重新审视自由贸易协定的影响:剩余贸易成本偏差重要吗?

P. Kharel
{"title":"重新审视自由贸易协定的影响:剩余贸易成本偏差重要吗?","authors":"P. Kharel","doi":"10.1111/roie.12380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper revisits a prominent gravity model‐based empirical literature on the effects of free trade agreements by accounting for a potential bias caused by unobservable trade costs that operate through general equilibrium constraints. It embeds state‐of‐the‐art panel estimation techniques in a recently proposed two‐step remedy that features a constrained ANOVA‐type estimation. Using a dataset on manufacturing trade flows in eight sectors in 40 countries and a rest‐of‐the‐world aggregate for the period 1990–2002, it finds evidence of significant residual trade cost bias. The direction and magnitude of bias vary across sectors, with the standard one‐step approach used in the literature overestimating or underestimating the partial effect of free trade agreements by up to 110 percent. Overall, coefficients on trade costs variables are jointly significantly different between the standard method and the two‐step method. The biases in partial effect estimates translate into biases in general equilibrium effects.","PeriodicalId":391101,"journal":{"name":"Econometric Modeling: International Economics eJournal","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of Free Trade Agreements Revisited: Does Residual Trade Cost Bias Matter?\",\"authors\":\"P. Kharel\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/roie.12380\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper revisits a prominent gravity model‐based empirical literature on the effects of free trade agreements by accounting for a potential bias caused by unobservable trade costs that operate through general equilibrium constraints. It embeds state‐of‐the‐art panel estimation techniques in a recently proposed two‐step remedy that features a constrained ANOVA‐type estimation. Using a dataset on manufacturing trade flows in eight sectors in 40 countries and a rest‐of‐the‐world aggregate for the period 1990–2002, it finds evidence of significant residual trade cost bias. The direction and magnitude of bias vary across sectors, with the standard one‐step approach used in the literature overestimating or underestimating the partial effect of free trade agreements by up to 110 percent. Overall, coefficients on trade costs variables are jointly significantly different between the standard method and the two‐step method. The biases in partial effect estimates translate into biases in general equilibrium effects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":391101,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Econometric Modeling: International Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Econometric Modeling: International Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12380\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometric Modeling: International Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12380","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文通过考虑一般均衡约束下不可观察的贸易成本造成的潜在偏差,重新审视了一篇著名的基于重力模型的自由贸易协定效应实证文献。它在最近提出的两步补救措施中嵌入了最先进的面板估计技术,该补救措施具有约束方差分析类型估计。使用1990-2002年期间40个国家的8个部门和世界其他地区的制造业贸易流动数据集,它发现了显著的剩余贸易成本偏差的证据。偏差的方向和程度因部门而异,文献中使用的标准一步方法高估或低估了自由贸易协定的部分影响,最高可达110%。总体而言,贸易成本变量的系数在标准法和两步法之间存在显著差异。部分效应估计的偏差转化为一般均衡效应的偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effect of Free Trade Agreements Revisited: Does Residual Trade Cost Bias Matter?
This paper revisits a prominent gravity model‐based empirical literature on the effects of free trade agreements by accounting for a potential bias caused by unobservable trade costs that operate through general equilibrium constraints. It embeds state‐of‐the‐art panel estimation techniques in a recently proposed two‐step remedy that features a constrained ANOVA‐type estimation. Using a dataset on manufacturing trade flows in eight sectors in 40 countries and a rest‐of‐the‐world aggregate for the period 1990–2002, it finds evidence of significant residual trade cost bias. The direction and magnitude of bias vary across sectors, with the standard one‐step approach used in the literature overestimating or underestimating the partial effect of free trade agreements by up to 110 percent. Overall, coefficients on trade costs variables are jointly significantly different between the standard method and the two‐step method. The biases in partial effect estimates translate into biases in general equilibrium effects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信