Intra-European Trade of Manufacturing Goods: An Extension of the Gravity Model

Yıl 2011, Cilt: 3 Sayı: 1, 1 - 24, 01.04.2011

Mark Vancauteren Daniel Weiserbs

Öz

In this paper, we propose and test several extensions of the standard gravity model. This yields a specification that allows for (i) a more flexible income response; (ii) a competitiveness effect with a general and a specific component; and (iii) an alternative and consistent measure of remoteness. Those extensions were found to be significant factors to explain intra-EU trade. Next, we analyze the effect of EU harmonization of technical regulations on domestic and intra-EU trade. We find, at different levels of aggregation of the manufacturing sector, that harmonization of regulations has contributed to more intra-EU trade but, apparently, did not affect the so called border effect.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Trade, EU Countries, Gravity Equation, Border Effects

Kaynakça

• Anderson, J. (1979). A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation. American Economic Review, 69 (1), 106-16.
• Anderson, J. and E. van Wincoop (2003). Gravity with Gravitas: a Solution to the Border Puzzle. American Economic Review, 93 (1), 170-92.
• Armington, P. (1969). A Theory of Demand for Products distinguished by Place of Production. IMF Staff Paper no. 16.
• Balassa, B. and L. Bauwens (1988). Changing Trade Patterns in Manufactured Goods: an Econometric Investigation. Amsterdam : North-Holland.
• Banks, J., R. Blundell and A. Lewbel (1997). Quadratic Engle Curves and Consumer Demand. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (4), 527-539.
• Barten, A., G. d'Alcantara and G. Carrin (1976). COMET, a medium-term macroeconomic model for the European Economic Community. European Economic Review, 7, 63-115.
• Bergstrand, J. (1985). The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67 (3), 474-81.
• Bergstrand, J. (1989). The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factors-proportion Theory in International Trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71 (3), 143-53.
• Beck, N. and J. Katz (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89 (3), 634-47.
• Buigues, P., F. Ilzkovitz and J. Lebrun (1990). The impact of the Internal Market by Industrial Sector: The Challenge for Member States. European Economy, Social Europe (special edition).
• Brenton, P. and M. Vancauteren (2002). The extent of economic integration in Europe: Border effects, technical barriers to trade & home bias in consumption. Working Paper 157, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.
• Carlin, W., A. Glyn and J. van Reenen (1999). Export Performance of OECD Countries: An empirical Examination of the Role of Cost Competitiveness. Working paper 99/21, The Institute for Fiscal Studies.
• Chen, N. (2004). Intra-national versus International Trade in the European Union: Why Do National Borders Matter? Journal of International Economics, 63 (1), 93-118.
• Cheng, H. and H. Wall (1999). Controlling for Heterogeneity in Gravity Models of Trade. Working Paper no. 99-010A, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
• CEC, Commission of the European Communities (1996). NACE Rev. 1, Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Communities. Official Journal of The European Union, L293.
• CEC, Commission of the European Communities (1998). Technical Barriers to Trade. Volume 1 of Sub-series III Dismantling of Barriers of the Single Market Review. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication.
• Cook, D. and W. Sanford (1999). Applied Regression Including Computing and Graphics. Wiley.
• Deardorff, A. (1995). Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world? Working Paper 5377, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington DC.
• Eaton, J. and S. Kortum (2002). Technology, Geography and Trade. Econometrica, 70 (5), 1741-79.
• Egger, P. (2000). A note on the Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Equation. Economics Letters, 66 (1), 25-31.
• Egger, P. (2001). An Econometric View on the Estimation of Gravity Potentials and the Calculation of Trade Potentials. Working Paper, Austrian Institute of Economic Research.
• Frankel, J., E. Stein and S. Wei (1995). Trading Blocs and the Americas: The Natural, the Unnatural and the Super-Natural. Journal of Development Economics, 47 (1), 61-95.
• Giavazzi, F. and M. Pagano (1988). The Advantages of Tying One‟s Hand: EMS discipline and Central Bank Credibility. European Economic Review, 32(5), 1055-1082.
• Judge, G., W.E. Griffith, H. Lutkepol and T.S. Lee (1979). The theory and practice of Econometrics. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics.
• Greene, W. (1997). Econometric Analysis. London: Prentice Hall.
• Harrigan, J. (1993). OECD Imports and Trade Barriers. Journal of International Economics, 35(1/2), 95-111.
• Head, K. and T. Mayer (2000). Non-Europe: The Magnitude and Causes of Market Fragmentation in the EU. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 136 (2), 285-314.
• Helliwell, J. (1996). Do National Border Matter for Quebec‟s trade? Working paper 5215, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington DC.
• Helliwell, J. (1997). National Borders, Trade and Migration. Working paper 6027, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington DC.
• Helliwell, J. (1998). How Much do National Borders Matter. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press.
• Helliwell, J. and G. Verdier (2001). Measuring Internal Trade Distances : a New Method applied to estimate Provincial Border Effects in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics, 34 (4), 1024-41.
• Helliwell, J. (2005). Border Effects: Assessing their Implications for Canadian Policy in a North American Context. In Social and Labour Market Aspects of North American Linkages, ed. Richard G. Harris and Thomas Lemieux. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 41-76.
• Helpman, E. and P. Krugman (1985). Market Structure and International Trade. Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition and the International Economy. Cambridge M.A: MIT Press.
• Leamer, E. (1997). Access to Western Markets and Eastern Effort Levels. In Lessons from the Economic Transition – Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s, ed. Salvatore Zecchini. Kluwer Acedemic Publishers.
• Mátyás, L. (1997). Proper Econometric Specification of the Gravity Model. The World Economy, 20, 363-68.
• Mátyás, L. (1998). The Gravity Model: some econometric considerations. The World Economy, 20, 397-401.
• McCallum, J. (1995). National Borders Matter: Canada-US Regional Trade Patterns. The American Economic Review, 85 (3), 615-23.
• Moenius, J. (1999). Information versus Product Adaptation: the Role of Standards in Trade. Manuscript, Department of Economics, University of California (UCSD).
• Nitsch, V. (2000). National Borders and international trade: evidence from the European Union. Canadian Journal of Economics, 33 (4), 1091-1105.
• Pelkmans, J. (1987). The New approach to Technical Harmonization and Standardization. Market Journal of Common Studies, 25 (3), 249-269.
• Pöyhonen, P. (1963). A Tentative Model for the Volume of Trade between Countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 90 (1), 93-99.
• Sachs, J. and C. Wyplosz (1986). The Economic Consequences of President Mitterrand. Economic Policy, 2.
• Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for and International Ecnomic Policy. New York: the Twentieth Century Fund.
• Wei, S. (1996). Intranational versus International trade: How Stubborn are Nations in Global Integration? Working Paper 5531, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington DC.
• Wolf, H. (1997). Patterns of Intra-and Inter-State Trade. Working Paper 5939, National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington DC.
• Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. USA: MIT Press.