IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mse/cesdoc/10092.html

Scale-dependence of the Negative Binomial Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood Estimator

Author

Listed:
  • Clément Bosquet

    (GREQAM - Université Aix-Marseille)

  • Hervé Boulhol

    (OCDE et Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne)

Abstract

Following Santos Silva and Tenreyro (2006), various studies have used the Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood to estimate gravity specifications of trade flows and non-count data models more generally. Some papers also report results based on the Negative Binomial estimator, which is more general and encompasses the Poisson assumption as a special case. This note shows that the Negative Binomial estimator is inappropriate when applied to a continuous dependent variable which unit choice is arbitrary, because estimates artificially depend on that choice

Suggested Citation

  • Clément Bosquet & Hervé Boulhol, 2010. "Scale-dependence of the Negative Binomial Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood Estimator," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10092, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    • Handle: RePEc:mse:cesdoc:10092
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/halshs-00544129
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lionel Fontagne & Soledad Zignago, 2007. "A Re-evaluation of the Impact of Regional Agreements on Trade Patterns," Economie Internationale, CEPII research center, issue 109, pages 31-51.
    2. J. M. C. Santos Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2006. "The Log of Gravity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 641-658, November.
    3. Joakim Westerlund & Fredrik Wilhelmsson, 2009. "Estimating the gravity model without gravity using panel data," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 641-649.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Harry Huizinga & Johannes Voget & Wolf Wagner, 2014. "International Taxation and Cross-Border Banking," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 94-125, May.
    2. Anirudh Shingal, 2015. "Econometric Analyses of Home Bias in Government Procurement," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 188-219, February.
    3. Hirsch, Cornelius & Krisztin, Tamás & See, Linda, 2020. "Water Resources as Determinants for Foreign Direct Investments in Land - A Gravity Analysis of Foreign Land Acquisitions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    4. D'Ambrosio, Anna & Montresor, Sandro, 2017. "Migration and Trade Ows: New Evidence from Spanish Regions," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201724, University of Turin.
    5. Abdoulaye Seck, 2017. "How Facilitating Trade would Benefit Trade in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of African Development, African Finance and Economic Association (AFEA), vol. 19(1), pages 1-26.
    6. Magerman, Glenn & Studnicka, Zuzanna & Van Hove, Jan, 2016. "Distance and border effects in international trade: A comparison of estimation methods," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 10, pages 1-31.
    7. Krisztin, Tamás & Fischer, Manfred M., 2014. "The gravity model for international trade: Specification and estimation issues in the prevalence of zero flows," Working Papers in Regional Science 2014/01, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    8. Shingal, Anirudh, 2013. ""New" econometric evidence for the Baldwin-Richardson (1972)/Miyagiwa (1991) theoretical predictions in government procurement," MPRA Paper 49138, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Andre Jungmittag & Robert Marschinski, 2023. "Service trade restrictiveness and foreign direct investment—Evidence from greenfield FDI in business services," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(6), pages 1711-1758, June.
    10. Marie Poprawe, 2015. "On the relationship between corruption and migration: empirical evidence from a gravity model of migration," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 337-354, June.
    11. Elisaveta Archanskaia & Guillaume Daudin, 2012. "Heterogeneity and the Distance Puzzle," Documents de Travail de l'OFCE 2012-17, Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE).
    12. Prehn, Sören & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2011. "Estimation issues in disaggregate gravity trade models," DARE Discussion Papers 1107, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    13. Cooke, Edgar F A, 2011. "The impact of trade preferences on exports of developing countries: the case of the AGOA and CBI preferences of the USA," MPRA Paper 31439, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Martijn J. Burger & Mark J. P. M. Thissen & Frank G. van Oort & Dario Diodato, 2014. "The Magnitude and Distance Decay of Trade in Goods and Services: New Evidence for European Countries," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(3), pages 231-259, September.
    15. Prehn, Soren & Brümmer, Bernhard & Glauben, Thomas, 2012. "Structural Gravity Estimation & Agriculture," 2012: New Rules of Trade? December 2012, San Diego, California 142765, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    16. Damiaan Persyn & Wouter Torfs, 2013. "A gravity equation for commuting - with an application to estimating regional and language border effects in Belgium," ERSA conference papers ersa13p599, European Regional Science Association.

    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. Cecilio R. Tamarit Escalona & Estrella Gómez, 2011. "The euro effect on trade: evidence in gravity equations using panel cointegration techniques," Working Papers. Serie EC 2011-07, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    2. Ruhu A Salim & Mohammad Mahfuz Kabir, 2011. "Does More Trade Potential Remain in Arab States of the Gulf ?," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 26, pages 217-243.
    3. Akin-Olagunju, O. & Yusuf, S. & Okoruwa, V., 2018. "Harmonization of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards in Cocoa Trade: How Competitive are the Major Exporting Countries?," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277463, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Hendy, Rana & Zaki, Chahir, 2021. "Trade facilitation and firms exports: Evidence from customs data," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 197-209.
    5. Montobbio, Fabio & Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "The Globalization of Technology in Emerging Markets: A Gravity Model on the Determinants of International Patent Collaborations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 281-299.
    6. Daniele Fabbri & Silvana Robone, 2010. "The geography of hospital admission in a national health service with patient choice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(9), pages 1029-1047, September.
    7. Zongo, Amara, 2020. "The Impact of Services Trade Restrictiveness on Food Trade," MPRA Paper 101658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Márcio Mateus & Isabel Proença & Paulo Júlio, 2016. "What Drives Foreign Direct Investment In The Tradable Sector?," Portuguese Journal of Management Studies, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 21(2), pages 101-142.
    9. Egger, Peter H. & Lassmann, Andrea, 2012. "The language effect in international trade: A meta-analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 221-224.
    10. Patrik Tingvall & Andreas Poldahl, 2012. "Determinants of Firm R&D: The Role of Relationship-Specific Interactions for R&D Spillovers," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 395-411, December.
    11. Emmanuelle Quillérou & Nolwenn Roudaut & Olivier Guyader, 2013. "Managing fleet capacity effectively under second-hand market redistribution," Post-Print hal-00835574, HAL.
    12. Elizaveta Archanskaia & Guillaume Daudin, 2012. "Heterogeneity and the Distance Puzzle," Working Papers DT/2012/09, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    13. 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.
    14. Cooke, Edgar F. A., 2012. "Is the impact of AGOA heterogeneous?," MPRA Paper 43277, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Clément Bosquet & Hervé Boulhol, 2015. "What is really puzzling about the “distance puzzle”," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 151(1), pages 1-21, February.
    16. Bernhard Herz & Marco Wagner, 2011. "The Dark Side of the Generalized System of Preferences," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 763-775, September.
    17. Hess, Wolfgang & Persson, Maria & Rubenbauer, Stephanie & Gertheiss, Jan, 2013. "Using Lasso-Type Penalties to Model Time-Varying Covariate Effects in Panel Data Regressions – A Novel Approach Illustrated by the ‘Death of Distance’ in International Trade," Working Paper Series 961, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi, 2013. "Public policies for a sustainable energy sector: regulation, diversity and fostering of innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 401-429, April.
    20. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/53r60a8s3kup1vc9ji21mi9p3 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. de Sousa, José & Mayer, Thierry & Zignago, Soledad, 2012. "Market access in global and regional trade," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1037-1052.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - 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:mse:cesdoc:10092. 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: Lucie Label (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cenp1fr.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.