Home and regional biases and border effects in Armington type models

Economic Modelling

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 309-319

  Whalley, John ^a,b,c   Xin, Xian ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE INNOVATION   (Canada)

^d CHINA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Border effect; Home bias; Trade

Indexed keywords

EID: 58249115132     PISSN: 02649993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2008.07.013     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Anderson J.E. A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review 69 1 (1979) 106-116
2. Anderson J.E., and van Wincoop E. Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review 93 1 (2003) 170-192
3. Anderson J.E., and van Wincoop E. Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature 42 3 (2004) 691-751
4. Anderson M.A., and Smith S.L.S. Do national borders really matter? Canada-US regional trade reconsidered. Review of International Economics 7 2 (1999) 219-227
5. Armington P.S. A theory of demand for products distinguished by place of production. International Monetary Fund Staff Papers 16 1 (1969) 159-178
6. Baier S.L., and Bergstrand J.H. The growth of world trade: tariffs, transport costs and income similarities. Journal of International Economics 53 1 (2001) 1-27
7. Balistreri W.J., and Hillberry R.H. Structural estimation and the border puzzle. Journal of International Economics 72 2 (2007) 451-463
8. Balistreri, E.J. and Hillberry, R.H., 2005. Estibration: An Illustration of Structural Estimation as Calibration. mimeo, Colorado School of Mines.
9. Bergstrand J.H. The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics 67 3 (1985) 474-481
10. Bergstrand J.H. The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and the factor-proportions theory in international trade. Review of Economics and Statistics 71 1 (1989) 143-153
11. Blonigen B.A., and Wilson W.W. Explaining Armington: what determines substitutability between home and foreign goods. Canadian Journal of Economics 32 1 (1999) 1-22
12. Brulhart, M., and Trionfetti, F., 2005. A Test of Trade Theories When Expenditure Is Home Biased, CEPR Discussion Paper No.5097.
13. Dawkins C., Srinivasan T.N., and Whalley J. Calibration. In: Heckman J.J., and Leamer E. (Eds). Handbook of Econometrics vol. 5 (2001), Amsterdam, North-Holland
14. Deardorff, A.V., 1995. Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World? NBER Working Paper No. 5377.
15. Engel C., and Rogers J.H. How wide is the border?. American Economic Review 86 5 (1996) 1112-1125
16. Evans C.L. The economic significance of national border effects. American Economic Review 93 4 (2003) 1292-1312
17. Fairfield, J.E., 2001. Canada-U.S. Border Effects: An Examination, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Economics, the University of Western Ontario.
18. Feenstra R.C. New product varieties and the measurement of international prices. American Economics Review 84 (1994) 157-177 No. 1
19. Head, K. and Mayer, T., 2002. Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mis-measurement Inflates Estimation of Home Bias in Trade, Mimeo, University of British Columbia.
20. Head K., and Ries J. Increasing returns versus national product differentiation as an explanation for the pattern of US-Canada trade. American Economic Review 91 4 (2001) 858-876
21. Helliwell J.F. Do national boundaries matter for Quebec's trade?. Canadian Journal of Economics 29 3 (1996) 507-522
22. Helliwell J.F. How Much Do National Borders Matter? (1998), Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC
23. Hillberry, R.H., Balistreri, E.J., and Rutherford, T.F., 2007. Structural Estimation and Solution of International Trade Models with Heterogeneous Firms, DEGIT Conference Papers c012_038, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
24. Hillberry R.H., Anderson M.A., Balistreri E.J., and Fox A.K. Taste parameters as model residuals: assessing the "fit" of an Armington trade model. Review of International Economics 13 5 (2005) 973-984
25. Hillberry, R.H. and Hummels, D., 2002. Explaining Home Bias in Consumption: the Role of Intermediate Input Trade, NBER Working Paper No.9020.
26. Hillberry R.H., and Hummels D. Intra-national home bias: some explanations. Review of Economics and Statistics 85 4 (2003) 1089-1092
27. Hillberry R.H. Aggregation bias, compositional change, and the border effect. Canadian Journal of Economics 35 3 (2002) 517-530
28. Hummels D. Towards a Geography of Trade Costs (1999), University of Chicago
29. Kydland F., and Prescott E.C. Time to build and aggregate fluctuations. Econometrica 50 (1982) 1345-1370
30. McCallum J. National border matters: Canada-U.S. regional trade patterns. American Economic Review 85 3 (1995) 615-623
31. McDaniel, C.A. and Balistreri, E.J., 2002. A Discussion on Armington Trade Substitution Elasticities. USITC Office of Economics Working Paper No. 2002-01-A.
32. Millimet D.L., and Osang T. Do state borders matter for U.S. intra-national trade? The role of history and internal migration. Canadian Journal of Economics 40 1 (2007) 93-126
33. Obstfeld, M., and Rogoff, K., 2000. The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause? NBER working paper, No. 7777.
34. Saito, M., 2004. Armington Elasticities in Intermediate Inputs Trade: A Problem in Using Multilateral Trade Data, IMF Working Paper, WP/04/22.
35. Samuelson P.A. The transfer problem and transport costs, II: analysis of effects of trade impediments. Economic Journal 64 254 (1954) 264-289
36. Shiells C.R., Stern R.M., and Deardorff A.V. Estimates of the elasticities of substitution between imports and home goods for the United States. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 122 3 (1986) 497-519
37. Shoven J.B., and Whalley J. A general equilibrium calculation of the effects of differential taxation of income from capital in the U.S. Journal of Public Economics 1 3-4 (1972) 281-321
38. Shoven J.B., and Whalley J. Applied general-equilibrium models of taxation and international trade: an introduction and survey. Journal of Economic Literature 22 3 (1984) 1007-1051
39. Trelfer D. The case of missing trade and other mysteries. American Economic Review 85 3 (1995) 1029-1046
40. Wall, H.J., 2000. Gravity Model Specification and the Effects of the Canada-U.S. Border, Working Paper 2000-024A, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
41. Watson M. Measures of fit for calibrated models. Journal of Political Economy 101 6 (1993) 1011-1041
42. Wei, S.J., 1996. Intra-national versus International Trade: How Stubborn Are Nations in Global Integration, NBER working paper No. 5531.
43. Whalley J. Trade Liberalization among Major World Trade Areas (1985), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
44. Wolf H.C. Intra-national home bias in trade. Review of Economics and Statistics 82 4 (2000) 555-563
45. Yi K. Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade?. Journal of Political Economy 111 1 (2003) 52-102
46. Yi, K., 2005. Vertical Specialization and the Border Effect Puzzle, Working Paper No.05-24, Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.