IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iie/pbrief/pb03-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Impact of Economic Sanctions on US Trade: Andrew Rose's Gravity Model

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Clyde Hufbauer

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

  • Barbara Oegg

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

Abstract

With the end of the Cold War, the focus of US foreign policy changed--and so did that of economic sanctions. Partly because of increased cooperation within the UN framework, economic sanctions were imposed so routinely in the early 1990s that scholars called that period the sanctions decade. This proliferation sparked intense debate about the effectiveness of sanctions as a policy tool and moved US sanctions policy to the center of public discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Barbara Oegg, 2003. "The Impact of Economic Sanctions on US Trade: Andrew Rose's Gravity Model," Policy Briefs PB03-04, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb03-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/impact-economic-sanctions-us-trade-andrew-roses-gravity-model
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Kimberly Ann Elliott & Tess Cyrus & Elizabeth Winston, 1997. "US Economic Sanctions: Their Impact on Trade, Jobs, and Wages," Working Paper Series Working Paper Special (2), Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    2. Andrew K. Rose, 2004. "Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 98-114, 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. (ed.), 0. "Research Handbook on Economic Diplomacy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16053.
    2. Golub Jonathan, 2020. "Improving Analyses of Sanctions Busting," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(2), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Huang, Qiuyue & Li, Zhiyuan, 2024. "Trade and peace: The WTO case," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Thomas L. Vollrath & Mark J. Gehlhar & Charles B. Hallahan, 2009. "Bilateral Import Protection, Free Trade Agreements, and Other Factors Influencing Trade Flows in Agriculture and Clothing," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 298-317, June.
    5. Anne-Célia Disdier & Lionel Fontagné, 2010. "Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO panel," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(3), pages 495-514, September.
    6. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    7. International Monetary Fund, 2015. "Central and Eastern Europe: New Member States (NMS) Policy Forum, 2014, Selected Issues Paper," IMF Staff Country Reports 2015/098, International Monetary Fund.
    8. Fetzer, James J. & Rivera, Sandra A., 2005. "Modeling Modifications in Rules of Origin: A Partial Equilibrium Approach," Conference papers 331372, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Pedro E. Moncarz, 2010. "Determinantes del comercio de servicios financieros Potencial de exportaciones para los países sudamericanos," Documentos de trabajo 2010019, Banco Central del Uruguay.
    10. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    11. Ingo Eduard Isphording & Sebastian Otten, 2013. "The Costs of Babylon—Linguistic Distance in Applied Economics," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 354-369, May.
    12. Marcus Noland, 2005. "Affinity and International Trade," Working Paper Series WP05-3, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    13. repec:zbw:rwirep:0337 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Baran Han, 2018. "The role and welfare rationale of secondary sanctions: A theory and a case study of the US sanctions targeting Iran," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 474-502, September.
    15. Cullen F. Goenner, 2013. "Mission accomplished: A reply to Reuveny and Keshk," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(1), pages 19-23, February.
    16. Christopher Edmonds & Sumner J. La Croix & Yao Li, 2006. "The China's Rise as an International Trading Power," Economics Study Area Working Papers 88, East-West Center, Economics Study Area.
    17. Garth Frazer & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2010. "Trade Growth under the African Growth and Opportunity Act," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(1), pages 128-144, February.
    18. Andrew K. Rose & T. D. Stanley, 2005. "A Meta‐Analysis of the Effect of Common Currencies on International Trade," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 347-365, July.
    19. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd & Slangen, Arjen & Maseland, Robbert & Onrust, Marjolijn, 2014. "The impact of home–host cultural distance on foreign affiliate sales: The moderating role of cultural variation within host countries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1638-1646.
    20. Roberta De Santis, 2012. "Impact of Environmental Regulations on Trade in the Main EU Countries: Conflict or Synergy?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(7), pages 799-815, July.
    21. Maystre, Nicolas & Olivier, Jacques & Thoenig, Mathias & Verdier, Thierry, 2014. "Product-based cultural change: Is the village global?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 212-230.

    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:iie:pbrief:pb03-4. 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: Peterson Institute webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iieeeus.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.