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

Estimation issues in disaggregate gravity trade models

  • Prehn, Sören
  • Brümmer, Bernhard
Registered author(s):

    French (2011) can analytically show that the standard Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) gravity trade model is only correctly specified for disaggregate data; gravity trade model analysis should be done at product level and then estimation results should be reaggregated. If however gravity trade model analysis is to be done at product level then also estimation issues in disaggregate gravity trade models should come to the fore. As is shown, previous estimators suffer under different statistical problems. This paper proposes a zero-in ated Poisson Quasi-Likelihood (PQL) and a Gamma Two-Part Model (G2PM) as reliable alternatives. Estimated within a Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) framework, both estimators are consistent and have more or less conservative test statistics. Further, for model selection a Quasi-Likelihood under the Independence Model Criterion (QIC) is recommend since this statistic is conform with GEE approaches. Both estimators PQL and G2PM and the model selection technique QIC should become standard tools for disaggregate gravity trade model estimation.

    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://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/50550/1/66914116X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE) in its series DARE Discussion Papers with number 1107.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2011
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1107
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Platz der Göttinger Sieben 5, D-37073 Göttingen
    Web page: http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/18500.html

    More information through EDIRC

    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. Martijn Burger & Frank van Oort & Gert-Jan Linders, 2009. "On the Specification of the Gravity Model of Trade: Zeros, Excess Zeros and Zero-inflated Estimation," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 167-190.
    2. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984. "Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 681-700, May.
    3. Gourieroux Christian & Monfort Alain & Trognon A, 1982. "Pseudo maximum lilelihood methods : applications to poisson models," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Couverture Orange) 8203, CEPREMAP.
    4. Rubinstein, Yona & Helpman, Elhanan & Melitz, Marc, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," Scholarly Articles 3228230, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    5. Kevin E. Staub & Rainer Winkelmann, 2009. "Consistent estimation of zero-inflated count models," SOI - Working Papers 0908, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Aug 2011.
    6. Egger, Peter & Larch, Mario, 2011. "An assessment of the Europe agreements' effects on bilateral trade, GDP, and welfare," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 263-279, February.
    7. Gabriel Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler, 2010. "Modelling the Extensive Margin of World Trade: New Evidence on GATT and WTO Membership," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1430-1469, November.
    8. Kai Sun & Daniel J. Henderson & Subal C. Kumbhakar, 2011. "Biases in approximating log production," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(4), pages 708-714, 06.
    9. Mullahy, John, 1998. "Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-281, June.
    10. James E. Anderson & Yoto V. Yotov, 2008. "The Changing Incidence of Geography," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 698, Boston College Department of Economics.
    11. William H. Greene, 1994. "Accounting for Excess Zeros and Sample Selection in Poisson and Negative Binomial Regression Models," Working Papers 94-10, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    12. Russell H. Hillberry, 2002. "Aggregation bias, compositional change, and the border effect," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 517-530, August.
    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:zbw:daredp:1107. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)

    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.