IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rtr/wpaper/0180.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A note on dummies for policies in gravity models: a Montecarlo experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Cipollina
  • Luca Salvatici
  • Luca De Benedictis
  • Claudio Vicarelli

Abstract

The use of the gravity model to evaluate the effect of policies in a cross-country framework is largely predominant in the international economics empirical literature. This literature usually implements importer and exporter fixed effects to account for the theoretical Multilateral Trade Resistances, while preferential trade policies are approximated through the use of dummy variables. Results from a Monte Carlo experiment confirms that the identification of trade policy im pact using a gravity equation including fixed effects is severely limited. Moreover, the consequences of the error in measurement of the policy variable are magnified by the fixed effects control for unobserved heterogeneity.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici & Luca De Benedictis & Claudio Vicarelli, 2013. "A note on dummies for policies in gravity models: a Montecarlo experiment," Departmental Working Papers of Economics - University 'Roma Tre' 0180, Department of Economics - University Roma Tre.
    • Handle: RePEc:rtr:wpaper:0180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dipeco.uniroma3.it/public/WP%20180.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. T. D. Stanley & Stephen B. Jarrell, 2005. "Meta‐Regression Analysis: A Quantitative Method of Literature Surveys," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 299-308, July.
    5. Laszlo Matyas, 1997. "Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 363-368, May.
    6. Bo Xiong & Sixia Chen, 2014. "Estimating gravity equation models in the presence of sample selection and heteroscedasticity," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(24), pages 2993-3003, August.
    7. Marie M. Stack, 2009. "Regional Integration and Trade: Controlling for Varying Degrees of Heterogeneity in the Gravity Model," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5), pages 772-789, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2010. "The trade impact of European Union agricultural preferences," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 87-106.
    10. Cecília Hornok, 2011. "Gravity or Dummies? The Limits of Identification in Gravity Estimations," CeFiG Working Papers 15, Center for Firms in the Global Economy, revised 26 Sep 2011.
    11. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m01g1j1k2 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Luca De Benedictis & Luca Salvatici (ed.), 2011. "The Trade Impact of European Union Preferential Policies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-642-16564-1, June.
    13. Martin, Will & Pham, Cong S., 2008. "Estimating the gravity model when zero trade flows are frequent," Working Papers eco_2008_03, Deakin University, Department of Economics.
    14. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2010. "The trade impact of European Union agricultural preferences," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 87-106.
    15. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/dambferfb7dfprc9m01g1j1k2 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Kumar Surender & Prabhakar Prerna, 2017. "India’s Trade Potential and Free Trade Agreements: A Stochastic Frontier Gravity Approach," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, March.

    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. Maria Cipollina & Luca De Benedictis & Luca Salvatici & Claudio Vicarelli, 2016. "Policy Measurement And Multilateral Resistance In Gravity Models," Working Papers LuissLab 16130, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    2. Maria Cipollina & David Laborde Debucquet & Luca Salvatici, 2017. "The tide that does not raise all boats: an assessment of EU preferential trade policies," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 153(1), pages 199-231, February.
    3. Marie M Stack & Rob Ackrill & Martin Bliss, 2019. "Sugar trade and the role of historical colonial linkages," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 79-108.
    4. Stacy Julius & Nnanna P. Azu & Maimuna Y. Muhammad, 2019. "Assessing the Impact of Terrorism in Trade Development in the SADC Region: A Gravity Model Approach," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 9(10), pages 1147-1159, October.
    5. Xavier Cirera & Francesca Foliano & Michael Gasiorek, 2016. "The impact of preferences on developing countries’ exports to the European Union: bilateral gravity modelling at the product level," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 59-102, February.
    6. Cipollina, Maria & Laborde, David & Salvatici, Luca, 2013. "Do Preferential Trade Policies (Actually) Increase Exports? An analysis of EU trade policies," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150177, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Frederik Stender, 2018. "MERCOSUR in gravity: an accounting approach to analyzing its trade effects," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 501-522, April.
    8. Agostino, Mariarosaria & Trivieri, Francesco, 2014. "Geographical indication and wine exports. An empirical investigation considering the major European producers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 22-36.
    9. Vollrath, Thomas L. & Hallahan, Charles B., 2009. "Economic costs and payoffs of bilateral/regional trade agreements," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49375, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Thomas Kopp & Sören Prehn & Bernhard Brümmer, 2016. "Preference Erosion – The Case of Everything But Arms and Sugar," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(9), pages 1339-1359, September.
    11. Valentina Raimondi & Margherita Scoppola & Alessandro Olper, 2012. "Preference erosion and the developing countries exports to the EU: a dynamic panel gravity approach," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 148(4), pages 707-732, December.
    12. Zouheir El-Sahli, 2023. "The Partial and General Equilibrium Effects of the Greater Arab Free Trade Agreement," The International Trade Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 185-199, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Arribas, Iván & Bensassi, Sami & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2020. "Trade integration in the European Union: Openness, interconnectedness, and distance," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    15. Harms, Philipp & Shuvalova, Daria, 2020. "Cultural distance and international trade in services: A disaggregate view," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(2).
    16. 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.
    17. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2008. "International Trade Integration: A Disaggregated Approach," CEPR Discussion Papers 7103, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Wessel, Jan, 2019. "Evaluating the transport-mode-specific trade effects of different transport infrastructure types," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 42-57.
    19. Álvarez, Inmaculada C. & Barbero, Javier & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Zofío, José L., 2018. "Does Institutional Quality Matter for Trade? Institutional Conditions in a Sectoral Trade Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 72-87.
    20. Yuan Li & John C. Beghin, 2017. "A meta-analysis of estimates of the impact of technical barriers to trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: John Christopher Beghin (ed.), Nontariff Measures and International Trade, chapter 4, pages 63-77, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Gravity model; Policy evaluation; Monte Carlo A nalysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General
    • F43 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - Economic Growth of Open Economies

    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:rtr:wpaper:0180. 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: Telephone for information (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dero3it.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.