现在引力模型在分析区域间贸易时还算是主流方法吗?

国际贸易好像一开始就学这个...确实形式简单好看,求教现在用的还多吗?
关注者
233
被浏览
37,901

6 个回答

主流方法之一,另一个为heterogeneous trade model,不过2者互相结合的很多。

关于gravity model,它是到了最近10年才逐渐得到主流trade economics的重视的,其大约有3个发展阶段:

1. admission: Trefler (1995) empirically test HOV,然后发现了contradiction; 在实证分析中也发现了distance 和 border effects的影响,如下图 (Head and Mayer, 2015)

以及


2. multi-lateral/fixed effects: 这个阶段标志性的当为Krugman (2002) 和 Anderson and Van Wincoop (2003),这2个work都没有假定increasing returns to scale 和 imperfect competition

AvW (2003)的基本形式为

实证分析中,log-linearise:

Feenstra (2004), Redding and Venables (2004) 指出,这里的fixed effects可以用来capture multi-lateral resistance

3. 融合异质企业模型。一些最近的paper加入了异质企业的元素,用来估计extensive margin (广延边际)和intensive margin (集约边际)。这个对gravity model是一个拓展,也让它保持为主流方法。这其中有3篇值得注意的paper:Chaney (2008); Helman et. al (2008); Melitz and Ottaviano (2008)

比如,Chaney (2008)假定CES preference和IRS production technology,productivity follows Pareto distribution,一个公司的出口等于



以上表示在i国,industry h, productivity 为

\varphi

的公司到 j 的出口volume

一些manipulation后,得到

两边取全导数,得到

这个就可以用来估计 the response of trade volume to trade cost and fixed cost


另外一个让引力模型称为主流的原因是它能够用来估计policy和trade agreements的影响,它是一种很简单的methodology;前面已经有人提到了,这里一个总结 (Head and Mayer, 2015)

大家或许注意到了,如果用传统OLS去估计的话,会产生bias。因为一旦log-linearize,zero trade将会被排除掉。而且,如果error term 有heteroskedasticity,且和自变量相关的话,log-linearise后的error term就不会有zero mean 但是,这并没有抹杀引力模型的地位,因为Santos Silva and Tenreyro (2006)用模拟的数据发现Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood (PPML) 有更小的bias,无论是traditional gravity model 还是AvW (2003)的。

最后,其实引力模型还有很多值得探索的地方。现行的引力模型都是static model之上的,但是数据都是面板数据,也就是说,公司并非只做one-period choice 比如,可以在gravity model 里面incorporate learning,etc.

(谢谢大家这么耐心的看完)

Reference

Anderson, J. E., van Wincoop, E., 2003. Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle.
American Economic Review 93, 170–192.

Chaney, T., 2008. Distorted gravity: The intensive and extensive margins of international trade.
American Economic Review 98, 1707–1721.

Eaton, J., Kortum, S., 2001. Trade in capital goods. European Economic Review 45, 1195–1235.

—, 2002. Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica 70, 1741–1779.

Fenestra, R,. Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press, 1st ed.,
2010, 2nd ed., 2015.

Handbook of International Economics, In: Gita Gopinath, Elhanan Helpman and Kenneth Rogoff, Editor(s), Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier, 2014, Volume 4, Page i, ISSN 1573-4404, ISBN 9780444543141, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-54314-1.00013-6.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444543141000136)

Head, K., Mayer, T., 2015. Gravity Equations: Workhorse, Toolkit, and Cookbook, North-Holland,
vol. 4 of Handbook of International Economics, chap. 3. pp. 131–196.

Helpman, E., Melitz, M., Rubinstein, Y., 2008. Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and
trading volumes. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123, 441–487.


Melitz, M. J., Ottaviano, G. I. P., 2008. Market size, trade, and productivity. Review of Economic Studies 75, 295–316.

Redding, S. ,Venables, A,. 2004 Economic geography and international inequality, Journal of International Economics, Volume 62, Issue 1, January 2004, Pages 53-82, ISSN 0022-1996, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2003.07.001.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022199603000965)

Silva, J. M. C. S., Tenreyro, S., 2006. The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics 88, 641–658.


Trefler, D., 1995. The case of the missing trade and other mysteries. American Economic Review 85, 1029–1046.

还在用。不过很多情况下都是当做控制变量。。。。。