{"title":"马斯特里赫特的撮合:估计欧元对贸易的治疗效果","authors":"Joseph Kopecky","doi":"10.1007/s11079-023-09723-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Why do estimates of the European Monetary Union (EMU) effect on trade vary so greatly? Rose (2017) shows that the largest factor determining the size of EMU trade estimates is the choice of sample, with studies using only European or rich countries finding smaller impacts than those using more complete trade datasets. I push this question one step further, asking instead: what is the appropriate comparison group with which to study the euro’s trade impact? Using a first stage estimation of selection into the EMU and a robust propensity score weighting estimator, I extend the work of Millimet and Tchernis (2009) to a larger dataset of countries and years, showing that gravity estimates of the euro effect on trade are smaller when sample truncation and weighting brings the differences in observable characteristics between EMU and non-EMU pairs close to zero. Utilizing a Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood approach, I find that estimates using this more robust estimator reflect the same pattern, but with significantly less initial upward bias. My work suggests that policy analysis in trade should be more careful to consider the comparability of “treated” and “control” observations, and more readily utilize propensity score methods as a data driven approach to rebalancing samples when differences across these groups are large.</p>","PeriodicalId":46980,"journal":{"name":"Open Economies Review","volume":"51 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Match Made in Maastricht: Estimating The Treatment Effect of the Euro On Trade\",\"authors\":\"Joseph Kopecky\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11079-023-09723-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Why do estimates of the European Monetary Union (EMU) effect on trade vary so greatly? Rose (2017) shows that the largest factor determining the size of EMU trade estimates is the choice of sample, with studies using only European or rich countries finding smaller impacts than those using more complete trade datasets. I push this question one step further, asking instead: what is the appropriate comparison group with which to study the euro’s trade impact? Using a first stage estimation of selection into the EMU and a robust propensity score weighting estimator, I extend the work of Millimet and Tchernis (2009) to a larger dataset of countries and years, showing that gravity estimates of the euro effect on trade are smaller when sample truncation and weighting brings the differences in observable characteristics between EMU and non-EMU pairs close to zero. Utilizing a Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood approach, I find that estimates using this more robust estimator reflect the same pattern, but with significantly less initial upward bias. My work suggests that policy analysis in trade should be more careful to consider the comparability of “treated” and “control” observations, and more readily utilize propensity score methods as a data driven approach to rebalancing samples when differences across these groups are large.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Economies Review\",\"volume\":\"51 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Economies Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-023-09723-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Economies Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-023-09723-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Match Made in Maastricht: Estimating The Treatment Effect of the Euro On Trade
Why do estimates of the European Monetary Union (EMU) effect on trade vary so greatly? Rose (2017) shows that the largest factor determining the size of EMU trade estimates is the choice of sample, with studies using only European or rich countries finding smaller impacts than those using more complete trade datasets. I push this question one step further, asking instead: what is the appropriate comparison group with which to study the euro’s trade impact? Using a first stage estimation of selection into the EMU and a robust propensity score weighting estimator, I extend the work of Millimet and Tchernis (2009) to a larger dataset of countries and years, showing that gravity estimates of the euro effect on trade are smaller when sample truncation and weighting brings the differences in observable characteristics between EMU and non-EMU pairs close to zero. Utilizing a Poisson pseudo-maximum likelihood approach, I find that estimates using this more robust estimator reflect the same pattern, but with significantly less initial upward bias. My work suggests that policy analysis in trade should be more careful to consider the comparability of “treated” and “control” observations, and more readily utilize propensity score methods as a data driven approach to rebalancing samples when differences across these groups are large.
期刊介绍:
The topics covered in Open Economies Review include, but are not limited to, models and applications of (1) trade flows, (2) commercial policy, (3) adjustment mechanism to external imbalances, (4) exchange rate movements, (5) alternative monetary regimes, (6) real and financial integration, (7) monetary union, (8) economic development and (9) external debt. Open Economies Review welcomes original manuscripts, both theoretical and empirical, dealing with international economic issues or national economic issues that have transnational relevance. Furthermore, Open Economies Review solicits contributions bearing on specific events on important branches of the literature. Open Economies Review is open to any and all contributions, without preferences for any particular viewpoint or school of thought. Open Economies Review encourages interdisciplinary communication and interaction among researchers in the vast area of international and transnational economics. Authors will be expected to meet the scientific standards prevailing in their respective fields, and empirical findings must be reproducible. Regardless of degree of complexity and specificity, authors are expected to write an introduction, setting forth the nature of their research and the significance of their findings, in a manner accessible to researchers in other disciplines. Officially cited as: Open Econ Rev