Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 64, 175 - 190, 22.04.2020

Anna Kızıltan Hasan Şahin

Öz

1960’lardan itibaren dış ticaret analizlerinde kullanılmaya başlanan çekim modeli yarım asırdır hem uluslararası hem de bölgesel ticaret ile ilgili ekonomik araştırmalarda en yaygın kullanılan modellerden birisi olmuştur. Bunun ana nedeni modelin dış ticaret analizlerinde teorik altyapısının sağlam ve ampirik açıklama gücünün yüksek olmasıdır. Ancak modelin uygulanması sırasında çok yönlü ticaret direnci, sıfır ticaret akımları, mesafe ve ayrıştırılmış ticaret akımları gibi önemli alanlarda hatalar yapıldığı gözlenmiştir. Bunlar modelin ampirik uygulamasında tahmin sonuçlarını sapmalı ve tutarsız hale getirebilmektedir. Çalışmamız çerçevesinde çekim modelinin uygulanmasında karşılaşılan bu ana sorunlar çeşitli açılardan ele alınmaktadır. Bu sorunların giderilmesine yönelik çözüm stratejilerini içeren kapsamlı bir literatür incelemesi sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çekim modeli Ticaret Akımları Ampirik Stratejiler

Kaynakça

  • Adam, C., & Cobham, D. (2007). Modelling multilateral trade resistance in a gravity model with exchange rate regimes. In Conference Paper No. CDMC07/02, CASTLECLIFFE, School of Economics & Finance, University of St. Andrews, UK.
  • Anderson, J. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1), 106-116.
  • Anderson, J., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192.
  • Anderson, J., & van Wincoop, E. (2004). Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 691-751.
  • Antweiler, W., Copeland, B., & Taylor, M. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review, 91(4), 877-908.
  • Bacchetta, M., Beverelli, C., Cadot, O., Fugazza, M., Grether, J. M., Helble, vd. (2012). A practical guide to trade policy analysis. WTO and UNCTAD.
  • Baier, S., & Bergstrand, J. (2009). Bonus vetus OLS: A simple method for approximating international trade-cost effects using the gravity equation. Journal of International Economics, 77(1), 77-85.
  • Baldwin, R., & Taglioni, D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. NBER Working Paper No. 12516. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Bayoumi, T., & Eichengreen, B. (1997). Is Regionalism Simply a Diversion? Evidence from the Evolution of the EC and EFTA. In Regionalism versus Multilateral Trade Arrangements, NBER-EASE Volume 6 (pp. 141-168). University of Chicago Press.
  • Bergeijk, P. A. G. van, & Brakman, S. (Ed.) (2010). The gravity model in international trade: Advances and applications. Cambridge University Press.
  • Bergstrand, J. (1985). The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Review of economics and statistics, 67(3), 474-481.
  • Bergstrand, J. (1989). The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and the factor-proportions theory in international trade. Review of economics and statistics, 71(1), 143-153.
  • Bosker, M., & Garretsen, H. (2010). Trade costs, market access, and economic geography: Why the empirical specification of trade costs matters. In P. A. G. van Bergeijk and S.
  • Brakman (Ed.) The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications, 193-223, Cambridge University Press.
  • Brakman, S., Garita, G., & Garretsen, H. (2010). Economic and financial integration and the rise of cross-border M&As. In P. A. G. van Bergeijk and S. Brakman (Ed.) The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications, 296-322, Cambridge University Press.
  • Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., & Schramm, M. (2004). The Spatial Distribution of Wages: Estimating the Helpman‐Hanson Model for Germany. Journal of Regional Science, 44(3), 437-466.
  • Breinlich, H. (2006). The spatial income structure in the European Union—what role for Economic Geography? Journal of Economic Geography, 6(5), 593-617.
  • Brodzicki, T., & Uminski, S. (2018). A gravity panel data analysis of foreign trade by regions: the role of metropolises and history. Regional Studies, 52(2), 261-273.
  • Buch, C., Kleinert, J., & Toubal, F. (2003). Determinants of German FDI: New evidence from micro-data. Discussion paper no. 09/03, Deutsche Bundesbank.
  • Chaney, T. (2008). Distorted gravity: the intensive and extensive margins of international trade. The American Economic Review, 98(4), 1707-1721.
  • Christie, E. (2002). Potential trade in South-East Europe: a gravity model approach. SEER-South-East Europe Review for Labour and Social Affairs, (04), 81-101.
  • Cheong, J., Kwak, D. W., & Tang, K. K. (2015). Heterogeneous effects of preferential trade agreements: How does partner similarity matter?. World Development, 66, 222-236.
  • Combes, P. P., & Lafourcade, M. (2005). Transport costs: measures, determinants, and regional policy implications for France. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(3), 319-349.
  • Deardorff, A. (1998). Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world? In J. Frankel (ed.), The regionalization of the world economy (pp. 7-32). University of Chicago Press.
  • Dee, P., & Gali, J. (2005). The trade and investment effects of preferential trading arrangements. In International Trade in East Asia, NBER-East Asia Seminar on Economics, Volume 14 (pp. 133-176). University of Chicago Press.
  • Disdier, A. C., & Head, K. (2008). The puzzling persistence of the distance effect on bilateral trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(1), 37-48.
  • Djankov, S., & Freund, C. (2002). Trade flows in the former Soviet Union, 1987 to 1996. Journal of Comparative Economics, 30(1), 76-90.
  • Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, trade, and growth. Journal of monetary economics, 50(1), 133-162.
  • Dutt, P., Mihov, I., & van Zandt, T. (2013). The effect of WTO on the extensive and the intensive margins of trade. Journal of International Economics, 91(2), 204-219.
  • Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2002). Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica, 70(5), 1741-1779.
  • Feenstra, R. (2004). Advanced international trade: theory and evidence. Princeton University Press.
  • Felbermayr, G., & Kohler, W. (2010). Modelling the extensive margin of world trade: New evidence on GATT and WTO membership. The World Economy, 33(11), 1430-1469.
  • Frankel, J. (1997). Regional trading blocs in the world trading system. Institute for International Economics, Washington DC.
  • Frankel, J., & Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth? American economic review, 379-399.
  • Frankel, J., & Rose, A. K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 85-91.
  • Fratianni, M. (2007). The gravity equation in international trade. Working Papers 2007 – 17, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
  • Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Macmillan.
  • Golovko, A. (2009). Çekim Modeli: Avrasya Ülkelerinin Dış Ticareti. Anadolu Uluslararası İktisat Kongresi, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
  • Grinblatt, M., & Keloharju, M. (2001). How distance, language, and culture influence stockholdings and trades. The Journal of Finance, 56(3), 1053-1073.
  • Grosjean, P. (2011). The weight of history on European cultural integration: a gravity approach. The American Economic Review, 101(3), 504-508.
  • Hanson, G. (2005). Market potential, increasing returns and geographic concentration. Journal of international economics, 67(1), 1-24.
  • Head, K. (2003), Gravity for Beginners. Working Paper 2053. Faculty of Commerce. University of British Columbia.
  • Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2010). Illusory border effects: Distance mismeasurement inflates estimates of home bias in trade. In P. A. G. van Bergeijk and S. Brakman (Ed.) The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications, 165-192, Cambridge University Press.
  • Helpman, E. (1987). Imperfect competition and international trade: Evidence from fourteen industrial countries. Journal of the Japanese and international economies, 1(1), 62-81.
  • Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Rubinstein, Y. (2007). Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. NBER Working Paper No. 12927. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Hering, L., & Poncet, S. (2006). Market Access impact on individual wages: Evidence from China. Working paper, CEPII.
  • Hillberry, R., & Hummels, D. (2008). Trade responses to geographic frictions: A decomposition using micro-data. European Economic Review, 52(3), 527-550.
  • Isard, W. (1954). Location theory and trade theory: short-run analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68, 305-320.
  • Isard, W., & Peck, M. J. (1954). Location theory and international and regional trade theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68(1), 97-114.
  • Knaap, T. (2006). Trade, location, and wages in the United States. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36(5), 595-612.
  • Krautheim, S. (2007). Gravity and Information: Heterogeneous Firms, Exporter Networks and the ‘Distance Puzzle’. Mimeo, Florence: European University Institute.
  • Krugman, P. (1995). Growing world trade: Causes and consequences. Brookings papers on economic activity, 1995(1), 327-377.
  • Limao, N., & Venables, A. J. (2001). Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs, and trade. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(3), 451-479.
  • Linders, G. (2013). Cultural and Institutional Determinants of Bilateral Trade Flows. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 249-85.
  • Linders, G., Slangen, A., de Groot, H., & Beugelsdijk, S. (2005). Cultural and Institutional Determinants of Bilateral Trade Flows (No. 05-074/3). Tinbergen Institute.
  • Linnemann, H. (1966). An econometric study of international trade flows. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
  • Liu, X. (2009). GATT/WTO promotes trade strongly: Sample selection and model specification. Review of International Economics, 17(3), 428-446.
  • Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra‐industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695-1725.
  • Mion, G. (2004). Spatial externalities and empirical analysis: The case of Italy. Journal of Urban Economics, 56(1), 97-118.
  • Möhlmann, L., Ederveen, S., De Groot, H., & Linders, G. J. (2010). Intangible barriers to international trade: A sectoral approach. In P. A. G. van Bergeijk and S. Brakman (Ed.) The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications, 224-251, Cambridge University Press.
  • Piermartini, R., & Yotov, Y. V. (2016). Estimating trade policy effects with structural gravity (No. ERSD-2016-10). WTO Staff Working Paper.
  • Piermartini, R., & Teh, R. (2005). Demystifying modelling methods for trade policy. WTO Discussion Papers No 10, World Trade Organization.
  • Pöyhönen, P. (1963). A tentative model for the volume of trade between countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 90, 93-100.
  • Pulliainen, K. (1963). A world trade study: an econometric model of the pattern of the commodity flows in international trade in 1948-1960. Ekonomiska Samfundets Tidskrift, 16(2), 78-91.
  • Rauch, J. E. (1999). Networks versus markets in international trade. Journal of International Economics, 48(1), 7-35.
  • Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48(2), 167-235.
  • Redding, S., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Economic geography and international inequality. Journal of International Economics, 62(1), 53-82.
  • Rose, A. K. (2004). Do we really know that the WTO increases trade? American Economic Review, 94, 98-114.
  • Rose, A. K. (2005). Does the WTO make trade more stable? Open Economies Review, 16(1), 7-22.
  • Rose, A. K., & van Wincoop, E. (2001). National money as a barrier to international trade: The real case for currency union. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 386-390.
  • Santos Silva, J., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641-658.
  • Santos Silva, J., & Tenreyro, S. (2009). Trading partners and trading volumes: Implementing the Helpman-Melitz-Rubinstein model empirically. Center of Economic Performance (CEP) Discussion paper no. 935.
  • Soloaga, I., & Wintersb, A. (2001). Regionalism in the nineties: What effect on trade? The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 12(1), 1-29.
  • Straathof, B. (2008). Gravity with gravitas: comment. CPB discussion paper no. 111, The Haag.
  • Subramanian, A., & Wei, S. J. (2007). The WTO promotes trade, strongly but unevenly. Journal of International Economics, 72(1), 151-175.
  • Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an International Economic Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

A Literature Review on the Main Problems and Empirical Solution Strategies in the Application of the Gravity Model

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 64, 175 - 190, 22.04.2020

Anna Kızıltan Hasan Şahin

Öz

The gravity model, which began to be applied in international trade analysis since the 1960s, has been one of the most widely used models in economic research for both international and regional trade for half a century. The main reasons for this are solid theoretical foundation and high degree of empirical explanatory power of the model in international trade analysis. However, it was observed that when applying the model mistakes are made in such important areas as multilateral trade resistance, zero trade flows, distance and disaggregated trade flows. These inaccuracies in empirical application of the model may cause to the biased and inconsistent estimation results. Within the framework of our study, these main problems encountered in the application of the gravity model are considered from various perspectives. A comprehensive literature review of solution strategies to address these issues is presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Gravity model trade flows empirical strategies

Kaynakça

  • Adam, C., & Cobham, D. (2007). Modelling multilateral trade resistance in a gravity model with exchange rate regimes. In Conference Paper No. CDMC07/02, CASTLECLIFFE, School of Economics & Finance, University of St. Andrews, UK.
  • Anderson, J. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1), 106-116.
  • Anderson, J., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192.
  • Anderson, J., & van Wincoop, E. (2004). Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 691-751.
  • Antweiler, W., Copeland, B., & Taylor, M. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review, 91(4), 877-908.
  • Bacchetta, M., Beverelli, C., Cadot, O., Fugazza, M., Grether, J. M., Helble, vd. (2012). A practical guide to trade policy analysis. WTO and UNCTAD.
  • Baier, S., & Bergstrand, J. (2009). Bonus vetus OLS: A simple method for approximating international trade-cost effects using the gravity equation. Journal of International Economics, 77(1), 77-85.
  • Baldwin, R., & Taglioni, D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. NBER Working Paper No. 12516. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Bayoumi, T., & Eichengreen, B. (1997). Is Regionalism Simply a Diversion? Evidence from the Evolution of the EC and EFTA. In Regionalism versus Multilateral Trade Arrangements, NBER-EASE Volume 6 (pp. 141-168). University of Chicago Press.
  • Bergeijk, P. A. G. van, & Brakman, S. (Ed.) (2010). The gravity model in international trade: Advances and applications. Cambridge University Press.
  • Bergstrand, J. (1985). The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Review of economics and statistics, 67(3), 474-481.
  • Bergstrand, J. (1989). The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and the factor-proportions theory in international trade. Review of economics and statistics, 71(1), 143-153.
  • Bosker, M., & Garretsen, H. (2010). Trade costs, market access, and economic geography: Why the empirical specification of trade costs matters. In P. A. G. van Bergeijk and S.
  • Brakman (Ed.) The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications, 193-223, Cambridge University Press.
  • Brakman, S., Garita, G., & Garretsen, H. (2010). Economic and financial integration and the rise of cross-border M&As. In P. A. G. van Bergeijk and S. Brakman (Ed.) The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications, 296-322, Cambridge University Press.
  • Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., & Schramm, M. (2004). The Spatial Distribution of Wages: Estimating the Helpman‐Hanson Model for Germany. Journal of Regional Science, 44(3), 437-466.
  • Breinlich, H. (2006). The spatial income structure in the European Union—what role for Economic Geography? Journal of Economic Geography, 6(5), 593-617.
  • Brodzicki, T., & Uminski, S. (2018). A gravity panel data analysis of foreign trade by regions: the role of metropolises and history. Regional Studies, 52(2), 261-273.
  • Buch, C., Kleinert, J., & Toubal, F. (2003). Determinants of German FDI: New evidence from micro-data. Discussion paper no. 09/03, Deutsche Bundesbank.
  • Chaney, T. (2008). Distorted gravity: the intensive and extensive margins of international trade. The American Economic Review, 98(4), 1707-1721.
  • Christie, E. (2002). Potential trade in South-East Europe: a gravity model approach. SEER-South-East Europe Review for Labour and Social Affairs, (04), 81-101.
  • Cheong, J., Kwak, D. W., & Tang, K. K. (2015). Heterogeneous effects of preferential trade agreements: How does partner similarity matter?. World Development, 66, 222-236.
  • Combes, P. P., & Lafourcade, M. (2005). Transport costs: measures, determinants, and regional policy implications for France. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(3), 319-349.
  • Deardorff, A. (1998). Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world? In J. Frankel (ed.), The regionalization of the world economy (pp. 7-32). University of Chicago Press.
  • Dee, P., & Gali, J. (2005). The trade and investment effects of preferential trading arrangements. In International Trade in East Asia, NBER-East Asia Seminar on Economics, Volume 14 (pp. 133-176). University of Chicago Press.
  • Disdier, A. C., & Head, K. (2008). The puzzling persistence of the distance effect on bilateral trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(1), 37-48.
  • Djankov, S., & Freund, C. (2002). Trade flows in the former Soviet Union, 1987 to 1996. Journal of Comparative Economics, 30(1), 76-90.
  • Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, trade, and growth. Journal of monetary economics, 50(1), 133-162.
  • Dutt, P., Mihov, I., & van Zandt, T. (2013). The effect of WTO on the extensive and the intensive margins of trade. Journal of International Economics, 91(2), 204-219.
  • Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2002). Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica, 70(5), 1741-1779.
  • Feenstra, R. (2004). Advanced international trade: theory and evidence. Princeton University Press.
  • Felbermayr, G., & Kohler, W. (2010). Modelling the extensive margin of world trade: New evidence on GATT and WTO membership. The World Economy, 33(11), 1430-1469.
  • Frankel, J. (1997). Regional trading blocs in the world trading system. Institute for International Economics, Washington DC.
  • Frankel, J., & Romer, D. (1999). Does trade cause growth? American economic review, 379-399.
  • Frankel, J., & Rose, A. K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 85-91.
  • Fratianni, M. (2007). The gravity equation in international trade. Working Papers 2007 – 17, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
  • Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Macmillan.
  • Golovko, A. (2009). Çekim Modeli: Avrasya Ülkelerinin Dış Ticareti. Anadolu Uluslararası İktisat Kongresi, Eskişehir, Türkiye.
  • Grinblatt, M., & Keloharju, M. (2001). How distance, language, and culture influence stockholdings and trades. The Journal of Finance, 56(3), 1053-1073.
  • Grosjean, P. (2011). The weight of history on European cultural integration: a gravity approach. The American Economic Review, 101(3), 504-508.
  • Hanson, G. (2005). Market potential, increasing returns and geographic concentration. Journal of international economics, 67(1), 1-24.
  • Head, K. (2003), Gravity for Beginners. Working Paper 2053. Faculty of Commerce. University of British Columbia.
  • Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2010). Illusory border effects: Distance mismeasurement inflates estimates of home bias in trade. In P. A. G. van Bergeijk and S. Brakman (Ed.) The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications, 165-192, Cambridge University Press.
  • Helpman, E. (1987). Imperfect competition and international trade: Evidence from fourteen industrial countries. Journal of the Japanese and international economies, 1(1), 62-81.
  • Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Rubinstein, Y. (2007). Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. NBER Working Paper No. 12927. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Hering, L., & Poncet, S. (2006). Market Access impact on individual wages: Evidence from China. Working paper, CEPII.
  • Hillberry, R., & Hummels, D. (2008). Trade responses to geographic frictions: A decomposition using micro-data. European Economic Review, 52(3), 527-550.
  • Isard, W. (1954). Location theory and trade theory: short-run analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68, 305-320.
  • Isard, W., & Peck, M. J. (1954). Location theory and international and regional trade theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68(1), 97-114.
  • Knaap, T. (2006). Trade, location, and wages in the United States. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36(5), 595-612.
  • Krautheim, S. (2007). Gravity and Information: Heterogeneous Firms, Exporter Networks and the ‘Distance Puzzle’. Mimeo, Florence: European University Institute.
  • Krugman, P. (1995). Growing world trade: Causes and consequences. Brookings papers on economic activity, 1995(1), 327-377.
  • Limao, N., & Venables, A. J. (2001). Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs, and trade. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(3), 451-479.
  • Linders, G. (2013). Cultural and Institutional Determinants of Bilateral Trade Flows. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 249-85.
  • Linders, G., Slangen, A., de Groot, H., & Beugelsdijk, S. (2005). Cultural and Institutional Determinants of Bilateral Trade Flows (No. 05-074/3). Tinbergen Institute.
  • Linnemann, H. (1966). An econometric study of international trade flows. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
  • Liu, X. (2009). GATT/WTO promotes trade strongly: Sample selection and model specification. Review of International Economics, 17(3), 428-446.
  • Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra‐industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695-1725.
  • Mion, G. (2004). Spatial externalities and empirical analysis: The case of Italy. Journal of Urban Economics, 56(1), 97-118.
  • Möhlmann, L., Ederveen, S., De Groot, H., & Linders, G. J. (2010). Intangible barriers to international trade: A sectoral approach. In P. A. G. van Bergeijk and S. Brakman (Ed.) The Gravity Model in International Trade: Advances and Applications, 224-251, Cambridge University Press.
  • Piermartini, R., & Yotov, Y. V. (2016). Estimating trade policy effects with structural gravity (No. ERSD-2016-10). WTO Staff Working Paper.
  • Piermartini, R., & Teh, R. (2005). Demystifying modelling methods for trade policy. WTO Discussion Papers No 10, World Trade Organization.
  • Pöyhönen, P. (1963). A tentative model for the volume of trade between countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 90, 93-100.
  • Pulliainen, K. (1963). A world trade study: an econometric model of the pattern of the commodity flows in international trade in 1948-1960. Ekonomiska Samfundets Tidskrift, 16(2), 78-91.
  • Rauch, J. E. (1999). Networks versus markets in international trade. Journal of International Economics, 48(1), 7-35.
  • Ravenstein, E. G. (1885). The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48(2), 167-235.
  • Redding, S., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Economic geography and international inequality. Journal of International Economics, 62(1), 53-82.
  • Rose, A. K. (2004). Do we really know that the WTO increases trade? American Economic Review, 94, 98-114.
  • Rose, A. K. (2005). Does the WTO make trade more stable? Open Economies Review, 16(1), 7-22.
  • Rose, A. K., & van Wincoop, E. (2001). National money as a barrier to international trade: The real case for currency union. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 386-390.
  • Santos Silva, J., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641-658.
  • Santos Silva, J., & Tenreyro, S. (2009). Trading partners and trading volumes: Implementing the Helpman-Melitz-Rubinstein model empirically. Center of Economic Performance (CEP) Discussion paper no. 935.
  • Soloaga, I., & Wintersb, A. (2001). Regionalism in the nineties: What effect on trade? The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 12(1), 1-29.
  • Straathof, B. (2008). Gravity with gravitas: comment. CPB discussion paper no. 111, The Haag.
  • Subramanian, A., & Wei, S. J. (2007). The WTO promotes trade, strongly but unevenly. Journal of International Economics, 72(1), 151-175.
  • Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an International Economic Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
Toplam 76 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Anna Kızıltan 0000-0002-2108-2741

Hasan Şahin 0000-0001-5922-068X

Yayımlanma Tarihi 22 Nisan 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Sayı: 64

Kaynak Göster

APA Kızıltan, A., & Şahin, H. (2020). Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(64), 175-190.
AMA Kızıltan A, Şahin H. Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. Nisan 2020;(64):175-190.
Chicago Kızıltan, Anna, ve Hasan Şahin. “Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar Ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sy. 64 (Nisan 2020): 175-90.
EndNote Kızıltan A, Şahin H (01 Nisan 2020) Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 64 175–190.
IEEE A. Kızıltan ve H. Şahin, “Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sy. 64, ss. 175–190, Nisan 2020.
ISNAD Kızıltan, Anna - Şahin, Hasan. “Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar Ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 64 (Nisan 2020), 175-190.
JAMA Kızıltan A, Şahin H. Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2020;:175–190.
MLA Kızıltan, Anna ve Hasan Şahin. “Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar Ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, sy. 64, 2020, ss. 175-90.
Vancouver Kızıltan A, Şahin H. Çekim Modeli Uygulanmasında Karşılaşılan Temel Sorunlar ve Ampirik Çözüm Stratejilerine Yönelik Bir Literatür İncelemesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2020(64):175-90.
 Kapak Resmi İndir

Dergimiz EBSCOhost, ULAKBİM/Sosyal Bilimler Veri Tabanında, SOBİAD ve Türk Eğitim İndeksi'nde yer alan uluslararası hakemli bir dergidir.