2004
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.549301
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monte Carlo Appraisals of Gravity Model Specifications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For gravity models of trade, for instance, Eichengreen and Irwin () and Anderson, Ferrantino, and Schaefer () argue that historical hysteresis between pairs of countries as regards bilateral trade should be accounted for by including time lags of the dependent variable in the r.h.s. of the equation, especially in the absence of fixed effects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For gravity models of trade, for instance, Eichengreen and Irwin () and Anderson, Ferrantino, and Schaefer () argue that historical hysteresis between pairs of countries as regards bilateral trade should be accounted for by including time lags of the dependent variable in the r.h.s. of the equation, especially in the absence of fixed effects.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two papers, Anderson et al (2005) and Ghosh and Yamarik (2004), provide strong evidence of overestimation of coefficients in gravity models, as applied widely, and show that results in the literature are sensitive to empirical specification. 14 Anderson et al (2005) run Monte Carlo simulations to show the spurious nature of many large data sets used in gravity model estimations cause significant bias in results. Indeed, many variables are falsely found to be statistically significant in explaining trade due to spurious data.…”
Section: Shortcomings Of the Gravity Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lastly, the aim of undertaking comparative statics of trade costs with trade growth under the absence of information on all components of bilateral trade costs is also not properly achieved (Kalirajan and Bhattacharya (2007); Ferrantino et al (2005); Baldwin and Taglioni(2006); Kalirajan and Khan (2011)).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%