biased demand to test trade theories," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 404-426, September.
  17. Brülhart, Marius & Trionfetti, Federico, 2005. "A Test of Trade Theories when Expenditure is Home Biased," CEPR Discussion Papers 5097, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  18. Gordon H. Hanson & Chong Xiang, 2002. "The Home Market Effect and Bilateral Trade Patterns," Working Papers 481, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
  19. Puga, Diego, 1997. "The Rise and Fall of Regional Inequalities," CEPR Discussion Papers 1575, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  20. Davis, Donald R. & Weinstein, David E., 2003. "Market access, economic geography and comparative advantage: an empirical test," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 1-23, January.
  21. Chen, Natalie, 2002. "Intra-national versus International Trade in the European Union: Why do National Borders Matter?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3407, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  22. Keith Head & Thierry Mayer & John Ries, 2000. "On the Pervasiveness of Home Market Effects," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0862, Econometric Society.
  23. Nicita, Alessandro & Olarreaga, Marcelo, 2001. "Trade and production, 1976-99," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2701, The World Bank.
  24. Shang-Jin Wei, 1996. "Intra-National versus International Trade: How Stubborn are Nations in Global Integration?," NBER Working Papers 5531, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  25. Alan Deardorff, 1998. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?," NBER Chapters, in: The Regionalization of the World Economy, pages 7-32 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  26. Trefler, Daniel, 1995. "The Case of the Missing Trade and Other Mysteries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1029-46, December.
  27. Donald R. Davis & David E. Weinstein, 1996. "Does Economic Geography Matter for International Specialization?," NBER Working Papers 5706, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  28. Keith Head & Thierry Mayer, 2004. "Non-Europe : the magnitude and causes of market fragmentation in the EU," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla99004a, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
  29. Rolf Weder, 2003. "Comparative home-market advantage: An empirical analysis of British and American exports," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 220-247, June.
  30. Miyagiwa, Kaz, 1991. "Oligopoly and Discriminatory Government Procurement Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1320-28, December.
  31. Matthieu Crozet & Federico Trionfetti, 2008. "Trade costs and the Home Market Effect," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-00497693, HAL.
  32. Laussel, Didier & Paul, Thierry, 2007. "Trade and the location of industries: Some new results," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 148-166, March.
  33. Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Lafourcade, Miren & Mayer, Thierry, 2005. "The trade-creating effects of business and social networks: evidence from France," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 1-29, May.
  34. Simon J. Evenett & Wolfgang Keller, 1996. "On Theories Explaining the Success of the Gravity Equation," International Trade 9608001, EconWPA, revised 13 Jun 1997.
  35. Thierry Mayer & Keith Head, 2002. "Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mismeasurement Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade," Working Papers 2002-01, CEPII research center.
  36. Carolyn L. Evans, 2001. "Home bias in trade: location or foreign-ness?," Staff Reports 128, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
  37. McCallum, John, 1995. "National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 615-23, June.
  38. 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.
  39. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/c8dmi8nm4pdjkuc9g8o4o0m0g is not listed on IDEAS
  40. 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, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 430-447, May.
  41. Carolyn L. Evans, 2003. "The Economic Significance of National Border Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1291-1312, September.
  42. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/10191 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-00366530. 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: (CCSD)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.