ABD ve Çin’in Gelişmekte Olan Ülke İkilileri Arasındaki Ticarete Etkileri: Panel Kantil Yerçekimi Modeli

Year 2021, Issue: 33, 53 - 66, 31.10.2021

Semih Karacan

https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.837712

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Bu çalışma 58 Dünya Ticaret Örgütü üyesi gelişmekte olan ülkenin değişmekte olan ticaret yapısını Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Çin’in bu ülkeler üzerindeki etkilerini de göz önünde bulundurarak Yerçekimi Modeli yardımıyla 3209 ticari ikilinin 1991 – 2015 yılları arasındaki verilerini kullanarak incelemeyi hedeflemektedir. Bu amaçla ülke çiftlerinin ABD ve Çin’e olan uzaklıklarının bir fonksiyonunun logaritması olan bir değişken, ABD ve Çin’in göreceli dış etkilerini ölçmek amacıyla önerilmektedir. Örneklemdeki ülke çiftlerinin ticari hacimleri önemli ölçüde değiştiğinden Yerçekimi modeli Koenker (2004) tarafından önerilen cezalandırılmış panel kantil sabit etkiler tahminicisi ile tahmin edilmektedir. Olası modelleme hataları panel kantil regresyona uyarlanmış bir Hausman-tipi test yardımıyla incelenmiştir. Bulgular ABD ve Çin’in gelişmekte olan ülke ikilileri üzerinde ticareti, şartlı ikili ticaret dağılımının farklı kantillerinde farklı şekillerde tesir eden etkilerini olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

Panel Kantil Regresyon, Yerçekimi Modeli, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Çin, Ticaret Çekişmeleri

Influence of the US and China on the Trade between Developing Country Dyads: Panel Quantile Gravity Model

Abstract

This study is aimed to investigate the changing shape of the trade between 58 World Trade Organization member developing countries based on the effects of the US and China by employing the Gravity Model, using data from 3209 trade dyads between 1991 – 2015. For this purpose, a new variable is proposed as the logarithm of a function of the distances of country dyads to the US and China (einf) to measure the relative external influence of the US and China. As the trade volumes of country dyads in the sample change severely, the gravity model is estimated by penalized panel quantile fixed effects estimator proposed by Koenker (2004). Potential model misspecification is investigated with a Hausman-type test adapted for panel quantile regression. Findings suggest that the US and China have trade altering influence on developing country dyads, varying according to different quantiles of the conditional bilateral trade distribution.

Keywords

Panel Quantile Regression, Gravity Model, United States Of America, China, Trade Conflicts

References

• Afesorgbor, S. K. (2017). Revisiting the effect of regional integration on African trade: evidence from meta-analysis and gravity model. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 26(2), 133-153.
• Afman, E. R., & Maurel, M. (2010). 10 Diplomatic relations and trade reorientation in transition countries. The gravity model in international trade, 278.
• Anderson, J. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. The American Economic Review, 69(1), 106-116.
• Anderson, J. E., & Van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American economic review, 93(1), 170-192.
• Antonucci, D., & Manzocchi, S. (2006). Does Turkey have a special trade relation with the EU?: A gravity model approach. Economic Systems, 30(2), 157-169.
• Anderson, J. E., & Marcouiller, D. (2002). Insecurity and the pattern of trade: An empirical investigation. Review of Economics and statistics, 84(2), 342-352.
• Baldwin, R., & Taglioni, D. (2007). Trade effects of the euro: A comparison of estimators. Journal of Economic Integration, 780-818.
• Berger, D., Easterly, W., Nunn, N., & Satyanath, S. (2013). Commercial imperialism? Political influence and trade during the Cold War. American Economic Review, 103(2), 863-96.
• Bergstrand, J. H. (1985). The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. The review of economics and statistics, 474-481.
• Bergstrand, J. H. (1989). The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and the factor-proportions theory in international trade. The review of economics and statistics, 143-153.
• Bergstrand, J. H. (1990). The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson model, the Linder hypothesis and the determinants of bilateral intra-industry trade. The Economic Journal, 100(403), 1216-1229.
• Bilici, Ö., Erdil, E., & Yetkiner, I. H. (2008). The determining role of EU in Turkey's trade flows: a gravity model approach (No. 08/06). Working Papers in Economics.
• Carrere, C. (2006). Revisiting the effects of regional trade agreements on trade flows with proper specification of the gravity model. European Economic Review, 50(2), 223-247.
• Cheng, I. H., Wall, H. J. (2005). Controlling for heterogeneity in gravity models of trade and integration. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, 87(1), 49-63.
• Crozet, M., & Hinz, J. (2016). Friendly fire-the trade impact of the Russia sanctions and counter-sanctions (No. 2059). Kiel Working Paper.
• Davis, C. L., Fuchs, A., & Johnson, K. (2019). State control and the effects of foreign relations on bilateral trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(2), 405-438.
• Demir, F., & Im, H. (2019). Effects of cultural institutes on bilateral trade and FDI flows: Cultural diplomacy or economic altruism?. The World Economy.
• Deardorff, A. (1998). Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world?. In The regionalization of the world economy (pp. 7-32). University of Chicago Press.
• Didier, L. (2018). Economic diplomacy: The “one–China policy” effect on trade. China Economic Review, 48, 223-243.
• Dornbusch, R. (1992). The case for trade liberalization in developing countries. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(1), 69-85.
• Egger, P. (2000). A note on the proper econometric specification of the gravity equation. Economics Letters, 66(1), 25-31.
• Egger, P., & Pfaffermayr, M. (2003). The proper panel econometric specification of the gravity equation: A three-way model with bilateral interaction effects. Empirical Economics, 28(3), 571-580.
• Ekanayake, E. M., & Chatrna, D. (2010). The effect of foreign aid on economic growth in developing countries. Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 3, 1.
• Fuchs, A., & Klann, N. H. (2013). Paying a visit: The Dalai Lama effect on international trade. Journal of International Economics, 91(1), 164-177.
• Frede, J., & Yetkiner, H. (2017). The regional trade dynamics of Turkey: a panel data gravity model. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 26(6), 633-648.
• Freund, C., Ferrantino, M., Maliszewska, M., & Ruta, M. (2018). Impacts on global trade and income of current trade disputes. MTI Practice Notes, 2.
• Harding, M., & Lamarche, C. (2017). Penalized quantile regression with semiparametric correlated effects: An application with heterogeneous preferences. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 32(2), 342-358.
• Head, K., Mayer, T., & Ries, J. (2010). The erosion of colonial trade linkages after independence. Journal of international Economics, 81(1), 1-14.
• Hopewell, K. (2019). US-China conflict in global trade governance: the new politics of agricultural subsidies at the WTO. Review of international political economy, 26(2), 207-231.
• Isard, W. (1954). Location theory and trade theory: short-run analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 305-320.
• Isard, W., & Peck, M. J. (1954). Location theory and international and interregional trade theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97-114.
• Koenker, R. (2004). Quantile regression for longitudinal data. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 91(1), 74-89.
• LeSage, J. P., & Fischer, M. M. (2019). Conventional versus network dependence panel data gravity model specifications. Working Papers in Regional Science, 1-33.
• Lien, D., & Lo, M. (2017). Economic impacts of cultural institutes. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 64, 12-21.
• Lin, F., Yan, W., & Wang, X. (2017). The impact of Africa‐China's diplomatic visits on bilateral trade. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 64(3), 310-326.
• Linnemann, H. (1966). An econometric study of international trade flows (No. 42). North-Holland Pub. Co.
• Martincus, C. V., Estevadeordal, A., Gallo, A., & Luna, J. (2010). Information barriers, export promotion institutions, and the extensive margin of trade. Review of World Economics, 146(1), 91-111.
• Martínez-Zarzoso, I., & Nowak-Lehmann, F. (2003). Augmented gravity model: An empirical application to Mercosur-European Union trade flows. Journal of applied economics, 6(2), 291-316.
• Mátyás, L. (1997). Proper econometric specification of the gravity model. World Economy, 20(3), 363-368.
• Matyas, L. (1998). The gravity model: Some econometric considerations. World Economy, 21(3), 397-401.
• McCallum, J. (1995). National borders matter: Canada-US regional trade patterns. The American Economic Review, 85(3), 615-623.
• Mickiewicz, T. (2005). Economic transition in central Europe and the commonwealth of independent states (pp. 1-214). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Moons, S., & de Boer, R. (2014). Economic diplomacy, product characteristics and the level of development. Product Characteristics and the Level of Development (September 2, 2014).
• Möhlmann, L. J., Ederveen, S., De Groot, H. L. F., & Linders, G. J. M. (2010). Intangible barriers to international trade. The gravity model in international trade: Advances and applications, 224-252.
• Neumayer, E. (2011). On the detrimental impact of visa restrictions on bilateral trade and foreign direct investment. Applied geography, 31(3), 901-907.
• Porojan, A. (2001). Trade flows and spatial effects: the gravity model revisited. Open economies review, 12(3), 265-280.
• Pöyhönen, P. (1963). A tentative model for the volume of trade between countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 93-100.
• Rauch, J. E. (1999). Networks versus markets in international trade. Journal of international Economics, 48(1), 7-35.
• Rose, A. K. (2004). Do we really know that the WTO increases trade?. American Economic Review, 94(1), 98-114.
• Rose, A. K. (2007). The foreign service and foreign trade: embassies as export promotion. World Economy, 30(1), 22-38.
• Rose, A., & Spiegel, M. (2010). International environmental arrangements and international commerce. The gravity model in international trade, 255-277.
• Serlenga, L., & Shin, Y. (2007). Gravity models of intra‐EU trade: application of the CCEP‐HT estimation in heterogeneous panels with unobserved common time‐specific factors. Journal of applied econometrics, 22(2), 361-381.
• Sohn, C. H. (2005). Does the gravity model explain South Korea's trade flows?. The Japanese Economic Review, 56(4), 417-430.
• Taplin, G. B. (1967). Models of world trade. Staff Papers, 14(3), 433-455.
• Tinbergen, J. (1962). An analysis of world trade flows. Shaping the world economy, 3, 1-117.
• Van Bergeijk, P. A., Yakop, M., & de Groot, H. L. (2011). The economic effectiveness of diplomatic representation: An economic analysis of its contribution to bilateral trade. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 6(1-2), 101-120.
• Visser, R. (2019). The effect of diplomatic representation on trade: A panel data analysis. The World Economy, 42(1), 197-225.
• World Bank (2019), World Development Indicators.
• World Trade Organization (2019), World Trade Statistics.
• World Trade Organization. (2019). World Trade Statistical Review: Chapter II. Access Link: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2019_e/wts2019chapter02_e.pdf.
• Yaşar, E., & Korkmaz, İ. (2017). Analysis of Foreign Trade Between Turkey and the Balkan Countries with Gravity Model. Kesit Akademi, 10, 382-407.
• Xiao, R. (2016). China as an institution-builder: the case of the AIIB. The Pacific Review, 29(3), 435-442.
• Zhang, D., Lei, L., Ji, Q., & Kutan, A. M. (2019). Economic policy uncertainty in the US and China and their impact on the global markets. Economic Modelling, 79, 47-56.
• Zhu, Z. (2015). China’s AIIB and OBOR: Ambitions and Challenges. The Diplomat, 9(10), 2015.