Você está na página 1de 41

THE LOG OF GRAVITY

J. M. C. Santos Silva and Silvana Tenreyro*


AbstractAlthough economists have long been aware of Jensens inequality, many econometric applications have neglected an important
implication of it: under heteroskedasticity, the parameters of loglinearized models estimated by OLS lead to biased estimates of the true
elasticities. We explain why this problem arises and propose an appropriate estimator. Our criticism of conventional practices and the proposed
solution extend to a broad range of applications where log-linearized
equations are estimated. We develop the argument using one particular
illustration, the gravity equation for trade. We find significant differences
between estimates obtained with the proposed estimator and those obtained with the traditional method.

I.

Introduction

CONOMISTS have long been aware that Jensens inequality implies that E(ln y) ln E(y), that is, the
expected value of the logarithm of a random variable is
different from the logarithm of its expected value. This
basic fact, however, has been neglected in many econometric applications. Indeed, one important implication of Jensens inequality is that the standard practice of interpreting
the parameters of log-linearized models estimated by ordinary least squares (OLS) as elasticities can be highly misleading in the presence of heteroskedasticity.
Although many authors have addressed the problem of
obtaining consistent estimates of the conditional mean of
the dependent variable when the model is estimated in the
log linear form (see, for example, Goldberger, 1968; Manning & Mullahy, 2001), we were unable to find any reference in the literature to the potential bias of the elasticities
estimated using the log linear model.
In this paper we use the gravity equation for trade as a
particular illustration of how the bias arises and propose an
appropriate estimator. We argue that the gravity equation,
and, more generally, constant-elasticity models, should be
estimated in their multiplicative form and propose a simple
pseudo-maximum-likelihood (PML) estimation technique.
Besides being consistent in the presence of heteroskedasticity, this method also provides a natural way to deal with
zero values of the dependent variable.
Using Monte Carlo simulations, we compare the performance of our estimator with that of OLS (in the log linear
specification). The results are striking. In the presence of
heteroskedasticity, estimates obtained using log-linearized

Received for publication March 29, 2004. Revision accepted for publication September 13, 2005.
* ISEG/Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa and CEMAPRE; and London
School of Economics, CEP, and CEPR, respectively.
We are grateful to two anonymous referees for their constructive
comments and suggestions. We also thank Francesco Caselli, Kevin
Denny, Juan Carlos Hallak, Daniel Mota, John Mullahy, Paulo Parente,
Manuela Simarro, and Kim Underhill for helpful advice on previous
versions of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies. Jiaying Huang
provided excellent research assistance. Santos Silva gratefully acknowledges the partial financial support from Fundacao para a Ciencia e
Tecnologia, program POCTI, partially funded by FEDER. A previous
version of this paper circulated as Gravity-Defying Trade.

models are severely biased, distorting the interpretation of


the model. These biases might be critical for the comparative assessment of competing economic theories, as well as
for the evaluation of the effects of different policies. In
contrast, our method is robust to the different patterns of
heteroskedasticity considered in the simulations.
We next use the proposed method to provide new estimates of the gravity equation in cross-sectional data. Using
standard tests, we show that heteroskedasticity is indeed a
severe problem, both in the traditional gravity equation
introduced by Tinbergen (1962), and in a gravity equation
that takes into account multilateral resistance terms or fixed
effects, as suggested by Anderson and van Wincoop (2003).
We then compare the estimates obtained with the proposed
PML estimator with those generated by OLS in the log
linear specification, using both the traditional and the fixedeffects gravity equations.
Our estimation method paints a very different picture of
the determinants of international trade. In the traditional
gravity equation, the coefficients on GDP are not, as generally estimated, close to 1. Instead, they are significantly
smaller, which might help reconcile the gravity equation
with the observation that the trade-to-GDP ratio decreases
with increasing total GDP (or, in other words, that smaller
countries tend to be more open to international trade). In
addition, OLS greatly exaggerates the roles of colonial ties
and geographical proximity.
Using the Andersonvan Wincoop (2003) gravity equation, we find that OLS yields significantly larger effects for
geographical distance. The estimated elasticity obtained
from the log-linearized equation is almost twice as large as
that predicted by PML. OLS also predicts a large role for
common colonial ties, implying that sharing a common
colonial history practically doubles bilateral trade. In contrast, the proposed PML estimator leads to a statistically and
economically insignificant effect.
The general message is that, even controlling for fixed
effects, the presence of heteroskedasticity can generate
strikingly different estimates when the gravity equation is
log-linearized, rather than estimated in levels. In other
words, Jensens inequality is quantitatively and qualitatively
important in the estimation of gravity equations. This suggests that inferences drawn on log-linearized regressions
can produce misleading conclusions.
Despite the focus on the gravity equation, our criticism of
the conventional practice and the solution we propose extend to a broad range of economic applications where the
equations under study are log-linearized, or, more generally,
transformed by a nonlinear function. A short list of examples includes the estimation of Mincerian equations for
wages, production functions, and Euler equations, which are
typically estimated in logarithms.

The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 2006, 88(4): 641658


2006 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

642

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.


Section II studies the econometric problems raised by the
estimation of gravity equations. Section III considers
constant-elasticity models in general; it introduces the PML
estimator and specification tests to check the adequacy of
the proposed estimator. Section IV presents the Monte Carlo
simulations. Section V provides new estimates of both the
traditional and the Andersonvan Wincoop gravity equation. The results are compared with those generated by
OLS, nonlinear least squares, and tobit estimations. Section
VI contains concluding remarks.
II.

The Econometrics of the Gravity Equation

A. The Traditional Gravity Equation

The pioneering work of Jan Tinbergen (1962) initiated a


vast theoretical and empirical literature on the gravity equation for trade. Theories based on different foundations for
trade, including endowment and technological differences,
increasing returns to scale, and Armington demands, all
predict a gravity relationship for trade flows analogous to
Newtons law of universal gravitation.1 In its simplest form,
the gravity equation for trade states that the trade flow from
country i to country j, denoted by Tij, is proportional to the
product of the two countries GDPs, denoted by Yi and Yj,
and inversely proportional to their distance, Dij, broadly
construed to include all factors that might create trade
resistance. More generally,
T ij 0 Y i 1Y j 2D ij 3,

(1)

where 0, 1, 2, and 3 are unknown parameters.


The analogy between trade and the physical force of
gravity, however, clashes with the observation that there is
no set of parameters for which equation (1) will hold exactly
for an arbitrary set of observations. To account for deviations from the theory, stochastic versions of the equation are
used in empirical studies. Typically, the stochastic version
of the gravity equation has the form
T ij 0 Y i 1Y j 2D ij 3 ij ,

(2)

1 See, for example, Anderson (1979), Helpman and Krugman (1985),


Bergstrand (1985), Davis (1995), Deardoff (1998), and Anderson and van
Wincoop (2003). A feature common to these models is that they all assume
complete specialization: each good is produced in only one country.
However, Haveman and Hummels (2001), Feenstra, Markusen, and Rose
(2000), and Eaton and Kortum (2001) derive the gravity equation without
relying on complete specialization. Examples of empirical studies framed
on the gravity equation include the evaluation of trade protection (for
example, Harrigan, 1993), regional trade agreements (for example,
Frankel, Stein, & Wei, 1998; Frankel, 1997), exchange rate variability (for
example, Frankel & Wei, 1993; Eichengreen & Irwin, 1995), and currency
unions (for example, Rose, 2000; Frankel & Rose, 2002; and Tenreyro &
Barro, 2002). See also the various studies on border effects influencing the
patterns of intranational and international trade, including McCallum
(1995), and Anderson and van Wincoop (2003), among others.

where ij is an error factor with E(ijYi, Yj, Dij) 1,


assumed to be statistically independent of the regressors,
leading to
ET ij Y i ,Y j ,D ij 0 Y i 1Y j 2D ij 3.
There is a long tradition in the trade literature of loglinearizing equation (2) and estimating the parameters of
interest by least squares, using the equation
ln Tij ln 0 1 ln Yi 2 ln Yj
3 ln Dij ln ij .

(3)

The validity of this procedure depends critically on the


assumption that ij, and therefore ln ij, are statistically
independent of the regressors. To see why this is so, notice
that the expected value of the logarithm of a random
variable depends both on its mean and on the higher-order
moments of the distribution. Hence, for example, if the
variance of the error factor ij in equation (2) depends on Yi,
Yj, or Dij, the expected value of ln ij will also depend on the
regressors, violating the condition for consistency of OLS.2
In the cases studied in section V we find overwhelming
evidence that the error terms in the usual log linear specification of the gravity equation are heteroskedastic, which
violates the assumption that ln ij is statistically independent of the regressors and suggests that this estimation
method leads to inconsistent estimates of the elasticities of
interest.
A related problem with the analogy between Newtonian
gravity and trade is that gravitational force can be very
small, but never zero, whereas trade between several pairs
of countries is literally zero. In many cases, these zeros
occur simply because some pairs of countries did not trade
in a given period. For example, it would not be surprising to
find that Tajikistan and Togo did not trade in a certain year.3
These zero observations pose no problem at all for the
estimation of gravity equations in their multiplicative form.
In contrast, the existence of observations for which the
dependent variable is zero creates an additional problem for
2 As an illustration, consider the case in which follows a log normal
ij
distribution, with E(ijYi, Yj, Dij) 1 and variance ij2 f(Yi, Yj, Dij). The
error term in the log-linearized representation will then follow a normal
distribution, with E [ln ijYi, Yj, Dij] 21 ln(1 ij2), which is also a
function of the covariates.
3 The absence of trade between small and distant countries might be
explained, among other factors, by large variable costs (for example,
bricks are too costly to transport) or large fixed costs (for example,
information on foreign markets). At the aggregate level, these costs can be
best proxied by the various measures of distance and size entering the
gravity equation. The existence of zero trade between many pairs of
countries is directly addressed by Hallak (2006) and Helpman, Melitz, and
Rubinstein (2004). These authors propose a promising avenue of research
using a two-part estimation procedure, with a fixed-cost equation determining the cutoff point above which a country exports, and a standard
gravity equation. Their results, however, rely heavily on both normality
and homoskedasticity assumptions, the latter being the particular concern
of this paper. A natural topic for further research is to develop and
implement an estimator of the two-part model that, like the PML estimator
proposed here, is robust to distributional assumptions.

THE LOG OF GRAVITY

the use of the log linear form of the gravity equation.


Several methods have been developed to deal with this
problem [see Frankel (1997) for a description of the various
procedures]. The approach followed by the large majority of
empirical studies is simply to drop the pairs with zero trade
from the data set and estimate the log linear form by OLS.
Rather than throwing away the observations with Tij 0,
some authors estimate the model using Tij 1 as the
dependent variable or use a tobit estimator. However, these
procedures will generally lead to inconsistent estimators of
the parameters of interest. The severity of these inconsistencies will depend on the particular characteristics of the
sample and model used, but there is no reason to believe that
they will be negligible.
Zeros may also be the result of rounding errors.4 If trade
is measured in thousands of dollars, it is possible that for
pairs of countries for which bilateral trade did not reach a
minimum value, say $500, the value of trade is registered as
0. If these rounded-down observations were partially compensated by rounded-up ones, the overall effect of these
errors would be relatively minor. However, the rounding
down is more likely to occur for small or distant countries,
and therefore the probability of rounding down will depend
on the value of the covariates, leading to the inconsistency
of the estimators. Finally, the zeros can just be missing
observations that are wrongly recorded as 0. This problem is
more likely to occur when small countries are considered,
and again the measurement error will depend on the covariates, leading to inconsistency.
B. The Andersonvan Wincoop Gravity Equation

Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) argue that the traditional gravity equation is not correctly specified, as it does
not take into account multilateral resistance terms. One of
the solutions for this problem that is suggested by those
authors is to augment the traditional gravity equation with
exporter and importer fixed effects, leading to
T ij 0 Y i 1Y j 2D ij 3e id i jd j,

(4)

where 0, 1, 2, 3, i, and j are the parameters to be


estimated and di and dj are dummies identifying the exporter
and importer.5
Their model also yields the prediction that 1 2 1,
which leads to the unit-income-elasticity model
T ij 0 Y i Y j D ij 3e id i jd j,
whose stochastic version has the form
ET ij Y i ,Y j ,D ij ,d i ,d j 0 Y i Y j D ij 3e id i jd j.

(5)

4 Trade data can suffer from many other forms of errors, as described in
Feenstra, Lipsey, and Bowen (1997).
5 Note that, throughout the paper, T denotes exports from i to j.
ij

643

As before, log-linearization of equation (5) raises the problem of how to treat zero-value observations. Moreover,
given that equation (5) is a multiplicative model, it is also
subject to the biases caused by log-linearization in the
presence of heteroskedasticity. Naturally, the presence of
the individual effects may reduce the severity of this problem, but whether or not that happens is an empirical issue.
In our empirical analysis we provide estimates for both
the traditional and the Andersonvan Wincoop gravity equations, using alternative estimation methods. We show that,
in practice, heteroskedasticity is quantitatively and qualitatively important in the gravity equation, even when controlling for fixed effects. Hence, we recommend estimating the
augmented gravity equation in levels, using the proposed
PML estimator, which also adequately deals with the zerovalue observations.
III.

Constant-Elasticity Models

Despite their immense popularity, empirical studies involving gravity equations still have important econometric
flaws. These flaws are not exclusive to this literature, but
extend to many areas where constant-elasticity models are
used. This section examines how the deterministic multiplicative models suggested by economic theory can be used in
empirical studies.
In their nonstochastic form, the relationship between the
multiplicative constant-elasticity model and its log linear
additive formulation is trivial. The problem, of course, is
that economic relations do not hold with the accuracy of
physical laws. All that can be expected is that they hold on
average. Indeed, here we interpret economic models like the
gravity equation as yielding the expected value of the
variable of interest, y 0, for a given value of the explanatory variables, x (see Goldberger, 1991, p. 5). That is, if
economic theory suggests that y and x are linked by a
constant-elasticity model of the form yi exp (xi), the
function exp(xi) is interpreted as the conditional expectation of yi given x, denoted E[yix].6 For example, using the
notation in the previous section, the multiplicative gravity
relationship can be written as the exponential function exp
[ln 0 1 ln Yi 2 ln Yj 3 ln Dij], which is interpreted
as the conditional expectation E(TijYi, Yj, Dij).
Because the relation yi exp(xi) holds on average but
not for each i, an error term is associated with each observation, which is defined as i yi E[yix].7 Therefore, the
stochastic model can be formulated as
6 Notice that if exp(x ) is interpreted as describing the conditional
i
median of yi (or some other conditional quantile) rather than the conditional expectation, estimates of the elasticities of interest can be obtained
estimating the log linear model using the appropriate quantile regression
estimator (Koenker & Bassett, 1978). However, interpreting exp(xi) as a
conditional median is problematic when yi has a large mass of zero
observations, as in trade data. Indeed, in this case the conditional median
of yi will be a discontinuous function of the regressors, which is generally
not compatible with standard economic theory.
7 Whether the error enters additively or multiplicatively is irrelevant for
our purposes, as explained below.

644

y i expxi i ,

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS

(6)

with yi 0 and E[ix] 0.


As we mentioned before, the standard practice of loglinearizing equation (6) and estimating by OLS is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First of all, yi can be 0, in
which case log-linearization is infeasible. Second, even if
all observations of yi are strictly positive, the expected value
of the log-linearized error will in general depend on the
covariates, and hence OLS will be inconsistent. To see the
point more clearly, notice that equation (6) can be expressed
as
y i expxi i ,
with i 1 i/exp(xi) and E[ix] 1. Assuming for the
moment that yi is positive, the model can be made linear in
the parameters by taking logarithms of both sides of the
equation, leading to
ln yi xi ln i .

(7)

To obtain a consistent estimator of the slope parameters


in equation (6) estimating equation (7) by OLS, it is necessary that E[ln ix] does not depend on xi.8 Because i
1 i/exp(xi), this condition is met only if i can be
written as i exp(xi) vi, where vi is a random variable
statistically independent of xi. In this case, i 1 vi and
therefore is statistically independent of xi, implying that
E[ln ix] is constant. Thus, only under very specific conditions on the error term is the log linear representation of
the constant-elasticity model useful as a device to estimate
the parameters of interest.
When i is statistically independent of xi, the conditional
variance of yi (and i) is proportional to exp(2xi). Although
economic theory generally does not provide any information on the variance of i, we can infer some of its properties
from the characteristics of the data. Because yi is nonnegative, when E[yix] approaches 0, the probability of yi being
positive must also approach 0. This implies that V[yix], the
conditional variance of yi, tends to vanish as E[yix] passes
to 0.9 On the other hand, when the expected value of y is far
away from its lower bound, it is possible to observe large
deviations from the conditional mean in either direction,
leading to greater dispersion. Thus, in practice, i will
generally be heteroskedastic and its variance will depend on
exp(xi), but there is no reason to assume that V[yix] is
proportional to exp(2xi). Therefore, in general, regressing
ln yi on xi by OLS will lead to inconsistent estimates of .
Consistent estimation of the intercept would also require E[ln i x] 0.
In the case of trade data, when E [ yix] is close to its lower bound (that
is, for pairs of small and distant countries), it is unlikely that large values
of trade are observed, for they cannot be offset by equally large deviations
in the opposite direction, simply because trade cannot be negative.
Therefore, for these observations, dispersion around the mean tends to be
small.
8
9

It may be surprising that the pattern of heteroskedasticity


and, indeed, the form of all higher-order moments of the
conditional distribution of the error term can affect the
consistency of an estimator, rather than just its efficiency.
The reason is that the nonlinear transformation of the
dependent variable in equation (7) changes the properties of
the error term in a nontrivial way because the conditional
expectation of ln i depends on the shape of the conditional
distribution of i. Hence, unless very strong restrictions are
imposed on the form of this distribution, it is not possible to
recover information about the conditional expectation of yi
from the conditional mean of ln yi, simply because ln i is
correlated with the regressors. Nevertheless, estimating
equation (7) by OLS will produce consistent estimates of
the parameters of E[ln yix] as long as E[ln (yi)x] is a linear
function of the regressors.10 The problem is that these
parameters may not permit identification of the parameters
of E[yix].
In short, even assuming that all observations on yi are
positive, it is not advisable to estimate from the log linear
model. Instead, the nonlinear model has to be estimated.
A. Estimation

Although most empirical studies use the log linear form


of the constant-elasticity model, some authors [see Frankel
and Wei (1993) for an example in the international trade
literature] have estimated multiplicative models using nonlinear least squares (NLS), which is an asymptotically valid
estimator for equation (6). However, the NLS estimator can
be very inefficient in this context, as it ignores the heteroskedasticity that, as discussed before, is characteristic of
this type of data.
The NLS estimator of is defined by

y expx b ,
n

arg min

i1

which implies the following set of first-order conditions:


expx
x 0.
y expx
n

i1

(8)

These equations give more weight to observations where


exp(xi ) is large, because that is where the curvature of the
conditional expectation is more pronounced. However,
these are generally also the observations with larger variance, which implies that NLS gives more weight to noisier
observations. Thus, this estimator may be very inefficient,
depending heavily on a small number of observations.
If the form of V[yix] were known, this problem could be
eliminated using a weighted NLS estimator. However, in
10 When E [ln y x] is not a linear function of the regressors, estimating
i
equation (7) by OLS will produce consistent estimates of the parameters
of the best linear approximation to E [ln yi x] (see Goldberger, 1991, p.
53).

THE LOG OF GRAVITY

practice, all we know about V[yix] is that, in general, it goes


to 0 as E[yix] passes to 0. Therefore, an optimal weighted
NLS estimator cannot be used without further information
on the distribution of the errors. In principle, this problem
can be tackled by estimating the multiplicative model using
a consistent estimator, and then obtaining the appropriate
weights estimating the skedastic function nonparametrically, as suggested by Delgado (1992) and Delgado and
Kniesner (1997). However, this nonparametric generalized
least squares estimator is rather cumbersome to implement,
especially if the model has a large number of regressors.
Moreover, the choice of the first-round estimator is an open
question, as the NLS estimator may be a poor starting point
due to its considerable inefficiency. Therefore, the nonparametric generalized least squares estimator is not appropriate
to use as a workhorse for routine estimation of multiplicative models.11 Indeed, what is needed is an estimator that is
consistent and reasonably efficient under a wide range of
heteroskedasticity patterns and is also simple to implement.
A possible way of obtaining an estimator that is more
efficient than the standard NLS without the need to use
nonparametric regression is to follow McCullagh and
Nelder (1989) and estimate the parameters of interest using
a PML estimator based on some assumption on the functional form of V[yix].12 Among the many possible specifications, the hypothesis that the conditional variance is
proportional to the conditional mean is particularly appealing. Indeed, under this assumption E[yix] exp(xi)
V[yix], and can be estimated by solving the following set
of first-order conditions:

i1

y i expxi xi 0.

(9)

Comparing equations (8) and (9), it is clear that, unlike


the NLS estimator, which is a PML estimator obtained
assuming that V[yix] is constant, the PML estimator based
on equation (9) gives the same weight to all observations,
rather than emphasizing those for which exp(xi) is large.
This is because, under the assumption that E[yix] V[yix],
all observations have the same information on the parameters of interest as the additional information on the curvature
of the conditional mean coming from observations with
large exp(xi) is offset by their larger variance. Of course,
this estimator may not be optimal, but without further
information on the pattern of heteroskedasticity, it seems
11 A nonparametric generalized least squares estimator can also be used
to estimate linear models in the presence of heteroskedasticity of unknown
form (Robinson, 1987). However, despite having been proposed more
than 15 years ago, this estimator has never been adopted as a standard tool
by researchers doing empirical work, who generally prefer the simplicity
of the inefficient OLS, with an appropriate covariance matrix.
12 See also Manning and Mullahy (2001). A related estimator is proposed
by Papke and Wooldridge (1996) for the estimation of models for
fractional data.

645

natural to give the same weight to all observations.13 Even


if E[yix] is not proportional to V[yix], the PML estimator
based on equation (9) is likely to be more efficient than the
NLS estimator when the heteroskedasticity increases with
the conditional mean.
The estimator defined by equation (9) is numerically
equal to the Poisson pseudo-maximum-likelihood (PPML)
estimator, which is often used for count data.14 The form of
equation (9) makes clear that all that is needed for this
estimator to be consistent is the correct specification of the
conditional mean, that is, E[yix] exp(xi). Therefore, the
data do not have to be Poisson at alland, what is more
important, yi does not even have to be an integerfor the
estimator based on the Poisson likelihood function to be
consistent. This is the well-known PML result first noted by
Gourieroux, Monfort, and Trognon (1984).
The implementation of the PPML estimator is straightforward: there are standard econometric programs with
commands that permit the estimation of Poisson regression,
even when the dependent variables are not integers. Because
the assumption V[yix] E[yix] is unlikely to hold, this
estimator does not take full account of the heteroskedasticity in the model, and all inference has to be based on an
Eicker-White (Eicker, 1963; White, 1980) robust covariance
matrix estimator. In particular, within Stata (StataCorp.,
2003), the PPML estimation can be executed using the
following command:
poisson exporti, j lndistij
ln Yi ln Yj other variablesij , robust
where export (or import) is measured in levels.
Of course, if it were known that V[yix] is a function of
higher powers of E[yix], a more efficient estimator could be
obtained by downweighting even more the observations
with large conditional mean. An example of such an estimator is the gamma PML estimator studied by Manning and
Mullahy (2001), which, like the log-linearized model, assumes that V[yix] is proportional to E[yix]2. The first-order
conditions for the gamma PML estimator are given by

y expx exp x x 0.
n

i1

In the case of trade data, however, this estimator may


have an important drawback. Trade data for larger countries
(as gauged by GDP per capita) tend to be of higher quality
(see Frankel & Wei, 1993; Frankel, 1997); hence, models
assuming that V[yix] is a function of higher powers of
E[yix] might give excessive weight to the observations that
13 The same strategy is implicitly used by Papke and Wooldridge (1996)
in their pseudo-maximum-likelihood estimator for fractional data models.
14 See Cameron and Trivedi (1998) and Winkelmann (2003) for more
details on the Poisson regression and on more general models for count
data.

646

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS

are more prone to measurement errors.15 Therefore, the


Poisson regression emerges as a reasonable compromise,
giving less weight to the observations with larger variance
than the standard NLS estimator, without giving too much
weight to observations more prone to contamination by
measurement error and less informative about the curvature
of E[yix].16
B. Testing

In this subsection we consider tests for the particular


pattern of heteroskedasticity assumed by PML estimators,
focusing on the PPML estimator. Although PML estimators
are consistent even when the variance function is misspecified, the researcher can use these tests to check if a different
PML estimator would be more appropriate and to decide
whether or not the use of a nonparametric estimator of the
variance is warranted.
Manning and Mullahy (2001) suggested that if
V y i x 0 E y i x 1,

(10)

the choice of the appropriate PML estimator can be based on


a Park-type regression (Park, 1966). Their approach is based
on the idea that if equation (10) holds and an initial consistent estimate of E[yix] is available, then 1 can be consistently estimated using an appropriate auxiliary regression.
Specifically, following Park (1966), Manning and Mullahy
(2001) suggest that 1 can be estimated using the auxiliary
model
ln yi yi 2 ln 0 1 ln yi vi ,

(11)

where yi denotes the estimated value of E[yix]. Unfortunately, as the discussion in the previous sections should
have made clear, this approach based on the loglinearization of equation (10) is valid only under very
restrictive conditions on the conditional distribution of yi.
However, it is easy to see that this procedure is valid when
the constant-elasticity model can be consistently estimated
in the log linear form. Therefore, using equation (11) a test
for H0 : 1 2 based on a nonrobust covariance estimator
provides a check on the adequacy of the estimator based on
the log linear model.
A more robust alternative, which is mentioned by Manning and Mullahy (2001) in a footnote, is to estimate 1
from
15 Frankel and Wei (1993) and Frankel (1997) suggest that larger
countries should be given more weight in the estimation of gravity
equations. This would be appropriate if the errors in the model were just
the result of measurement errors in the dependent variable. However, if it
is accepted that the gravity equation does not hold exactly, measurement
errors account for only part of the dispersion of trade data around the
gravity equation.
16 It is worth noting that the PPML estimator can be easily adapted to
deal with endogenous regressors (Windmeijer & Santos Silva, 1997) and
panel data (Wooldridge, 1999). These extensions, however, are not pursued here.

y i y i 2 0 y i 1 i ,

(12)

using an appropriate PML estimator. The approach based on


equation (12) is asymptotically valid, and inference about 1
can be based on the usual Eicker-White robust covariance
matrix estimator. For example, the hypothesis that V[yix] is
proportional to E[yix] is accepted if the appropriate confidence interval for 1 contains 1. However, if the purpose is
to test the adequacy of a particular value of 1, a slightly
simpler method based on the Gauss-Newton regression (see
Davidson & MacKinnon, 1993) is available.
Specifically, to check the adequacy of the PPML for
which 1 1 and yi exp(xi ), equation (12) can be
expanded in a Taylor series around 1 1, leading to
y i y i 2 0 y i 0 1 1ln yi yi i .
Now, the hypothesis that V[yix] E[yix] can be tested
against equation (10) simply by checking the significance of
the parameter 0(1 1). Because the error term i is
unlikely to be homoskedastic, the estimation of the GaussNewton regression should be performed using weighted
least squares. Assuming that in equation (12) the variance is
also proportional to the mean, the appropriate weights are
given by exp(xi ), and therefore the test can be performed
by estimating
y i y i 2 / y i 0 y i

0 1 1ln yi yi *i

(13)

by OLS and testing the statistical significance of 0(1 1)


using a Eicker-White robust covariance matrix estimator.17
In the next section, a small simulation is used to study the
Gauss-Newton regression test for the hypothesis that V[yix]
E[yix], as well as the Park-type test for the hypothesis
that the constant-elasticity model can be consistently estimated in the log linear form.
IV.

A Simulation Study

This section reports the results of a small simulation


study designed to assess the performance of different methods to estimate constant-elasticity models in the presence of
heteroskedasticity and rounding errors. As a by-product, we
also obtain some evidence on the finite-sample performance
of the specification tests presented above. These experiments are centered around the following multiplicative
model:
17 Notice that to test V [ y x] E [ y x] against alternatives of the form
i
i
V [ yix] 0 exp [xi ( )], the appropriate auxiliary regression would
be

y i y i 2 / y i 0 y i 0 x i y i i* ,
and the test could be performed by checking the joint significance of the
elements of 0. If the model includes a constant, one of the regressors in
the auxiliary regression is redundant and should be dropped.

THE LOG OF GRAVITY

E y i x x i exp0 1 x1i 2 x2i ,


i 1, . . . , 1000.

(14)

Because, in practice, regression models often include a


mixture of continuous and dummy variables, we replicate
this feature in our experiments: x1i is drawn from a standard
normal, and x2 is a binary dummy variable that equals 1 with
a probability of 0.4.18 The two covariates are independent,
and a new set of observations of all variables is generated in
each replication using 0 0, 1 2 1. Data on y are
generated as
y i x i i ,

(15)

where i is a log normal random variable with mean 1 and


variance 2i . As noted before, the slope parameters in equation (14) can be estimated using the log linear form of the
model only when 2i is constant, that is, when V[yix] is
proportional to (xi)2.
In these experiments we analyzed PML estimators of the
multiplicative model and different estimators of the loglinearized model. The consistent PML estimators studied
were: NLS, gamma pseudo-maximum-likelihood (GPML),
and PPML. Besides these estimators, we also considered the
standard OLS estimator of the log linear model (here called
simply OLS); the OLS estimator for the model where the
dependent variable is yi 1 [OLS(y 1)]; a truncated OLS
estimator to be discussed below; and the threshold tobit of
Eaton and Tamura (1994) (ET-tobit).19
To assess the performance of the estimators under different patterns of heteroskedasticity, we considered the four
following specifications of 2i :
Case 1: 2i (xi)2; V[yix] 1.
Case 2: 2i (xi)1; V[yix] (xi).
Case 3: 2i 1; V[yix] (xi)2.
Case 4: 2i (xi)1 exp(x2i); V[yix] (xi)
exp(x2i) (xi)2.
In case 1 the variance of i is constant, implying that the
NLS estimator is optimal. Although, as argued before, this
case is unrealistic for models of bilateral trade, it is included
in the simulations for completeness. In case 2, the conditional variance of yi equals its conditional mean, as in the
Poisson distribution. The pseudo-maximum-likelihood estimator based on the Poisson distribution is optimal in this
situation. Case 3 is the special case in which OLS estimation
of the log linear model is consistent for the slope parameters
of equation (14). Moreover, in this case the log linear model
18 For example, in gravity equations, continuous variables (which are all
strictly positive) include income and geographical distance. In equation
(14), x1 can be interpreted as (the logarithm of) one of these variables.
Examples of binary variables include dummies for free-trade agreements,
common language, colonial ties, contiguity, and access to water.
19 We also studied the performance of other variants of the tobit model,
finding very poor results.

647

not only corrects the heteroskedasticity in the data, but,


because i is log normal, it is also the maximum likelihood
estimator. The GPML is the optimal PML estimator in this
case, but it should be outperformed by the true maximum
likelihood estimator. Finally, case 4 is the only one in which
the conditional variance does not depend exclusively on the
mean. The variance is a quadratic function of the mean, as
in case 3, but it is not proportional to the square of the mean.
We carried out two sets of experiments. The first set was
aimed at studying the performance of the estimators of the
multiplicative and the log linear models under different
patterns of heteroskedasticity. In order to study the effect of
the truncation on the performance of the OLS, and given
that this data-generating mechanism does not produce observations with yi 0, the log linear model was also
estimated using only the observations for which yi 0.5
[OLS(y 0.5)]. This reduces the sample size by approximately 25% to 35%, depending on the pattern of heteroskedasticity. The estimation of the threshold tobit was also
performed using this dependent variable. Notice that, although the dependent variable has to cross a threshold to be
observable, the truncation mechanism used here is not equal
to the one assumed by Eaton and Tamura (1994). Therefore,
in all these experiments the ET-tobit will be slightly misspecified and the results presented here should be viewed as
a check of its robustness to this problem.
The second set of experiments studied the estimators
performance in the presence of rounding errors in the
dependent variable. For that purpose, a new random variable was generated by rounding to the nearest integer the
values of yi obtained in the first set of simulations. This
procedure mimics the rounding errors in official statistics
and generates a large number of zeros, a typical feature of
trade data. Because the model considered here generates a
large proportion of observations close to zero, rounding
down is much more frequent than rounding up. As the
probability of rounding up or down depends on the covariates, this procedure will necessarily bias the estimates, as
discussed before. The purpose of the study is to gauge the
magnitude of these biases. Naturally, the log linear model
cannot be estimated in these conditions, because the dependent variable equals 0 for some observations. Following
what is the usual practice in these circumstances, the truncated OLS estimation of the log-linear model was performed dropping the observations for which the dependent
variable equals 0. Notice that the observations discarded
with this procedure are exactly the same that are discarded
by OLS(y 0.5) in the first set of experiments. Therefore,
this estimator is also denoted OLS(y 0.5).
The results of the two sets of experiments are summarized in table 1, which displays the biases and standard
errors of the different estimators of obtained with 10,000
replicas of the simulation procedure described above. Only
results for 1 and 2 are presented, as these are generally the
parameters of interest.

648

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS


TABLE 1.SIMULATION RESULTS

UNDER

DIFFERENT FORMS

OF

HETEROSKEDASTICITY

Results Without Rounding Error


1
Estimator:

Bias

Results with Rounding Error

2
S.E.

Bias

1
S.E.

Bias

S.E.

Bias

S.E.

0.01886
0.00195
0.10946

0.49981
0.22121
0.37752

0.017
0.008
0.096

0.030
0.026
0.015

0.02032
0.00274
0.09338

0.49968
0.21339
0.34997

0.029
0.018
0.108

0.032
0.036
0.024

0.02190
0.00262
0.13243

0.45518
0.24405
0.39401

0.020
0.033
0.073

0.028
0.026
0.016

0.02334
0.00360
0.11331

0.45513
0.23889
0.36806

0.041
0.057
0.087

0.033
0.040
0.028

0.02332
0.23959
0.17134

0.36480
0.41006
0.48564

0.091
3.082
0.068

0.043
0.037
0.022

0.02812
0.07852
0.14442

0.36789
0.41200
0.46597

0.133
1.521
0.104

0.056
0.060
0.040

0.104
7.521
0.085

0.047
0.040
0.022

0.01856
0.09239
0.10245

0.46225
0.46173
0.56039

0.146
1.829
0.129

0.060
0.066
0.044

Case 1: V [ yix] 1
PPML
NLS
GPML
OLS
ET-tobit
OLS( y 0.5)
OLS( y 1)

0.00004
0.00006
0.01276
0.39008
0.47855
0.16402
0.40237

0.016
0.008
0.068
0.039
0.030
0.027
0.014

0.00009
0.00003
0.00754
0.35568
0.47786
0.15487
0.37683

0.027
0.017
0.082
0.054
0.032
0.038
0.022

Case 2: V [ yix] (xi)


PPML
NLS
GPML
OLS
ET-tobit
OLS( y 0.5)
OLS( y 1)

0.00011
0.00046
0.00376
0.21076
0.42394
0.17868
0.42371

0.019
0.033
0.043
0.030
0.028
0.026
0.015

0.00009
0.00066
0.00211
0.19960
0.42316
0.17220
0.39931

0.039
0.057
0.062
0.049
0.033
0.043
0.025

Case 3: V [ yix] (xi)2


PPML
NLS
GPML
OLS
ET-tobit
OLS( y 0.5)
OLS( y 1)

0.00526
0.23539
0.00047
0.00015
0.31908
0.34480
0.51804

0.091
3.066
0.041
0.032
0.044
0.039
0.021

0.00228
0.07323
0.00029
0.00003
0.32161
0.34614
0.50000

0.130
1.521
0.083
0.064
0.058
0.064
0.038

Case 4: V [ yix] (xi) exp(x2i) (xi)2


PPML
NLS
GPML
OLS
ET-tobit
OLS( y 0.5)
OLS( y 1)

0.00696
0.35139
0.00322
0.13270
0.29908
0.39217
0.51440

0.103
7.516
0.057
0.039
0.049
0.042
0.021

0.00647
0.08801
0.00137
0.12542
0.42731
0.41391
0.58087

As expected, OLS only performs well in case 3. In all


other cases this estimator is clearly inadequate because,
despite its low dispersion, it is often badly biased. Moreover, the sign and magnitude of the bias vary considerably.
Therefore, even when the dependent variable is strictly
positive, estimation of constant-elasticity models using the
log-linearized model cannot generally be recommended. As
for the modifications of the log-linearized model designed
to deal with the zeros of the dependent variableET-tobit,
OLS(y 1), and OLS(y 0.5)their performance is also
very disappointing. These results clearly emphasize the
need to use adequate methods to deal with the zeros in the
data and raise serious doubts about the validity of the results
obtained using the traditional estimators based on the log
linear model. Overall, except under very special circumstances, estimation based on the log-linear model cannot be
recommended.
One remarkable result of this set of experiments is the
extremely poor performance of the NLS estimator. Indeed,
when the heteroskedasticity is more severe (cases 3 and 4),

0.144
1.827
0.083
0.075
0.063
0.070
0.041

0.02027
0.35672
0.12831

0.34351
0.45188
0.48627

this estimator, despite being consistent, leads to very poor


results because of its erratic behavior.20 Therefore, it is clear
that the loss of efficiency caused by some of the forms of
heteroskedasticity considered in these experiments is strong
enough to render this estimator useless in practice.
In the first set of experiments, the results of the gamma
PML estimator are very good. Indeed, when no measurement error is present, the biases and standard errors of the
GPML estimator are always among the lowest. However,
this estimator is very sensitive to the form of measurement
error considered in the second set of experiments, consistently leading to sizable biases. These results, like those of
the NLS, clearly illustrate the danger of using a PML
estimator that gives extra weight to the noisier observations.
As for the performance of the Poisson PML estimator, the
results are very encouraging. In fact, when no rounding
error is present, its performance is reasonably good in all
20

Manning and Mullahy (2001) report similar results.

THE LOG OF GRAVITY

cases. Moreover, although some loss of efficiency is noticeable as one moves away from case 2, in which it is an
optimal estimator, the biases of the PPML are always
small.21 Moreover, the results obtained with rounded data
suggest that the Poisson-based PML estimator is relatively
robust to this form of measurement error of the dependent
variable. Indeed, the bias introduced by the rounding-off
errors in the dependent variable is relatively small, and in
some cases it even compensates the bias found in the first
set of experiments. Therefore, because it is simple to implement and reliable in a wide variety of situations, the
Poisson PML estimator has the essential characteristics
needed to make it the new workhorse for the estimation of
constant-elasticity models.
Obviously, the sign and magnitude of the bias of the
estimators studied here depend on the particular specification considered. Therefore, the results of these experiments
cannot serve as an indicator of what can be expected in
other situations. However, it is clear that, apart from the
Poisson PML method, all estimators will often be very
misleading.
These experiments were also used to study the finitesample performance of the Gauss-Newton regression
(GNR) test for the adequacy of the Poisson PML based on
equation (13) and of the Park test advocated by Manning
and Mullahy (2001), which, as explained above, is valid
only to check for the adequacy of the estimator based on the
log linear model.22 Given that the Poisson PML estimator is
the only estimator with a reasonable behavior under all the
cases considered, these tests were performed using residuals
and estimates of (xi) from the Poisson regression. Table
2 contains the rejection frequencies of the null hypothesis at
the 5% nominal level for both tests in the four cases
considered in the two sets of experiments. In this table the
rejection frequencies under the null hypothesis are given in
bold.
In as much as both tests have adequate behavior under the
null and reveal reasonable power against a wide range of
alternatives, the results suggest that these tests are important
tools to assess the adequacy of the standard OLS estimator
of the log linear model and of the proposed Poisson PML
estimator.
V.

The Gravity Equation

In this section, we use the PPML estimator to quantitatively assess the determinants of bilateral trade flows, uncovering significant differences in the roles of various
measures of size and distance from those predicted by the
21 These results are in line with those reported by Manning and Mullahy
(2001).
22 To illustrate the pitfalls of the procedure suggested by Manning and
Mullahy (2001), we note that the means of the estimates of 1 obtained
using equation (11) in cases 1, 2, and 3 (without measurement error) were
0.58955, 1.29821, and 1.98705, whereas the true values of 1 in these
cases are, respectively, 0, 1, and 2.

649

TABLE 2.REJECTION FREQUENCIES AT THE 5% LEVEL


FOR THE TWO SPECIFICATION TESTS
Frequency
Case

GNR Test

Park Test

Without Measurement Error


1
2
3
4

0.91980
0.05430
0.58110
0.49100

1.00000
1.00000
0.06680
0.40810

With Measurement Error


1
2
3
4

0.91740
0.14980
0.57170
0.47580

1.00000
1.00000
1.00000
1.00000

logarithmic tradition. We perform the comparison of the two


techniques using both the traditional and the Andersonvan
Wincoop (2003) specifications of the gravity equation.
For the sake of completeness, we also compare the PPML
estimates with those obtained from alternative ways researchers have used to deal with zero values for trade. In
particular, we present the results obtained with the tobit
estimator used in Eaton and Tamura (1994), OLS estimator
applied to ln(1 Tij), and a standard nonlinear least squares
estimator. The results obtained with these estimators are
presented for both the traditional and the Andersonvan
Wincoop specifications.
A. The Data

The analysis covers a cross section of 136 countries in


1990. Hence, our data set consists of 18,360 observations of
bilateral export flows (136 135 country pairs). The list of
countries is reported in table A1 in the appendix. Information on bilateral exports comes from Feenstra et al. (1997).
Data on real GDP per capita and population come from the
World Banks (2002) World Development Indicators. Data
on location and dummies indicating contiguity, common
language (official and second languages), colonial ties (direct and indirect links), and access to water are constructed
from the CIAs (2002) World Factbook. The data on language and colonial links are presented on tables A2 and A3
in the appendix.23 Bilateral distance is computed using the
great circle distance algorithm provided by Andrew Gray
(2001). Remotenessor relative distanceis calculated as
the (log of) GDP-weighted average distance to all other
countries (see Wei, 1996). Finally, information on preferential trade agreements comes from Frankel (1997), complemented with data from the World Trade Organization. The
list of preferential trade agreements (and stronger forms of
trade agreements) considered in the analysis is displayed in
table A4 in the appendix. Table A5 in the appendix provides
23 Alternative estimates based on Boisso and Ferrantinos (1997) index
of language similarity are available, at request, from the authors.

650

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS


TABLE 3.THE TRADITIONAL GRAVITY EQUATION
Estimator:
Dependent Variable:

Log exporters GDP


Log importers GDP
Log exporters GDP per capita
Log importers GDP per capita
Log distance
Contiguity dummy
Common-language dummy
Colonial-tie dummy
Landlocked-exporter dummy
Landlocked-importer dummy
Exporters remoteness
Importers remoteness
Free-trade agreement dummy
Openness
Observations
RESET test p-values

OLS
ln(Tij)

OLS
ln(1 Tij)

Tobit
ln(a Tij)

NLS
Tij

PPML
Tij 0

PPML
Tij

0.938**
(0.012)
0.798**
(0.012)
0.207**
(0.017)
0.106**
(0.018)
1.166**
(0.034)
0.314*
(0.127)
0.678**
(0.067)
0.397**
(0.070)
0.062
(0.062)
0.665**
(0.060)
0.467**
(0.079)
0.205*
(0.085)
0.491**
(0.097)
0.170**
(0.053)
9613
0.000

1.128**
(0.011)
0.866**
(0.012)
0.277**
(0.018)
0.217**
(0.018)
1.151**
(0.040)
0.241
(0.201)
0.742**
(0.067)
0.392**
(0.070)
0.106*
(0.054)
0.278**
(0.055)
0.526**
(0.087)
0.109
(0.091)
1.289**
(0.124)
0.739**
(0.050)
18360
0.000

1.058**
(0.012)
0.847**
(0.011)
0.227**
(0.015)
0.178**
(0.015)
1.160**
(0.034)
0.225
(0.152)
0.759**
(0.060)
0.416**
(0.063)
0.038
(0.052)
0.479**
(0.051)
0.563**
(0.068)
0.032
(0.073)
0.729**
(0.103)
0.310**
(0.045)
18360
0.204

0.738**
(0.038)
0.862**
(0.041)
0.396**
(0.116)
0.033
(0.062)
0.924**
(0.072)
0.081
(0.100)
0.689**
(0.085)
0.036
(0.125)
1.367**
(0.202)
0.471**
(0.184)
1.188**
(0.182)
1.010**
(0.154)
0.443**
(0.109)
0.928**
(0.191)
18360
0.000

0.721**
(0.027)
0.732**
(0.028)
0.154**
(0.053)
0.133**
(0.044)
0.776**
(0.055)
0.202
(0.105)
0.752**
(0.134)
0.019
(0.150)
0.873**
(0.157)
0.704**
(0.141)
0.647**
(0.135)
0.549**
(0.120)
0.179*
(0.090)
0.139
(0.133)
9613
0.941

0.733**
(0.027)
0.741**
(0.027)
0.157**
(0.053)
0.135**
(0.045)
0.784**
(0.055)
0.193
(0.104)
0.746**
(0.135)
0.024
(0.150)
0.864**
(0.157)
0.697**
(0.141)
0.660**
(0.134)
0.561**
(0.118)
0.181*
(0.088)
0.107
(0.131)
18360
0.331

a description of the variables and displays the summary


statistics.

The Traditional Gravity Equation: Table 3 presents the


estimation outcomes resulting from the various techniques
for the traditional gravity equation. The first column reports
OLS estimates using the logarithm of exports as the dependent variable; as noted before, this regression leaves out
pairs of countries with zero bilateral trade (only 9,613
country pairs, or 52% of the sample, exhibit positive export
flows).
The second column reports the OLS estimates using
ln(1 Tij) as dependent variable, as a way of dealing with
zeros. The third column presents tobit estimates based on
Eaton and Tamura (1994). The fourth column shows the
results of standard NLS. The fifth column reports Poisson
estimates using only the subsample of positive-trade pairs.
Finally, the sixth column shows the Poisson results for the
whole sample (including zero-trade pairs).
The first point to notice is that PPML-estimated coefficients are remarkably similar using the whole sample and
using the positive-trade subsample.24 However, most coef-

ficients differoftentimes significantlyfrom those obtained using OLS. This suggests that in this case, heteroskedasticity (rather than truncation) is responsible for the
differences between PPML results and those of OLS using
only the observations with positive exports. Further evidence on the importance of the heteroskedasticity is provided by the two-degrees-of-freedom special case of
Whites test for heteroskedasticity (see Wooldridge, 2002, p.
127), which leads to a test statistic of 476.6 and to a p-value
of 0. That is, the null hypothesis of homoskedastic errors is
unequivocally rejected.
Poisson estimates reveal that the coefficients on importers and exporters GDPs in the traditional equation are not,
as generally believed, close to 1. The estimated GDP elasticities are just above 0.7 (s.e. 0.03). OLS generates
significantly larger estimates, especially on exporters GDP
(0.94, s.e. 0.01). Although all these results are conditional
on the particular specification used,25 it is worth pointing out
that unit income elasticities in the simple gravity framework
are at odds with the observation that the trade-to-GDP ratio
decreases with increasing total GDP, or, in other words, that
smaller countries tend to be more open to international
trade.26

24 The reason why truncation has little effect in this case is that
observations with zero trade correspond to pairs for which the estimated
value of trade is close to zero. Therefore, the corresponding residuals are
also close to zero, and their elimination from the sample has little effect.

25 This result holds when one looks at the subsample of OECD countries.
It is also robust to the exclusion of GDP per capita from the regressions.
26 Note also that PPML predicts almost equal coefficients for the GDPs
of exporters and importers.

B. Results

THE LOG OF GRAVITY


TABLE 4.RESULTS

OF

HETEROSKEDASTICITY

Test (Null Hypothesis)

Exports 0

Full Sample

GNR (V [ yix] (xi))


Park (OLS is valid)

0.144
0.000

0.115
0.000

OF THE

TESTS FOR TYPE


(p-VALUES)

The role of geographical distance as trade deterrent is


significantly larger under OLS; the estimated elasticity is
1.17 (s.e. 0.03), whereas the Poisson estimate is 0.78
(s.e. 0.06). This lower estimate suggests a smaller role for
transport costs in the determination of trade patterns. Furthermore, Poisson estimates indicate that, after controlling
for bilateral distance, sharing a border does not influence
trade flows, whereas OLS, instead, generates a substantial
effect: It predicts that trade between two contiguous countries is 37% larger than trade between countries that do not
share a border.27
We control for remoteness to allow for the hypothesis that
larger distances to all other countries might increase bilateral trade between two countries.28 Poisson regressions
support this hypothesis, whereas OLS estimates suggest that
only exporters remoteness increases bilateral flows between two given countries. Access to water appears to be
important for trade flows, according to Poisson regressions;
the negative coefficients on the land-locked dummies can be
interpreted as an indication that ocean transportation is
significantly cheaper. In contrast, OLS results suggest that
whether or not the exporter is landlocked does not influence
trade flows, whereas a landlocked importer experiences
lower trade. (These asymmetries in the effects of remoteness and access to water for importers and exporters are
hard to interpret.) We also explore the role of colonial
heritage, obtaining, as before, significant discrepancies:
Poisson regressions indicate that colonial ties play no role in
determining trade flows, once a dummy variable for common language is introduced. OLS regressions, instead, generate a sizeable effect (countries with a common colonial
past trade almost 45% more than other pairs). Language is
statistically and economically significant under both estimation procedures.
Strikingly, in the traditional gravity equation, preferentialtrade agreements play a much smalleralthough still substantialrole according to Poisson regressions. OLS estimates suggest that preferential trade agreements raise
expected bilateral trade by 63%, whereas Poisson estimates
indicate an average enhancement below 20%.
Preferential trade agreements might also cause trade diversion; if this is the case, the coefficient on the trade27 The formula to compute this effect is (ebi 1) 100%, where b is
i
the estimated coefficient.
28 To illustrate the role of remoteness, consider two pairs of countries, (i,
j) and (k, l), and assume that the distance between the countries in each
pair is the same (Dij Dkl), but i and j are closer to other countries. In this
case, the most remote countries, k and l, will tend to trade more between
each other because they do not have alternative trading partners. See
Deardoff (1998).

651

agreement dummy will not reflect the net effect of trade


agreements. To account for the possibility of diversion, we
include an additional dummy, openness, similar to that used
by Frankel (1997). This dummy takes the value 1 whenever
one (or both) of the countries in the pair is part of a
preferential trade agreement, and thus it captures the extent
of trade between members and nonmembers of a preferential trade agreement. The sum of the coefficients on the trade
agreement and the openness dummies gives the net creation
effect of trade agreements. OLS suggests that trade destruction comes from trade agreements. Still, the net creation
effect is around 40%. In contrast, Poisson regressions provide no significant evidence of trade diversion, although the
point estimates are of the same order of magnitude under
both methods.
Hence, even when allowing for trade diversion effects, on
average, the Poisson method estimates a smaller effect of
preferential trade agreements on trade, approximately half
of that indicated by OLS. The contrast in estimates suggests
that the biases generated by standard regressions can be
substantial, leading to misleading inferences and, perhaps,
erroneous policy decisions.
We now turn briefly to the results of the other estimation
methods. OLS on ln(1 Tij) and tobit give very close
estimates for most coefficients. Like OLS, they yield large
estimates for the elasticity of bilateral trade with respect to
distance. Unlike OLS, however, they produce insignificant
coefficients for the contiguity dummy. They both generate
extremely large and statistically significant coefficients for
the trade-agreement dummy. The first method predicts that
trade between two countries that have signed a trade agreement is on average 266% larger than that between countries
without an agreement. The second predicts that trade between countries in such agreements is on average 100%
larger. NLS tends to generate somewhat different estimates.
The elasticity of trade with respect to the exporters GDP is
significantly smaller than with OLS, but the corresponding
elasticity with respect to importers GDP is significantly
larger than with OLS. The estimated distance elasticity is
smaller than with OLS and bigger than with Poisson. Like
the other methods, NLS predicts a significant and large
effect for free-trade agreements.
It is noteworthy that all methods, except the PPML, lead
to puzzling asymmetries in the elasticities with respect to
importer and exporter characteristics (especially remoteness
and access to water).
To check the adequacy of the estimated models, we
performed a heteroskedasticity-robust RESET test (Ramsey,
1969). This is essentially a test for the correct specification
of the conditional expectation, which is performed by
checking the significance of an additional regressor constructed as (xb)2, where b denotes the vector of estimated
parameters. The corresponding p-values are reported at the
bottom of table 3. In the OLS regression, the test rejects the
hypothesis that the coefficient on the test variable is 0. This

652

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS


TABLE 5.THE ANDERSONVAN WINCOOP GRAVITY EQUATION
Estimator:
Dependent variable:

Log distance
Contiguity dummy
Common-language dummy
Colonial-tie dummy
Free-trade agreement dummy
Fixed effects
Observations
RESET test p-values

OLS
ln (Tij)

OLS
ln (1 Tij)

Tobit
ln (a Tij)

NLS
Tij

PPML
Tij 0

PPML
Tij

1.347**
(0.031)
0.174
(0.130)
0.406**
(0.068)
0.666**
(0.070)
0.310**
(0.098)
Yes
9613
0.000

1.332**
(0.036)
0.399*
(0.189)
0.550**
(0.066)
0.693**
(0.067)
0.174
(0.138)
Yes
18360
0.000

1.272**
(0.029)
0.253
(0.135)
0.485**
(0.057)
0.650**
(0.059)
0.137**
(0.098)
Yes
18360
0.000

0.582**
(0.088)
0.458**
(0.121)
0.926**
(0.116)
0.736**
(0.178)
1.017**
(0.170)
Yes
18360
0.000

0.770**
(0.042)
0.352**
(0.090)
0.418**
(0.094)
0.038
(0.134)
0.374**
(0.076)
Yes
9613
0.564

0.750**
(0.041)
0.370**
(0.091)
0.383**
(0.093)
0.079
(0.134)
0.376**
(0.077)
Yes
18360
0.112

means that the model estimated using the logarithmic specification is inappropriate. A similar result is found for the
OLS estimated using ln(1 Tij) as the dependent variable
and for the NLS. In contrast, the models estimated using the
Poisson regressions pass the RESET test, that is, the RESET
test provides no evidence of misspecification of the gravity
equations estimated using the PPML. With this particular
specification, the model estimated using tobit also passes
the test for the traditional gravity equation.
Finally, we also check whether the particular pattern of
heteroskedasticity assumed by the models is appropriate. As
explained in section III B, the adequacy of the log linear
model was checked using the Park-type test, whereas the
hypothesis V[yix] (xi) was tested by evaluating the
significance of the coefficient of (ln yi)yi in the GaussNewton regression indicated in equation (13). The p-values
of the tests are reported in table 4. Again, the log linear
specification is unequivocally rejected. On the other hand,
these results indicate that the estimated coefficient on (ln yi)
yi is insignificantly different from 0 at the usual 5% level.
This implies that the Poisson PML assumption V[yix]
0E[yix] cannot be rejected at this significance level.
The Andersonvan Wincoop Gravity Equation: Table 5
presents the estimated coefficients for the Andersonvan
Wincoop (2003) gravity equation, which controls more
properly for multilateral resistance terms by introducing
exporter- and importer-specific effects. As before, the columns show, respectively, the estimated coefficients obtained
using OLS on the log of exports, OLS on ln(1 Tij), tobit,
NLS, PPML on the positive-trade sample, and PPML. Note
that, because this exercise uses cross-sectional data, we can
only identify bilateral variables.29
29 Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) impose unit income elasticities by
using as the dependent variable the log of exports divided by the product
of the countries GDPs. Because we are working with cross-sectional data
and the model specification includes importer and exporter fixed effects,
income elasticities cannot be identified, and there is no need to impose
restrictions on them. Still, the estimation of the PML models could be
performed using as the dependent variable the ratio of exports to the
product of the GDPs. This would downweight the observations with large

As with the standard specification of the gravity equation,


we find that, using the Andersonvan Wincoop (2003)
specification, estimates obtained with the Poisson method
vary little when only the positive-trade subsample is used.
Moreover, we find again strong evidence that the errors of
the log linear model estimated using the sample with positive trade are heteroskedastic. With this specification, the
two-degree-of-freedom special case of Whites test for heteroskedasticity leads to a test statistic of 469.2 and a p-value
of 0.
Because we are now conditioning on a much larger set of
controls, it is not surprising to find that most coefficients are
sensitive to the introduction of fixed effects. For example, in
the Poisson method, although the distance elasticity remains
about the same and the coefficient on common colonial ties
is still insignificant, the effect on common language is now
smaller and the coefficient on free-trade agreements is
larger. The results of the other estimation methods are
generally much more sensitive to the inclusion of the fixed
effects.
Comparing the results of PPML and OLS for the positivetrade subsample, the following observations are in order.
The distance elasticity is substantially larger under OLS
(1.35 versus 0.75). Sharing a border has a positive effect
on trade under Poisson, but no significant effect under OLS.
Sharing a common language has similar effects under the
two techniques. Common colonial ties have strong effects
under OLS (with an average enhancement effect of 100%),
whereas Poisson predicts no significant effect. Finally, the
values of the product of the GDPs, implicitly assuming that the variance
of the error term is proportional to the square of this product. This is
contrary to what is advocated by Frankel and Wei (1993) and Frankel
(1997), who suggest that larger countries should be given more weight in
the estimation of gravity equations because they generally have better
data. In any case, whether this should be done or not is an empirical
question, and the right course of action depends on the pattern of
heteroskedasticity. With our data, using the ratio of exports to the product
of GDPs as the dependent variable leads to models that are rejected by the
specification tests. Therefore, the implied assumptions about the pattern of
heteroskedasticity are not supported by our data. Hence, we use exports as
the dependent variable of the gravity equation, and not the ratio of exports
to the product of GDPs.

THE LOG OF GRAVITY


TABLE 6.RESULTS

OF

HETEROSKEDASTICITY

Test (Null Hypothesis)

Exports 0

Full Sample

GNR (V [ yix] (xi))


Park (OLS is valid)

0.100
0.000

0.070
0.000

OF THE

TESTS FOR TYPE


(p-VALUES)

two techniques produce reasonably similar estimates for the


coefficient on the trade-agreement dummy, implying a tradeenhancement effect of the order of 40%.
As before, the other estimation methods lead to some
puzzling results. For example, OLS on ln(1 Tij) now
yields a significantly negative effect of contiguity, and under
NLS, the coefficient on common colonial ties becomes
significantly negative.
To complete the study, we performed the same set of
specification tests used before. The p-values of the heteroskedasticity-robust RESET test at the bottom of table 5
suggest that with the Andersonvan Wincoop (2003) specification of the gravity equation, only the models estimated
by the PPML method are adequate. The p-values of the tests
to check whether the particular pattern of heteroskedasticity
assumed by the models is appropriate are reported in table
6. As in the traditional gravity equation, the log linear
specification is unequivocally rejected. On the other hand,
these results indicate that the estimated coefficient on (ln yi)
yi is insignificantly different from 0 at the usual 5% level.
This implies that the Poisson PML assumption V[yix]
0E[yix] cannot be rejected at this significance level.
To sum up, whether or not fixed effects are used in the
specification of the model, we find strong evidence that
estimation methods based on the log-linearization of the
gravity equation suffer from severe misspecification, which
hinders the interpretation of the results. NLS is also generally unreliable. In contrast, the models estimated by PPML
show no signs of misspecification and, in general, do not
produce the puzzling results generated by the other methods.30
VI.

Conclusions

In this paper, we argue that the standard empirical methods used to estimate gravity equations are inappropriate.
30 It is worth noting that the large differences in estimates among the
various methods persist when we look at a smaller subsample of countries
that account for most of world trade and, quite likely, have better data.
More specifically, we run similar regressions for the subsample of 63
countries included in Frankels (1997) study. These countries accounted
for almost 90% of the world trade reported to the United Nations in 1992.
One advantage of this subsample is that the number of zeros is significantly reduced. Heteroskedasticity, however, is still a problem: The null
hypothesis of homoskedasticity is rejected in both the traditional and the
fixed-effects gravity equations. As with the full sample, PPML generates
a smaller role for distance and common language than OLS, and, unlike
OLS, PPML predicts no role for colonial ties. In line with the findings
documented in Frankel (1997), the OLS estimated coefficient on the
free-trade-agreement dummy is negative in both specifications of the
gravity equation, whereas PPML predicts a positive and significant effect
(slightly bigger than that found for the whole sample). These results are
availableon requestfrom the authors.

653

The basic problem is that log-linearization (or, indeed, any


nonlinear transformation) of the empirical model in the
presence of heteroskedasticity leads to inconsistent estimates. This is because the expected value of the logarithm
of a random variable depends on higher-order moments of
its distribution. Therefore, if the errors are heteroskedastic,
the transformed errors will be generally correlated with the
covariates. An additional problem of log-linearization is that
it is incompatible with the existence of zeros in trade data,
which led to several unsatisfactory solutions, including
truncation of the sample (that is, elimination of zero-trade
pairs) and further nonlinear transformations of the dependent variable.
We argue that the biases are present both in the traditional
specification of the gravity equation and in the Anderson
van Wincoop (2003) specification, which includes countryspecific fixed effects.
To address the various estimation problems, we propose
a simple Poisson pseudo-maximum-likelihood method and
assess its performance using Monte Carlo simulations. We
find that in the presence of heteroskedasticity the standard
methods can severely bias the estimated coefficients, casting doubt on previous empirical findings. Our method,
instead, is robust to different patterns of heteroskedasticity
and, in addition, provides a natural way to deal with zeros in
trade data.
We use our method to reestimate the gravity equation and
document significant differences from the results obtained
using the log linear method. For example, income elasticities in the traditional gravity equation are systematically
smaller than those obtained with log-linearized OLS regressions. In addition, in both the traditional and Andersonvan
Wincoop specifications of the gravity equation, OLS estimation exaggerates the role of geographical proximity and
colonial ties. RESET tests systematically favor the Poisson
PML technique. The results suggest that heteroskedasticity
(rather than truncation of the data) is responsible for the
main differences.
Log-linearized equations estimated by OLS are of course
used in many other areas of empirical economics and econometrics. Our Monte Carlo simulations and the regression outcomes indicate that in the presence of heteroskedasticity this
practice can lead to significant biases. These results suggest
that, at least when there is evidence of heteroskedasticity, the
Poisson pseudo-maximum-likelihood estimator should be used
as a substitute for the standard log linear model.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J., A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation,
American Economic Review 69 (1979), 106116.
Anderson, J., and E. van Wincoop, Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to
the Border Puzzle, American Economic Review 93 (2003), 170
192.
Bergstrand, J., The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some
Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence, this REVIEW, 69 (1985), 474481.

654

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS

Boisso, D., and M. Ferrantino, Economic and Cultural Distance in


International Trade: Empirical Puzzles, Journal of Economic
Integration 12 (1997), 456484.
Cameron, A. C., and P. K. Trivedi, Regression Analysis of Count Data
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, http://www.cia.gov/cia/
publications/factbook/ (2002).
Davidson, R., and J. G. MacKinnon, Estimation and Inference in Econometrics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Davis, D., Intra-industry Trade: A Hecksher-Ohlin-Ricardo Approach,
Journal of International Economics 39 (1995), 201226.
Deardoff, A., Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a
Neoclassical World? in Jeffrey Frankel (Ed.), The Regionalization
of the World Economy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1998).
Delgado, M., Semiparametric Generalized Least Squares Estimation in
the Multivariate Nonlinear Regression Model, Econometric Theory 8 (1992), 203222.
Delgado, M., and T. J. Kniesner, Count Data Models with Variance of
Unknown Form: An Application to a Hedonic Model of Worker
Absenteeism, this REVIEW, 79 (1997), 4149.
Eaton, J., and S. Kortum, Technology, Geography and Trade, NBER
working paper no. 6253 (2001).
Eaton, J., and A. Tamura, Bilateralism and Regionalism in Japanese and
US Trade and Direct Foreign Investment Patterns, Journal of the
Japanese and International Economics 8 (1994), 478510.
Eichengreen, B., and D. Irwin, Trade Blocs, Currency Blocs, and the
Reorientation of World Trade in the 1930s, Journal of International Economics, 38 (1995), 124.
Eicker, F., Asymptotic Normality and Consistency of the Least Squares
Estimators for Families of Linear Regressions, The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics 34 (1963), 447456.
Feenstra, R. C., R. E. Lipsey, and H. P. Bowen, World Trade Flows,
19701992, with Production and Tariff Data, NBER working
paper no. 5910 (1997).
Feenstra, R., J. Markusen, and A. Rose, Using the Gravity Equation to
Differentiate among Alternative Theories of Trade, Canadian
Journal of Economics 34 (2001), 430447.
Frankel, J., Regional Trading Blocs in the World Economic System
(Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 1997).
Frankel, J., and A. Rose, An Estimate of the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade and Income, Quarterly Journal of Economics 117
(2002), 409466.
Frankel, J., E. Stein, and S. Wei, Continental Trading Blocs: Are They
Natural, or Super-Natural? in J. Frankel (Ed.), The Regionalization of the World Economy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1998).
Frankel, J., and S. Wei, Trade Blocs and Currency Blocs, NBER
working paper no. 4335 (1993).
Goldberger, A. The Interpretation and Estimation of Cobb-Douglas
Functions, Econometrica 36 (1968), 464472.
Goldberger, A., A Course in Econometrics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1991).
Gourieroux, C., A. Monfort, and A. Trognon, Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models, Econometrica 52
(1984), 701720.
Gray, A., http://argray.fateback.com/dist/formula.html (2001).

Hallak, J. C., Product Quality and the Direction of Trade, Journal of


International Economics 68 (2006), 238265.
Harrigan, J., OECD Imports and Trade Barriers in 1983, Journal of
International Economics 35 (1993), 95111.
Haveman, J., and D. Hummels, Alternative Hypotheses and the Volume
of Trade: The Gravity Equation and the Extent of Specialization,
Purdue University mimeograph, (2001).
Helpman, E., and P. Krugman, Market Structure and Foreign Trade
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985).
Helpman, E., M. Melitz, and Y. Rubinstein, Trading Patterns and Trading
Volumes, Harvard University mimeograph (2004).
Koenker, R., and G. S. Bassett, Jr., Regression Quantiles, Econometrica
46 (1978), 3350.
Manning, W. G., and J. Mullahy, Estimating Log Models: To Transform
or Not to Transform? Journal of Health Economics 20 (2001),
461494.
McCallum, J., National Borders Matter: Canada-US Regional Trade
Patterns, American Economic Review 85 (1995), 615623.
McCullagh, P., and J. A. Nelder, Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed.
(London: Chapman and Hall, 1989).
Papke, L. E., and J. M. Wooldridge, Econometric Methods for Fractional
Response Variables with an Application to 401(k) Plan Participation Rates, Journal of Applied Econometrics 11 (1996), 619632.
Park, R., Estimation with Heteroskedastic Error Terms, Econometrica
34 (1966), 888.
Ramsey, J. B., Tests for Specification Errors in Classical Linear Least
Squares Regression Analysis, Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society B 31 (1969), 350371.
Robinson, P. M., Asymptotically Efficient Estimation in the Presence of
Heteroskedasticity of Unknown Form, Econometrica 55 (1987),
875891.
Rose, A., One Money One Market: Estimating the Effect of Common
Currencies on Trade, Economic Policy 15 (2000), 746.
StataCorp., Stata Statistical Software: Release 8 (College Station, TX:
StataCorp LP, 2003).
Tenreyro, S., and R. Barro, Economic Effects of Currency Unions, FRB
Boston series working paper no. 024 (2002).
Tinbergen, J., The World Economy. Suggestions for an International
Economic Policy (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1962).
Wei, S., Intra-national versus International Trade: How Stubborn Are
Nation States in Globalization? NBER working paper no. 5331
(1996).
White, H., A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator
and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity, Econometrica 48 (1980),
817838.
Winkelmann, R., Econometric Analysis of Count Data, 4th ed. (Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 2003).
Windmeijer, F., and J. M. C. Santos Silva, Endogeneity in Count Data
Models: An Application to Demand for Health Care, Journal of
Applied Econometrics 12 (1997), 281294.
Wooldridge, J. M., Distribution-Free Estimation of Some Nonlinear
Panel Data Models, Journal of Econometrics 90 (1999), 7797.
Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002).
World Bank, World Development Indicators CD-ROM (The World Bank,
2002).

THE LOG OF GRAVITY

655

APPENDIX
TABLE A1.LIST
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium-Lux.
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Central African Rep.
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo Dem. Rep.
Congo Rep.
Costa Rica
Cote DIvoire
Cyprus

Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Rep.
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eq. Guinea
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan

OF

COUNTRIES
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea, Rep.
Laos P. Dem. Rep.
Lebanon
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal

Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
St. Kitts and Nevis
Sudan
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Rep.
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Em.
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

656

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS


TABLE A2.COMMON OFFICIAL

AND

SECOND LANGUAGES

English

French

Spanish

Dutch

Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Brunei
Cameroon
Canada
Fiji
Gambia
Ghana
Guyana
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kiribati
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta
Mauritius
New Zealand
Nigeria
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Rwanda
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
South Africa
Sri Lanka
St. Helena
St. Kitts and Nevis
Suriname
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Belgium-Lux.
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Canada
Central African Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo Dem. Rep.
Congo Rep.
Cote DIvoire
Djibouti
Eq. Guinea
France
Gabon
Guinea
Haiti
Lebanon
Madagascar
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
New Caledonia
Niger
Rwanda
Senegal
Seychelles
Switzerland
Togo
Tunisia

Argentina
Belize
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Rep.
Ecuador
El Salvador
Eq. Guinea
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Spain
Uruguay
Venezuela

Belgium-Lux.
Netherlands
Suriname

Malay
Brunei
Indonesia
Malaysia
Singapore
Portuguese
Angola
Brazil
Guinea-Bissau
Mozambique
Portugal

German
Austria
Germany
Switzerland
Greek
Cyprus
Greece
Hungarian
Hungary
Romania
Italian

Arabic
Algeria
Bahrain
Chad
Comoros
Djibouti
Egypt
Israel
Jordan
Lebanon
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Tunisia
United Arab Em.
Yemen
Turkish
Cyprus
Turkey

Italy
Switzerland
Lingala
Congo Dem. Rep.
Congo Rep.
Russian
Mongolia
Russian Federation
Swahili
Kenya
Tanzania
Chinese
China
Hong Kong
Malaysia
Singapore

THE LOG OF GRAVITY

657

TABLE A3.COLONIAL TIES


United Kingdom
Australia
Bahamas
Bahrain
Barbados
Belize
Cameroon
Canada
Cyprus
Egypt
Fiji
Gambia
Ghana
Guyana
India
Ireland
Israel
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta

Mauritius
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Uganda
United States
Zambia
Zimbabwe

France

Spain

Algeria
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Cameroon
Central African Rep.
Chad
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Gabon
Guinea
Haiti
Laos
Lebanon
Madagascar
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Niger
Senegal
Syria
Togo
Tunisia
Vietnam

Argentina
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Ecuador
El Salvador
Eq. Guinea
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Venezuela
Portugal

TABLE A4.PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS

IN

Angola
Brazil
Guinea-Bissau
Mozambique
Oman

1990

EEC/EC

CARICOM

CACM

Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
United Kingdom

Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Dominican Rep.
Guyana
Haiti
Jamaica
Trinidad and Tobago
St. Kitts and Nevis
Suriname

Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua

EFTA

SPARTECA

Iceland
Norway
Switzerland
Liechtenstein

Australia
New Zealand
Fiji
Kiribati
Papua New Guinea
Solomon Islands

CER

PATCRA

Australia
New Zealand

Australia
Papua New Guinea

Bilateral Agreements
EC-Cyprus
EC-Malta
EC-Egypt
EC-Syria
EC-Algeria
EC-Norway
EC-Iceland
EC-Switzerland
CanadaUnited States
IsraelUnited States

658

THE REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS


TABLE A5.SUMMARY STATISTICS
Exports 0

Full Sample
Variable

Mean

Std. Dev.

Mean

Std. Dev.

Trade
Log of trade
Log of exporters GDP
Log of importers GDP
Log of exporters per capita GDP
Log of importers per capita GDP
Log of distance
Contiguity dummy
Common-language dummy
Colonial-tie dummy
Landlocked exporter dummy
Landlocked importer dummy
Exporters remoteness
Importers remoteness
Preferentialtrade-agreement dummy
Openness dummy

172132.2

23.24975
23.24975
7.50538
7.50538
8.78551
0.01961
0.20970
0.17048
0.15441
0.15441
8.94654
8.94654
0.02505
0.56373

1828720

2.39727
2.39727
1.63986
1.63986
0.74168
0.13865
0.40710
0.37606
0.36135
0.36135
0.26389
0.26389
0.15629
0.49594

328757.7
8.43383
24.42503
24.13243
8.09600
7.98602
8.69497
0.02361
0.21284
0.16894
0.10767
0.11401
8.90383
8.90787
0.04452
0.65796

2517139
3.26819
2.29748
2.43148
1.65986
1.68649
0.77283
0.15185
0.40933
0.37472
0.30998
0.31784
0.29313
0.28412
0.20626
0.47442

This article has been cited by:


1. Xiaoning He, Jing Wu, Yawen Jiang, Li Liu, Wenyu Ye, Haibo Xue, William Montgomery. 2015. Health care resource utilization and
direct medical costs for patients with schizophrenia initiating treatment with atypical versus typical antipsychotics in Tianjin, China.
BMC Health Services Research 15. . [CrossRef]
2. A. McGarvey, R. Brugha, R. M. Conroy, E. Clarke, E. Byrne. 2015. International students experience of a western medical school:
a mixed methods study exploring the early years in the context of cultural and social adjustment compared to students from the host
country. BMC Medical Education 15. . [CrossRef]
3. Rishav Bista, Rebecca Tomasik. 2015. The not so distant effect of distance within a time zone. Applied Economics Letters 22, 1335-1339.
[CrossRef]
4. Nathaniel P.S. Cook, Jason Cannon Jones. 2015. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and export diversification. The
Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 24, 947-967. [CrossRef]
5. Fabrizio Natale, Alessandra Borrello, Arina Motova. 2015. Analysis of the determinants of international seafood trade using a gravity
model. Marine Policy 60, 98-106. [CrossRef]
6. Loris Y. Hwang, Mark E. Scott, Yifei Ma, Anna-Barbara Moscicki. 2015. Diversity of Cervicovaginal Cytokine Response to Incident
Chlamydia trachomatis Infection Among a Prospective Cohort of Young Women. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology
74:10.1111/aji.2015.74.issue-3, 228-236. [CrossRef]
7. Sren Prehn, Bernhard Brmmer, Stanley R. Thompson. 2015. Payment decoupling and intra-European calf trade. European Review
of Agricultural Economics 42, 625-650. [CrossRef]
8. Octvio Figueiredo, Paulo Guimares, Douglas Woodward. 2015. Industry localization, distance decay, and knowledge spillovers:
Following the patent paper trail. Journal of Urban Economics 89, 21-31. [CrossRef]
9. Thomas Bolli, Jrg Schlpfer. 2015. Job mobility, peer effects, and research productivity in economics. Scientometrics 104, 629-650.
[CrossRef]
10. Atte Oksanen, Mikko Aaltonen, Kati Rantala. 2015. Social Determinants of Debt Problems in a Nordic Welfare State: a Finnish
Register-Based Study. Journal of Consumer Policy 38, 229-246. [CrossRef]
11. Pascal L. Ghazalian. 2015. The New Tomato Suspension Agreement: What Are the Implications for Trade Flows?. Canadian Journal
of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie 63:10.1111/cjag.2015.63.issue-3, 359-380. [CrossRef]
12. Peter H. Egger, Filip Tarlea. 2015. Multi-way clustering estimation of standard errors in gravity models. Economics Letters 134,
144-147. [CrossRef]
13. Catherine Sherrin, Patrick McAllister, Anupam Nanda. 2015. The persistence of distance. Journal of Financial Management of Property
and Construction 20, 147-169. [CrossRef]
14. Giorgio Fagiolo, Gianluca Santoni. 2015. Revisiting the role of migrant social networks as determinants of international migration
flows. Applied Economics Letters 1-6. [CrossRef]
15. Erik Figueiredo, Luiz Renato Lima, Georg Schaur. 2015. The effect of the Euro on the bilateral trade distribution. Empirical Economics
. [CrossRef]
16. Peter Egger, Michael Pfaffermayr. 2015. A generalized spatial error components model for gravity equations. Empirical Economics .
[CrossRef]
17. Farid Khan, Arjun S. Bedi, Robert Sparrow. 2015. Sickness and Death: Economic Consequences and Coping Strategies of the Urban
Poor in Bangladesh. World Development 72, 255-266. [CrossRef]
18. Galle Ferrant, Michele Tuccio. 2015. SouthSouth Migration and Discrimination Against Women in Social Institutions: A Twoway Relationship. World Development 72, 240-254. [CrossRef]
19. Nicola D. Coniglio, Giovanni Pesce. 2015. Climate variability and international migration: an empirical analysis. Environment and
Development Economics 20, 434-468. [CrossRef]
20. Kyriakos Drivas, Claire Economidou. 2015. Is geographic nearness important for trading ideas? Evidence from the US. The Journal
of Technology Transfer 40, 629-662. [CrossRef]
21. Xuebing Yang. 2015. Estimating Distribution Costs with the Eaton-Kortum Model. Review of Development Economics 19:10.1111/
rode.2015.19.issue-3, 653-665. [CrossRef]
22. Tadashi Ito, Toshihiro Okubo. 2015. The Impact of the Euro on the Quality of Trade: Evidence from the European Union. The
Manchester School n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
23. Jeffrey H. Bergstrand, Mario Larch, Yoto V. Yotov. 2015. Economic integration agreements, border effects, and distance elasticities in
the gravity equation. European Economic Review 78, 307-327. [CrossRef]
24. Anca D. Cristea, Russell Hillberry, Aaditya Mattoo. 2015. Open Skies over the Middle East. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]

25. Stefania Paladini, Joseph Yu-Shek Cheng. 2015. The ASEANChina Free Trade Area A Success or a Failure? A Preliminary
Evaluation Based on Econometric Evidence. Journal of Comparative Asian Development 1-29. [CrossRef]
26. Patrik Karpaty, Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall. 2015. Service Offshoring and Corruption: Do Firms Escape Corrupt Countries?. Journal
of Industry, Competition and Trade . [CrossRef]
27. Mila Kashcheeva, Kevin K. Tsui. 2015. Political oil import diversification by financial and commercial traders. Energy Policy 82,
289-297. [CrossRef]
28. Hirokazu Ishise, Miwa Matsuo. 2015. TRADE IN POLARIZED AMERICA: THE BORDER EFFECT BETWEEN RED
STATES AND BLUE STATES. Economic Inquiry 53:10.1111/ecin.2015.53.issue-3, 1647-1670. [CrossRef]
29. Wilfried Koch, James P. LeSage. 2015. Latent Multilateral Trade Resistance Indices: Theory andEvidence. Scottish Journal of Political
Economy 62:10.1111/sjpe.2015.62.issue-3, 264-290. [CrossRef]
30. Christiane Hellmanzik, Martin Schmitz. 2015. Virtual proximity and audiovisual services trade. European Economic Review 77, 82-101.
[CrossRef]
31. Shailja Shah, Yifei Ma, Rebecca Scherzer, Greg Huhn, Audrey L. French, Michael Plankey, Marion G. Peters, Carl Grunfeld, Phyllis
C. Tien. 2015. Association of HIV, hepatitis C virus and liver fibrosis severity with interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels. AIDS
29, 1325-1333. [CrossRef]
32. Alexander Klein, Sheilagh Ogilvie. 2015. Occupational structure in the Czech lands under the second serfdom. The Economic History
Review n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
33. Mario Larch, Pehr-Johan Norbck, Steffen Sirries, Dieter M. Urban. 2015. Heterogeneous Firms, Globalisation and the Distance
Puzzle. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
34. Juyoung Cheong, Do Won Kwak, Kam Ki Tang. 2015. It Is Much Bigger Than What We Thought: New Estimate of Trade Diversion.
The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
35. Pramila Crivelli, Jasmin Groeschl. 2015. The Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Market Entry and Trade Flows. The
World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
36. Franz Hackl, Michael Hummer, Gerald J. Pruckner. 2015. Old Boys Network in General Practitioners Referral Behavior?. Journal
of Health Economics . [CrossRef]
37. Peter Egger, Joseph Francois, Miriam Manchin, Douglas Nelson. 2015. Non-tariff barriers, integration and the transatlantic economy.
Economic Policy 30, 539-584. [CrossRef]
38. Gabriel Felbermayr, Benedikt Heid, Mario Larch, Erdal Yalcin. 2015. Macroeconomic potentials of transatlantic free trade: a high
resolution perspective for Europe and the world. Economic Policy 30, 491-537. [CrossRef]
39. Fabio Gaetano Santeramo, Mariangela Morelli. 2015. Modelling tourism flows through gravity models: a quantile regression approach.
Current Issues in Tourism 1-7. [CrossRef]
40. Bassem Kahouli, Samir Maktouf. 2015. The determinants of FDI and the impact of the economic crisis on the implementation of
RTAs: A static and dynamic gravity model. International Business Review 24, 518-529. [CrossRef]
41. M. Mofizul Islam, Ian S. McRae, Laurann Yen, Tanisha Jowsey, Jose M. Valderas. 2015. Time spent on health-related activities by
senior Australians with chronic diseases: what is the role of multimorbidity and comorbidity?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Public Health 39:10.1111/azph.2015.39.issue-3, 277-283. [CrossRef]
42. Thibault Fally. 2015. Structural gravity and fixed effects. Journal of International Economics . [CrossRef]
43. Chong Wha Lee, Soonchan Park. 2015. Does Religious Similarity Matter in International Trade in Services?. The World Economy
n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
44. Lauren A. Johnston, Stephen L. Morgan, Yuesheng Wang. 2015. The Gravity of China's African Export Promise. The World Economy
38:10.1111/twec.2015.38.issue-6, 913-934. [CrossRef]
45. Peter H. Egger, Sergey Nigai. 2015. Structural gravity with dummies only: Constrained ANOVA-type estimation of gravity models.
Journal of International Economics . [CrossRef]
46. Giuseppe De Arcangelis, Edoardo Di Porto, Gianluca Santoni. 2015. Migration, Labor Tasks and Production Structure. Regional
Science and Urban Economics . [CrossRef]
47. Erhan Artu, John McLaren. 2015. Trade policy and wage inequality: A structural analysis with occupational and sectoral mobility.
Journal of International Economics . [CrossRef]
48. Samuel Standaert, Stijn Ronsse, Benjamin Vandermarliere. 2015. Historical trade integration: globalization and the distance puzzle in
the long twentieth century. Cliometrica . [CrossRef]
49. Rafael Cezar. 2015. The gravity of financial development. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 1-28. [CrossRef]

50. David Buehler, Roger White. 2015. A simple solution to the distance puzzle: balanced data and Poisson estimation. Applied Economics
Letters 22, 587-592. [CrossRef]
51. Martin Acht, Toman Omar Mahmoud, Rainer Thiele. 2015. Corrupt governments do not receive more state-to-state aid: Governance
and the delivery of foreign aid through non-state actors. Journal of Development Economics 114, 20-33. [CrossRef]
52. Christian Hepenstrick, Alexander Tarasov. 2015. Trade Openness and Cross-country Income Differences. Review of International
Economics 23:10.1111/roie.2015.23.issue-2, 271-302. [CrossRef]
53. Hirokazu Ishise, Miwa Matsuo. 2015. USCanada border effect between 1993 and 2007: smaller, less asymmetrical, and declining.
Review of World Economics 151, 291-308. [CrossRef]
54. Steven Poelhekke. 2015. Do global banks facilitate foreign direct investment?. European Economic Review 76, 25-46. [CrossRef]
55. Yi Che, Julan Du, Yi Lu, Zhigang Tao. 2015. Once an enemy, forever an enemy? The long-run impact of the Japanese invasion of
China from 1937 to 1945 on trade and investment. Journal of International Economics 96, 182-198. [CrossRef]
56. Dan Liu, Christopher M. Meissner. 2015. Market potential and the rise of US productivity leadership. Journal of International Economics
96, 72-87. [CrossRef]
57. Andrea Fracasso, Giuseppe Vittucci Marzetti. 2015. International trade and R&D spillovers. Journal of International Economics 96,
138-149. [CrossRef]
58. Meixin Guo, Huiran Pan. 2015. Can cross-listing relax financial frictions in trade and equity holdings? A sector-level analysis. Applied
Economics 47, 2012-2029. [CrossRef]
59. Boris Kaiser. 2015. Decomposing differences in arithmetic means: a doubly robust estimation approach. Empirical Economics .
[CrossRef]
60. Marie Poprawe. 2015. On the relationship between corruption and migration: empirical evidence from a gravity model of migration.
Public Choice . [CrossRef]
61. Rishav Bista. 2015. Reconciling the WTO Effects on Trade at the Extensive and Intensive Margins. International Economic Journal
29, 231-257. [CrossRef]
62. I. Simonovska. 2015. Income Differences and Prices of Tradables: Insights from an Online Retailer. The Review of Economic Studies
. [CrossRef]
63. Kazuyuki Iwata, Hajime Katayama, Toshi H. Arimura. 2015. Do households misperceive the benefits of energy-saving actions? Evidence
from a Japanese household survey. Energy for Sustainable Development 25, 27-33. [CrossRef]
64. Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael Llorca-Vivero, Jos Antonio Martnez-Serrano. 2015. The Uneven Impact of Continental Boundaries on
Trade. Open Economies Review 26, 237-257. [CrossRef]
65. Ramesh C. Paudel, Paul J. Burke. 2015. Exchange rate policy and export performance in a landlocked developing country: The case
of Nepal. Journal of Asian Economics . [CrossRef]
66. Mario Levis, Yaz Glnur Muradolu, Kristina Vasileva. 2015. Home bias persistence in foreign direct investments. The European
Journal of Finance 1-21. [CrossRef]
67. Jeffrey D. Shulman, Marcus Cunha, Julian K. Saint Clair. 2015. Consumer Uncertainty and Purchase Decision Reversals: Theory and
Evidence. Marketing Science 150326111834009. [CrossRef]
68. A. Dal Bianco, V. L. Boatto, F. Caracciolo, F. G. Santeramo. 2015. Tariffs and non-tariff frictions in the world wine trade. European
Review of Agricultural Economics . [CrossRef]
69. Anne Boring. 2015. The impact of patent protection on US pharmaceutical exports to developing countries. Applied Economics 47,
1314-1330. [CrossRef]
70. D. Persyn, W. Torfs. 2015. A gravity equation for commuting with an application to estimating regional border effects in Belgium.
Journal of Economic Geography . [CrossRef]
71. Simone Bertoli, Jess Fernndez-Huertas Moraga. 2015. The size of the cliff at the border. Regional Science and Urban Economics
51, 1-6. [CrossRef]
72. D. V. Pahan Prasada. 2015. The Role of Credit, Currency and Debt Crises in Trade Performance: A Product-Disaggregated Panel
Data Analysis. Journal of International Development 27:10.1002/jid.v27.2, 273-284. [CrossRef]
73. Michel Beine, Simone Bertoli, Jess Fernndez-Huertas Moraga. 2015. A Practitioners Guide to Gravity Models of International
Migration. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
74. Malan Le Goff, Sara Salomone. 2015. Remittances and the Changing Composition of Migration. The World Economy n/a-n/a.
[CrossRef]
75. Antoine Gervais. 2015. Trade and growth: A gravity approach. Southern Economic Journal n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]

76. Fabien Candau, Elisa Dienesch. 2015. Spatial distribution of skills and regional trade integration. The Annals of Regional Science 54,
451-488. [CrossRef]
77. Aurlien Fichet de Clairfontaine, Manfred M. Fischer, Rafael Lata, Manfred Paier. 2015. Barriers to cross-region research and
development collaborations in Europe: evidence from the fifth European Framework Programme. The Annals of Regional Science 54,
577-590. [CrossRef]
78. Margaret C. Levenstein, Jagadeesh Sivadasan, Valerie Y. Suslow. 2015. The effect of competition on trade: Evidence from the collapse
of international cartels. International Journal of Industrial Organization 39, 56-70. [CrossRef]
79. Antoine Gervais. 2015. Trade and growth: A gravity approach. Southern Economic Journal n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
80. Peter H. Egger, Kevin E. Staub. 2015. GLM estimation of trade gravity models with fixed effects. Empirical Economics . [CrossRef]
81. Juyoung Cheong, Do Won Kwak, Kam Ki Tang. 2015. The distance effects on the intensive and extensive margins of trade over time.
Empirical Economics . [CrossRef]
82. Valeriano Martnez-San Romn, Marta Bengoa, Blanca Snchez-Robles. 2015. Foreign direct investment, trade integration and the
home bias: evidence from the European Union. Empirical Economics . [CrossRef]
83. Adam M. Kleinbaum, Alexander H. Jordan, Pino G. Audia. 2015. An Altercentric Perspective on the Origins of Brokerage in Social
Networks: How Perceived Empathy Moderates the Self-Monitoring Effect. Organization Science 150213083923004. [CrossRef]
84. Qi He, Hong Fang, Miao Wang, Bo Peng. 2015. Trade liberalization and trade performance of environmental goods: evidence from
Asia-Pacific economic cooperation members. Applied Economics 1-19. [CrossRef]
85. Jordi Paniagua, Juan Sapena. 2015. Do credit constraints reduce foreign jobs? A note on foreign direct employment. Applied Economics
Letters 22, 195-198. [CrossRef]
86. Inmaculada Martinez-Zarzoso, Anca Monika Voicu, Martina Vidovic. 2015. Central East European Countries accession into the
European Union: role of extensive margin for trade in intermediate and final goods. Empirica . [CrossRef]
87. Koen Jochmans. 2015. Multiplicative-error models with sample selection. Journal of Econometrics 184, 315-327. [CrossRef]
88. J. M. C. Santos Silva, Silvana Tenreyro. 2015. Trading Partners and Trading Volumes: Implementing the Helpman-Melitz-Rubinstein
Model Empirically. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 77:10.1111/obes.2015.77.issue-1, 93-105. [CrossRef]
89. Anirudh Shingal. 2015. Econometric Analyses of Home Bias in Government Procurement. Review of International Economics
23:10.1111/roie.2015.23.issue-1, 188-219. [CrossRef]
90. Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael Llorca-Vivero, Jos Antonio Martnez-Serrano, Francisco Requena-Silvente. 2015. Regional export
promotion offices and trade margins. Review of World Economics 151, 145-167. [CrossRef]
91. Clment Bosquet, Herv Boulhol. 2015. What is really puzzling about the distance puzzle. Review of World Economics 151, 1-21.
[CrossRef]
92. Peter Egger, Sergey Nigai. 2015. Energy Demand and Trade in General Equilibrium. Environmental and Resource Economics 60,
191-213. [CrossRef]
93. Felix Groba, Jing Cao. 2015. Chinese Renewable Energy Technology Exports: The Role of Policy, Innovation and Markets.
Environmental and Resource Economics 60, 243-283. [CrossRef]
94. Valeria Costantini, Francesco Crespi. 2015. European enlargement policy, technological capabilities and sectoral export dynamics. The
Journal of Technology Transfer 40, 25-69. [CrossRef]
95. Subal C. Kumbhakar, Christopher F. Parmeter. 2015. Introduction. Empirical Economics 48, 1-8. [CrossRef]
96. Isabel Proena, Stefan Sperlich, Duygu Savac. 2015. Semi-mixed effects gravity models for bilateral trade. Empirical Economics 48,
361-387. [CrossRef]
97. Fsun lengin, Bora ekyay, Peral Tokta Palut, Bur lengin, zgr Kabak, zay zaydn, ule nsel Ekici. 2015. Effects of quotas
on Turkish foreign trade: A gravity model. Transport Policy 38, 1-7. [CrossRef]
98. Rosa Bernardini Papalia, Silvia Bertarelli. 2015. Trade Costs in Bilateral Trade Flows: Heterogeneity and Zeroes in Structural Gravity
Models. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
99. Daniel L. Millimet, Jayjit Roy. 2015. Empirical Tests of the Pollution Haven Hypothesis When Environmental Regulation is
Endogenous. Journal of Applied Econometrics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
100. Lorenzo Cassi, Andrea Morrison, Roberta Rabellotti. 2015. Proximity and Scientific Collaboration: Evidence from the Global Wine
Industry. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
101. Fabio Montobbio, Annalisa Primi, Valerio Sterzi. 2015. IPRs and International Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Six Large Emerging
Countries. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
102. David C. Mowery, Arvids A. Ziedonis. 2015. Markets versus spillovers in outflows of university research. Research Policy 44, 50-66.
[CrossRef]

103. Aleksandra Parteka, Joanna Wolszczak-Derlacz. 2015. Integrated sectors - diversified earnings: the (missing) impact of offshoring on
wages and wage convergence in the EU27. The Journal of Economic Inequality . [CrossRef]
104. Giusy Cannone, Elisa Ughetto. 2015. Internationalization flows of high-tech start-ups: a gravity model. European Business Review 27,
60-79. [CrossRef]
105. Victoria Licuanan, Toman Omar Mahmoud, Andreas Steinmayr. 2015. The Drivers of Diaspora Donations for Development: Evidence
from the Philippines. World Development 65, 94-109. [CrossRef]
106. Erhan Artuc, Frdric Docquier, aglar zden, Christopher Parsons. 2015. A Global Assessment of Human Capital Mobility: The
Role of Non-OECD Destinations. World Development 65, 6-26. [CrossRef]
107. Justin R. Falk. 2015. COMPARING FEDERAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR WAGES WITHOUT LOGS. Contemporary Economic
Policy 33:10.1111/coep.2015.33.issue-1, 176-189. [CrossRef]
108. Lorenzo Rotunno, Pierre-Louis Vzina. 2015. QUOTA-HOPPING IN-BOND DIVERSION. Economic Inquiry 53:10.1111/
ecin.2015.53.issue-1, 34-48. [CrossRef]
109. Eberhard Feess, Michael Gerfin, Gerd Muehlheusser. 2015. CONTRACTS AS RENT-SEEKING DEVICES: EVIDENCE FROM
GERMAN SOCCER. Economic Inquiry 53:10.1111/ecin.2015.53.issue-1, 714-730. [CrossRef]
110. Rosalie L. Pacula, David Powell, Paul Heaton, Eric L. Sevigny. 2015. Assessing the Effects of Medical Marijuana Laws on Marijuana
Use: The Devil is in the Details. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34:10.1002/pam.2015.34.issue-1, 7-31. [CrossRef]
111. P. Egger, M. Gassebner. 2015. International terrorism as a trade impediment?. Oxford Economic Papers 67, 42-62. [CrossRef]
112. Alicia Gmez- Tello. 2015. Which commercial partners are important for the most recently admitted EU countries?. Economics of
Transition 23:10.1111/ecot.2015.23.issue-1, 247-292. [CrossRef]
113. Sergey Nigai. 2015. On Measuring the Welfare Gains from Trade Under Consumer Heterogeneity. The Economic Journal n/a-n/a.
[CrossRef]
114. Koen J. M. van der Veer. 2015. The Private Export Credit Insurance Effect on Trade. Journal of Risk and Insurance n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
115. Supon Limwattananon, Sven Neelsen, Owen O'Donnell, Phusit Prakongsai, Viroj Tangcharoensathien, Eddy van Doorslaer,
Vuthiphan Vongmongkol. 2015. Universal coverage with supply-side reform: The impact on medical expenditure risk and utilization
in Thailand. Journal of Public Economics 121, 79-94. [CrossRef]
116. Fabrice Defever, Benedikt Heid, Mario Larch. 2015. Spatial exporters. Journal of International Economics 95, 145-156. [CrossRef]
117. Wan-Chien Chiu, Juan Ignacio Pea, Chih-Wei Wang. 2015. Industry characteristics and financial risk contagion. Journal of Banking
& Finance 50, 411-427. [CrossRef]
118. Robert E.B. LucasAfrican Migration 1445-1596. [CrossRef]
119. Badi H. Baltagi, Peter Egger. 2015. Estimation of structural gravity quantile regression models. Empirical Economics . [CrossRef]
120. Lisandra Colley. 2015. Gravity to CARICOM: An Analysis of CARICOMs External Trade Using an Augmented Gravity Model.
Journal of Economics, Business and Management 3. . [CrossRef]
121. Esteban Ferro, Tsunehiro Otsuki, John S. Wilson. 2015. The effect of product standards on agricultural exports. Food Policy 50,
68-79. [CrossRef]
122. Antonina Levatino. 2015. Transnational higher education and skilled migration: Evidence from Australia. International Journal of
Educational Development 40, 106-116. [CrossRef]
123. R. Arezki, K. Deininger, H. Selod. 2015. What Drives the Global "Land Rush"?. The World Bank Economic Review 29, 207-233.
[CrossRef]
124. A.-C. Disdier, L. Fontagne, O. Cadot. 2015. North-South Standards Harmonization and International Trade. The World Bank
Economic Review 29, 327-352. [CrossRef]
125. Ceclia Hornok, Mikls Koren. 2015. Administrative barriers to trade. Journal of International Economics . [CrossRef]
126. Dr Michael Beenstock, Professor Raul R, Vicente Royuela. 2015. The role of urbanisation on international migrations: a case study
of EU and ENP countries. International Journal of Manpower 36:4, 469. [CrossRef]
127. Daniel Haberly, Dariusz Wjcik. 2015. Tax havens and the production of offshore FDI: an empirical analysis. Journal of Economic
Geography 15, 75-101. [CrossRef]
128. Zakaria Sorgho. 2015. RTAs' Proliferation and Trade-diversion Effects: Evidence of the Spaghetti Bowl Phenomenon. The World
Economy n/a. [CrossRef]
129. Raphal Chiappini. 2015. Do overseas investments create or replace trade? New insights from a macro-sectoral study on Japan. The
Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 1. [CrossRef]
130. Katerina Gradeva, Inmaculada Martnez-Zarzoso. 2015. Are Trade Preferences more Effective than Aid in Supporting Exports?
Evidence from the Everything But Arms Preference Scheme. The World Economy n/a. [CrossRef]

131. Hamza Cestepe, Ertugrul Yldrm, Bersu Bahtiyar. 2015. The Impact of Trade Liberalization on the Export of MENA Countries to
OECD Trade Partners. Procedia Economics and Finance 23, 1440-1445. [CrossRef]
132. Faqin Lin. 2014. Estimating the effect of the Internet on international trade. The Journal of International Trade & Economic
Development 1-20. [CrossRef]
133. Christopher J Surfield. 2014. Government Mandates and Atypical Work: An Investigation of Right-to-Work States. Eastern Economic
Journal 40, 26-55. [CrossRef]
134. Viroj Jienwatcharamongkhol. 2014. Distance Sensitivity of Export: A Firm-Product Level Approach. Journal of Industry, Competition
and Trade 14, 531-554. [CrossRef]
135. Jan Hanousek, Even Koenda. 2014. Factors of trade in Europe. Economic Systems 38, 518-535. [CrossRef]
136. YiFan Sun, Kunfeng Pan. 2014. Prediction of the intercity migration of Chinese graduates. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory
and Experiment 2014, P12022. [CrossRef]
137. Wolszczak-Derlacz Joanna. 2014. THE IMPACT OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN COMPETITION ON SECTORAL
GROWTH: A CROSS-COUNTRY ANALYSIS. Bulletin of Economic Research 66:10.1111/boer.2014.66.issue-S1, S110-S131.
[CrossRef]
138. Fabrizio Carmignani. 2014. The Curse of Being Landlocked: Institutions Rather than Trade. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
139. Nuria Gallego, Carlos Llano. 2014. Thick and Thin Borders in the European Union: How Deep Internal Integration is Within
Countries, and How Shallow Between Them. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
140. R. Thomson. 2014. The Yield of Plant Variety Protection. American Journal of Agricultural Economics . [CrossRef]
141. Andrea Fracasso. 2014. A gravity model of virtual water trade. Ecological Economics 108, 215-228. [CrossRef]
142. Axel Dreher, Kai Gehring, Stephan Klasen. 2014. Gesture Politics or Real Commitment? Gender Inequality and the Allocation of
Aid. World Development . [CrossRef]
143. F.M. Pericoli, E. Pierucci, L. Ventura. 2014. A note on gravity models and international investment patterns. Applied Financial Economics
24, 1393-1400. [CrossRef]
144. Yves Bourdet, Maria Persson. 2014. Expanding and Diversifying South Mediterranean Exports through Trade Facilitation. Development
Policy Review 32:10.1111/dpr.2014.32.issue-6, 675-699. [CrossRef]
145. Nuria Gallego, Carlos Llano. 2014. The Border Effect and the Nonlinear Relationship between Trade and Distance. Review of
International Economics 22:10.1111/roie.2014.22.issue-5, 1016-1048. [CrossRef]
146. Hakan Yilmazkuday. 2014. Mismeasurement of Distance Effects: The Role of Internal Location of Production. Review of International
Economics 22:10.1111/roie.2014.22.issue-5, 992-1015. [CrossRef]
147. Sanne Hiller. 2014. The Export Promoting Effect of Emigration: Evidence from Denmark. Review of Development Economics
18:10.1111/rode.2014.18.issue-4, 693-708. [CrossRef]
148. Markus Lampe, Florian Ploeckl. 2014. Spanning the Globe: The Rise of Global Communications Systems and the First Globalisation.
Australian Economic History Review 54:10.1111/aehr.2014.54.issue-3, 242-261. [CrossRef]
149. Ina Charlotte Jkel. 2014. Import-push or export-pull? An industry-level analysis of the impact of trade on firm exit. Empirica 41,
747-775. [CrossRef]
150. Dane Davis, Thomas Gift. 2014. The Positive Effects of the Schengen Agreement on European Trade. The World Economy 37:10.1111/
twec.2014.37.issue-11, 1541-1557. [CrossRef]
151. P. Dorian Owen, Niven Winchester. 2014. The impact of US fresh milk production standards on dairy trade. Journal of Policy Modeling
36, 1008-1021. [CrossRef]
152. Emmanuelle Lavalle, Julie Lochard. 2014. The comparative effects of independence on trade. Journal of Comparative Economics .
[CrossRef]
153. Jose Fernandez Donoso. 2014. Do complex inventions need less international patent protection?. Economics Letters 125, 278-281.
[CrossRef]
154. Alja Kuni, Andreja JakliFDI and Institutions: Formal and Informal Institutions 171-205. [CrossRef]
155. Douglas Dow, Lars Hkanson, Bjrn AmbosPerceptions Versus National-Level Differences: A Mediating Model of Psychic Distance
133-170. [CrossRef]
156. Daniel Saslavsky, Ben Shepherd. 2014. Facilitating international production networks: The role of trade logistics. The Journal of
International Trade & Economic Development 23, 979-999. [CrossRef]
157. Mitsuyo Ando, Fukunari Kimura. 2014. Evolution of Machinery Production Networks: Linkage of North America with East Asia.
Asian Economic Papers 13:3, 121-160. [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

158. Nadia Campaniello. 2014. The causal effect of trade on migration: Evidence from countries of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.
Labour Economics 30, 223-233. [CrossRef]
159. Roberto Duran-Fernandez, Georgina Santos. 2014. A regional model of road accessibility in Mexico: Accessibility surfaces and
robustness analysis. Research in Transportation Economics . [CrossRef]
160. Ryan Barnes, Ryan Bosworth. 2014. LNG is Linking Regional Natural Gas Markets: Evidence from the Gravity Model. Energy
Economics . [CrossRef]
161. Kai Xu. 2014. Why Are Agricultural Goods Not Traded More Intensively: High Trade Costs or Low Productivity Variation?. The
World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
162. B. W. Cowan, D. Lee, C. R. Shumway. 2014. The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and U.S. Public Agricultural Research. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics . [CrossRef]
163. Hrushikesh Mallick. 2014. Role of technological infrastructures in exports: evidence from a cross-country analysis. International Review
of Applied Economics 28, 669-694. [CrossRef]
164. Valeria Costantini, Giorgia Sforna. 2014. Do bilateral trade relationships influence the distribution of CDM projects?. Climate Policy
14, 559-580. [CrossRef]
165. Kazunobu Hayakawa. 2014. Bilateral tariff rates in international trade: finished goods versus intermediate goods. International Economics
and Economic Policy 11, 353-370. [CrossRef]
166. Livia Chiu, Barry Eichengreen, Arnaud Mehl. 2014. History, gravity and international finance. Journal of International Money and
Finance 46, 104-129. [CrossRef]
167. Estrella Gomez-Herrera, Bertin Martens, Geomina Turlea. 2014. The drivers and impediments for cross-border e-commerce in the
EU. Information Economics and Policy 28, 83-96. [CrossRef]
168. Kazunobu Hayakawa, Hyun-Hoon Lee, Donghyun Park. 2014. Do Export Promotion Agencies Increase Exports?. The Developing
Economies 52:10.1111/deve.2014.52.issue-3, 241-261. [CrossRef]
169. Kyle Handley. 2014. Exporting under trade policy uncertainty: Theory and evidence. Journal of International Economics 94, 50-66.
[CrossRef]
170. Ioannis K. Dassios, Grigoris Kalogeropoulos. 2014. On the stability of equilibrium for a reformulated foreign trade model of three
countries. Journal of Industrial Engineering International 10. . [CrossRef]
171. Shuhei Nishitateno. 2014. Network Effects on Trade in Intermediate Goods: Evidence from the Automobile Industry. Japanese Economic
Review n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
172. tefan Bojnec, Imre Fert, Jzsef Fogarasi. 2014. Quality of institutions and the BRIC countries agro-food exports. China Agricultural
Economic Review 6, 379-394. [CrossRef]
173. Rafael Cezar. 2014. The heterogeneous effect of finance on international trade. Applied Economics 46, 2903-2919. [CrossRef]
174. Bo Xiong, Sixia Chen. 2014. Estimating gravity equation models in the presence of sample selection and heteroscedasticity. Applied
Economics 46, 2993-3003. [CrossRef]
175. Niru Yadav. 2014. Impact of Trade Facilitation on Parts and Components Trade. The International Trade Journal 28, 287-310.
[CrossRef]
176. Riccardo Cappelli, Fabio Montobbio. 2014. European Integration and Knowledge Flows across European Regions. Regional Studies
1-19. [CrossRef]
177. Hannes hler, Peter Nunnenkamp. 2014. Needs-Based Targeting or Favoritism? The Regional Allocation of Multilateral Aid within
Recipient Countries. Kyklos 67:10.1111/kykl.2014.67.issue-3, 420-446. [CrossRef]
178. James E. Anderson, Catherine A. Milot, Yoto V. Yotov. 2014. HOW MUCH DOES GEOGRAPHY DEFLECT SERVICES TRADE?
CANADIAN ANSWERS. International Economic Review 55:10.1111/iere.2014.55.issue-3, 791-818. [CrossRef]
179. Jayjit Roy. 2014. On the robustness of the trade-inducing effects of trade agreements and currency unions. Empirical Economics 47,
253-304. [CrossRef]
180. Bruce A. Blonigen, Jeremy Piger. 2014. Determinants of foreign direct investment. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne
d'conomique 47:10.1111/caje.2014.47.issue-3, 775-812. [CrossRef]
181. Fabien Candau, Serge Rey. 2014. The effect of the euro on aeronautic trade: A French regional analysis. Economic Modelling 41,
345-355. [CrossRef]
182. Pascal L. Ghazalian. 2014. On the Magnitude of the Geographic Distance Effect on Primary Agricultural and Processed Food Trade.
Agribusiness n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
183. Tanja Engelbert, Beyhan Bektasoglu, Martina Brockmeier. 2014. Moving toward the EU or the Middle East? An assessment of
alternative Turkish foreign policies utilizing the GTAP framework. Food Policy 47, 46-61. [CrossRef]

184. Martijn J. Burger, Mark J. P. M. Thissen, Frank G. van Oort, Dario Diodato. 2014. The Magnitude and Distance Decay of Trade in
Goods and Services: New Evidence for European Countries. Spatial Economic Analysis 9, 231-259. [CrossRef]
185. Jacques Melitz, Farid Toubal. 2014. Native language, spoken language, translation and trade. Journal of International Economics 93,
351-363. [CrossRef]
186. BO XIONG, JOHN BEGHIN. 2014. DISENTANGLING DEMAND-ENHANCING AND TRADE-COST EFFECTS OF
MAXIMUM RESIDUE REGULATIONS. Economic Inquiry 52:10.1111/ecin.2014.52.issue-3, 1190-1203. [CrossRef]
187. Zakaria Sorgho, Bruno Larue. 2014. Geographical indication regulation and intra-trade in the European Union. Agricultural Economics
n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
188. Seda Meyveci Doganay, Selin Sayek, Fatma Taskin. 2014. Is environmental efficiency trade inducing or trade hindering?. Energy
Economics 44, 340-349. [CrossRef]
189. MARCO DUEAS, GIORGIO FAGIOLO. 2014. GLOBAL TRADE IMBALANCES: A NETWORK APPROACH. Advances in
Complex Systems 17, 1450014. [CrossRef]
190. David S. Jacks. 2014. Defying gravity: The Imperial Economic Conference and the reorientation of Canadian trade. Explorations in
Economic History 53, 19-39. [CrossRef]
191. Ulrich Kaiser, Susan J. Mendez, Thomas Rnde, Hannes Ullrich. 2014. Regulation of pharmaceutical prices: Evidence from a reference
price reform in Denmark. Journal of Health Economics 36, 174-187. [CrossRef]
192. Wulung Hanandita, Gindo Tampubolon. 2014. Does poverty reduce mental health? An instrumental variable analysis. Social Science
& Medicine 113, 59-67. [CrossRef]
193. Donald Lien, Sucharita Ghosh, Steven Yamarik. 2014. Does the Confucius institute impact international travel to China? A panel data
analysis. Applied Economics 46, 1985-1995. [CrossRef]
194. Anokye M. Adam, Imran Sharif Chaudhry. 2014. The currency union effect on intra-regional trade in Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS). Journal of International Trade Law and Policy 13, 102-122. [CrossRef]
195. Mariarosaria Agostino, Francesco Trivieri. 2014. Geographical indication and wine exports. An empirical investigation considering the
major European producers. Food Policy 46, 22-36. [CrossRef]
196. Shanping Yang, Inmaculada Martinez-Zarzoso. 2014. A panel data analysis of trade creation and trade diversion effects: The case of
ASEANChina Free Trade Area. China Economic Review 29, 138-151. [CrossRef]
197. Kazunobu Hayakawa, Hyun-Hoon Lee, Donghyun Park. 2014. Are Investment Promotion Agencies Effective in Promoting Outward
Foreign Direct Investment? The Cases of Japan and Korea. Asian Economic Journal 28:10.1111/asej.2014.28.issue-2, 111-138.
[CrossRef]
198. G. Philippidis, H. Resano, A.I. Sanjun. 2014. Shifting Armington trade preferences: A re-examination of the MercosurEU
negotiations. Economic Modelling 40, 21-32. [CrossRef]
199. Robert Sparrow, Ellen Van de Poel, Gracia Hadiwidjaja, Athia Yumna, Nila Warda, Asep Suryahadi. 2014. COPING WITH THE
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF ILL HEALTH IN INDONESIA. Health Economics 23:10.1002/hec.v23.6, 719-728. [CrossRef]
200. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla, Deepak Hegde. 2014. An Organizational Perspective on Patenting and Open Innovation. Organization Science
140527113659001. [CrossRef]
201. Tamara de la Mata. 2014. Does trade creation by social and business networks hold in services?. Applied Economics 46, 1509-1525.
[CrossRef]
202. Edward Anderson. 2014. Time differences, communication and trade: longitude matters II. Review of World Economics 150, 337-369.
[CrossRef]
203. Bengt Sderlund, Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall. 2014. Dynamic effects of institutions on firm-level exports. Review of World Economics
150, 277-308. [CrossRef]
204. Peter Egger, Christian Keuschnigg, Valeria Merlo, Georg Wamser. 2014. Corporate Taxes and Internal Borrowing within Multinational
Firms . American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 6, 54-93. [CrossRef]
205. Harry Huizinga, Johannes Voget, Wolf Wagner. 2014. International Taxation and Cross-Border Banking . American Economic Journal:
Economic Policy 6, 94-125. [CrossRef]
206. Zsombor Pall, Oleksandr Perekhozhuk, Thomas Glauben, Sren Prehn, Ramona Teuber. 2014. Residual demand measures of market
power of Russian wheat exporters. Agricultural Economics 45:10.1111/agec.2014.45.issue-3, 381-391. [CrossRef]
207. Shekhar Aiyar, Charles W. Calomiris, John Hooley, Yevgeniya Korniyenko, Tomasz Wieladek. 2014. The international transmission
of bank capital requirements: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Financial Economics . [CrossRef]
208. Kazunobu Hayakawa, Fukunari Kimura, Kaoru Nabeshima. 2014. NONCONVENTIONAL PROVISIONS IN REGIONAL TRADE
AGREEMENTS: DO THEY ENHANCE INTERNATIONAL TRADE?. Journal of Applied Economics 17, 113-137. [CrossRef]

209. Jordi Paniagua, Juan Sapena. 2014. Is FDI doing good? A golden rule for FDI ethics. Journal of Business Research 67, 807-812.
[CrossRef]
210. Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor, Peter A. G. van Bergeijk. 2014. Measuring Multi-Membership in Economic Integration and Its Trade
Impact: A Comparative Study of ECOWAS and SADC. South African Journal of Economics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
211. F. Docquier, Ch. Vasilakis, D. Tamfutu Munsi. 2014. International migration and the propagation of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.
Journal of Health Economics 35, 20-33. [CrossRef]
212. Massimiliano Bratti, Luca De Benedictis, Gianluca Santoni. 2014. On the pro-trade effects of immigrants. Review of World Economics
. [CrossRef]
213. N. Crafts, A. Klein. 2014. Geography and intra-national home bias: U.S. domestic trade in 1949 and 2007. Journal of Economic
Geography . [CrossRef]
214. Mariarosaria Agostino, Francesco Trivieri. 2014. World Bank trade loans and export performance of recipient countries. Journal of
Economic Policy Reform 17, 99-128. [CrossRef]
215. Keisaku Higashida, Shunsuke Managi. 2014. Determinants of trade in recyclable wastes: evidence from commodity-based trade of
waste and scrap. Environment and Development Economics 19, 250-270. [CrossRef]
216. Douglas H. Brooks, Benno Ferrarini. 2014. Vertical gravity. Journal of Asian Economics 31-32, 1-9. [CrossRef]
217. Emmanuel Frot, Anders Olofsgrd, Maria Perrotta Berlin. 2014. Aid Effectiveness in Times of Political Change: Lessons from the
Post-Communist Transition. World Development 56, 127-138. [CrossRef]
218. Thierry Baudass, Rmi Bazillier. 2014. Gender inequality and emigration: Push factor or selection process?. International Economics
. [CrossRef]
219. Christian Henn, Brad McDonald. 2014. Crisis Protectionism: The Observed Trade Impact. IMF Economic Review 62, 77-118.
[CrossRef]
220. Gindo Tampubolon, Wulung Hanandita. 2014. Poverty and mental health in Indonesia. Social Science & Medicine 106, 20-27.
[CrossRef]
221. Kees van Veen, Padma Rao Sahib, Evelien Aangeenbrug. 2014. Where do international board members come from? Country-level
antecedents of international board member selection in European boards. International Business Review 23, 407-417. [CrossRef]
222. Park Young Seaon. 2014. Trade in Cultural Goods: A Case of the Korean Wave in Asia. Journal of East Asian Economic Integration
18, 83-107. [CrossRef]
223. Peter Egger, Horst Raff. 2014. Tax rate and tax base competition for foreign direct investment. International Tax and Public Finance
. [CrossRef]
224. Francesc Ortega, Giovanni Peri. 2014. Openness and income: The roles of trade and migration. Journal of International Economics
92, 231-251. [CrossRef]
225. Niels Johannesen. 2014. Tax evasion and Swiss bank deposits. Journal of Public Economics 111, 46-62. [CrossRef]
226. Esmeralda A. Ramalho, Joaquim J.S. Ramalho. 2014. Convenient links for the estimation of hedonic price indexes: the case of unique,
infrequently traded assets. Statistica Neerlandica n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
227. Mariya Aleksynska, Giovanni Peri. 2014. Isolating the Network Effect of Immigrants on Trade. The World Economy 37:10.1111/
twec.2014.37.issue-3, 434-455. [CrossRef]
228. Michel Beine, Romain Nol, Lionel Ragot. 2014. Determinants of the international mobility ofstudents. Economics of Education Review
. [CrossRef]
229. Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael Llorca-Vivero, Jos Antonio Martnez-Serrano. 2014. Do nonreciprocal preferential trade agreements
increase beneficiaries' exports?. Journal of Development Economics 107, 291-304. [CrossRef]
230. Timothy P. Hubbard. 2014. Trade and transboundary pollution: quantifying the effects of trade liberalization on CO 2 emissions.
Applied Economics 46, 483-502. [CrossRef]
231. Felix Groba. 2014. Determinants of trade with solar energy technology components: evidence on the porter hypothesis?. Applied
Economics 46, 503-526. [CrossRef]
232. Marc P. Umber, Michael H. Grote, Rainer Frey. 2014. Same as it ever was? Europe's national borders and the market for corporate
control. Journal of International Money and Finance 40, 109-127. [CrossRef]
233. Erik van der Marel, Iana Dreyer. 2014. Beyond Dutch disease. Economics of Transition n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
234. Harald Badinger, Kemal Trkcan. 2014. Currency Unions, Export Margins, and Product Differentiation: An Empirical Assessment
for European Monetary Union. Review of International Economics 22:10.1111/roie.2014.22.issue-1, 13-30. [CrossRef]
235. Shujiro Urata, Misa Okabe. 2014. Trade Creation and Diversion Effects of Regional Trade Agreements: A Product-level Analysis.
The World Economy 37:10.1111/twec.2014.37.issue-2, 267-289. [CrossRef]

236. Neil Foster. 2014. Intellectual property rights and the margins of international trade. The Journal of International Trade & Economic
Development 23, 1-30. [CrossRef]
237. William F. Fox, LeAnn Luna, Georg Schaur. 2014. Destination taxation and evasion: Evidence from U.S. inter-state commodity flows.
Journal of Accounting and Economics 57, 43-57. [CrossRef]
238. Oscar Melo, Alejandra Engler, Laura Nahuehual, Gabriela Cofre, Jos Barrena. 2014. Do Sanitary, Phytosanitary, and Quality-related
Standards Affect International Trade? Evidence from Chilean Fruit Exports. World Development 54, 350-359. [CrossRef]
239. Joseph Francois, Miriam Manchin. 2014. Protection and Performance. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
240. Bianka Dettmer. 2014. Trade Effects of the European Union's Service Directive: Contrasting ex ante Estimates with Empirical
Evidence. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
241. GABRIEL FELBERMAYR, JASMIN GRSCHL. 2014. WITHIN U.S. TRADE AND THE LONG SHADOW OF THE
AMERICAN SECESSION. Economic Inquiry 52:10.1111/ecin.2014.52.issue-1, 382-404. [CrossRef]
242. Adel Bino, Diana Abu Ghunmi, Ibrahim Qteishat. 2014. Trade, Export Capacity, and World Trade Organization Membership:
Evidence from Jordan. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 50, 51-67. [CrossRef]
243. DJETO ASSANE, ERIC P. CHIANG. 2014. TRADE, STRUCTURAL REFORM, AND INSTITUTIONS IN SUB-SAHARAN
AFRICA. Contemporary Economic Policy 32:10.1111/coep.2014.32.issue-1, 20-29. [CrossRef]
244. Olga IvanovaModelling Inter-Regional Freight Demand with InputOutput, Gravity and SCGE Methodologies 13-42. [CrossRef]
245. Eliza Olivia Lungu, Ana Maria Zamfir, Cristina Mocanu, Sperana Prciog. 2014. Gravitational Model of the Occupational Mobility
of the Higher Education Graduates. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 109, 417-421. [CrossRef]
246. Giulia Bettin, Andrea Presbitero, Nicola Spatafora. 2014. Remittances and Vulnerability in Developing Countries. IMF Working Papers
14, 1. [CrossRef]
247. Keith Head, Thierry MayerGravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook 131-195. [CrossRef]
248. Muhammad Ullah, Kazuo Inaba. 2014. Liberalization and FDI Performance: Evidence from ASEAN and SAFTA Member Countries.
Journal of Economic Structures 3, 6. [CrossRef]
249. Bae Chankwon, Jang Yong Joon. 2013. The Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Foreign Direct Investment: The Case of Korea.
Journal of East Asian Economic Integration 17, 417-445. [CrossRef]
250. Juan Blyde. 2013. Paving the Road to Export: Assessing the Trade Impact of Road Quality. International Economic Journal 27, 663-681.
[CrossRef]
251. Nicola Francesco Dotti, Ugo Fratesi, Camilla Lenzi, Marco Percoco. 2013. Local Labour Markets and the Interregional Mobility of
Italian University Students. Spatial Economic Analysis 8, 443-468. [CrossRef]
252. Hyun-Hoon Lee, Insill Yi, Donghyun Park. 2013. Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the Degree of Financial Integration among
East Asian Countries. Global Economic Review 42, 425-459. [CrossRef]
253. M. T. Clement, E. Podowski. 2013. Intensifying the Countryside: A Sociological Study of Cropland Lost to the Built Environment
in the United States, 2001-2006. Social Forces 92, 815-838. [CrossRef]
254. Paulo Jlio, Ricardo PinheiroAlves, Jos Tavares. 2013. Foreign direct investment and institutional reform: evidence and an application
to Portugal. Portuguese Economic Journal 12, 215-250. [CrossRef]
255. Mian Dai, Yoto V. Yotov, Thomas Zylkin. 2013. On the trade-diversion effects of free trade agreements. Economics Letters . [CrossRef]
256. Omar S. Dahi, Firat Demir. 2013. Preferential trade agreements and manufactured goods exports: does it matter whom you PTA
with?. Applied Economics 45, 4754-4772. [CrossRef]
257. Koen Berden, Jeffrey H. Bergstrand, Eva van Etten. 2013. Governance and Globalisation. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
258. Tatiana Plotnikova, Bastian Rake. 2013. Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: exploration of country-level determinants.
Scientometrics . [CrossRef]
259. Sergey Mityakov, Heiwai Tang, Kevin K. Tsui. 2013. International Politics and Import Diversification. Journal of Law and Economics
56, 1091-1121. [CrossRef]
260. Kyriakos Drivas, Claire Economidou. 2013. Government sponsorship and nature of patenting activity of US universities and
corporations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 22, 775-806. [CrossRef]
261. Jean-Christophe Bureau, Sbastien Jean. 2013. Trade liberalization in the bio-economy: coping with a new landscape. Agricultural
Economics 44:10.1111/agec.2013.44.issue-s1, 173-182. [CrossRef]
262. F. Karam, C. Zaki. 2013. On the determinants of trade in services: evidence from the MENA region. Applied Economics 45, 4662-4676.
[CrossRef]
263. Alessandro Barattieri. 2013. Comparative advantage, service trade, and global imbalances. Journal of International Economics . [CrossRef]

264. Kit Chi Chung, Pauline Fleming, Euan Fleming. 2013. The impact of information and communication technology on international
trade in fruit and vegetables in APEC. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature 27:10.1111/apel.2013.27.issue-2, 117-130. [CrossRef]
265. Aleksandra Parteka. 2013. The Role of Trade in Intra-Industry Productivity Growth-the Case of Old and New European Union
Countries. Review of Development Economics 17:10.1111/rode.2013.17.issue-4, 712-731. [CrossRef]
266. Jeffrey H. Bergstrand, Peter Egger. 2013. Shouldn't Physical Capital Also Matter for Multinational Enterprise Activity?. Review of
International Economics 21:10.1111/roie.2013.21.issue-5, 945-965. [CrossRef]
267. Erik van der Marel, Ben Shepherd. 2013. Services Trade, Regulation and Regional Integration: Evidence from Sectoral Data. The
World Economy 36, 1393-1405. [CrossRef]
268. Fabienne Boudier, Julie Lochard. 2013. How do Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions Answer to Deregulation in Services?. The
World Economy 36:10.1111/twec.2013.36.issue-11, 1424-1441. [CrossRef]
269. Yong Zhao, Kam Ki Tang, Li-li Wang. 2013. Do renewable electricity policies promote renewable electricity generation? Evidence
from panel data. Energy Policy 62, 887-897. [CrossRef]
270. Mahvash Saeed Qureshi. 2013. Trade and thy neighbor's war. Journal of Development Economics 105, 178-195. [CrossRef]
271. Andreas Dr, Leonardo Baccini, Manfred Elsig. 2013. The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset. The
Review of International Organizations . [CrossRef]
272. S. Michalopoulos, E. Papaioannou. 2013. National Institutions and Subnational Development in Africa. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics . [CrossRef]
273. Nicole B. Simpson, Chad Sparber. 2013. The Short- and Long-Run Determinants of Less-Educated Immigrant Flows into U.S.
States. Southern Economic Journal 80, 414-438. [CrossRef]
274. Ben Shepherd, Norbert L.W. Wilson. 2013. Product standards and developing country agricultural exports: The case of the European
Union. Food Policy 42, 1-10. [CrossRef]
275. Ina Simonovska, Michael E. Waugh. 2013. The elasticity of trade: Estimates and evidence. Journal of International Economics .
[CrossRef]
276. Ernest Migulez, Rosina Moreno. 2013. WHAT ATTRACTS KNOWLEDGE WORKERS? THE ROLE OF SPACE AND
SOCIAL NETWORKS. Journal of Regional Science n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
277. Nhuong Tran, Anh Nguyen, Norbert L.W. Wilson. 2013. The Differential Effects of Food Safety Regulations on Animal Products
Trade: The Case of Crustacean Product Trade. Agribusiness n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
278. O. Dube, J. F. Vargas. 2013. Commodity Price Shocks and Civil Conflict: Evidence from Colombia. The Review of Economic Studies
80, 1384-1421. [CrossRef]
279. Peter Egger, Tobias Seidel. 2013. Corporate taxes and intra-firm trade. European Economic Review 63, 225-242. [CrossRef]
280. Adam M. Kleinbaum, Toby E. Stuart, Michael L. Tushman. 2013. Discretion Within Constraint: Homophily and Structure in a
Formal Organization. Organization Science 24, 1316-1336. [CrossRef]
281. Salvador Gil-Pareja, Rafael-Llorca Vivero, Jordi Paniagua. 2013. The effect of the great recession on foreign direct investment: global
empirical evidence with a gravity approach. Applied Economics Letters 20, 1244-1248. [CrossRef]
282. Emmanuelle Quillrou, Nolwenn Roudaut, Olivier Guyader. 2013. Managing Fleet Capacity Effectively Under Second-Hand Market
Redistribution. AMBIO 42, 611-627. [CrossRef]
283. P. Chintrakarn. 2013. Subnational trade flows and state-level energy intensity: an empirical analysis. Applied Economics Letters 20,
1344-1351. [CrossRef]
284. Cline Carrre, Jaime de Melo, John Wilson. 2013. THE DISTANCE PUZZLE AND LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES: AN
UPDATE. Journal of Economic Surveys 27:10.1111/joes.2013.27.issue-4, 717-742. [CrossRef]
285. Jan Pettersson, Lars Johansson. 2013. Aid, Aid for Trade, and bilateral trade: An empirical study. The Journal of International Trade
& Economic Development 22, 866-894. [CrossRef]
286. Anthony Briant, Pierre-Philippe Combes, Miren Lafourcade. 2013. Product Complexity, Quality of Institutions and the Protrade
Effect of Immigrants. The World Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
287. Henry Sauermann, Michael Roach. 2013. Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs preferences for publishing in industrial
employment. Research Policy . [CrossRef]
288. Xiaohua Bao, Wei-Chih Chen. 2013. The Impacts of Technical Barriers to Trade on Different Components of International Trade.
Review of Development Economics 17:10.1111/rode.2013.17.issue-3, 447-460. [CrossRef]
289. Andrea Caragliu, Chiara Del Bo, Henri L. F. Groot, Gert-Jan M. Linders. 2013. Cultural determinants of migration. The Annals of
Regional Science 51, 7-32. [CrossRef]

290. Pascal L. Ghazalian. 2013. MERCOSUR enlargement: predicting the effects on trade in primary agricultural commodities. Economic
Change and Restructuring 46, 277-297. [CrossRef]
291. Joseph A. Clougherty, Micha Grajek. 2013. International standards and international trade: Empirical evidence from ISO 9000
diffusion. International Journal of Industrial Organization . [CrossRef]
292. Gabriel J. Felbermayr, Erdal Yalcin. 2013. Export Credit Guarantees and Export Performance: An Empirical Analysis for Germany.
The World Economy 36, 967-999. [CrossRef]
293. Alessandro Antimiani, Valeria Costantini. 2013. Trade performances and technology in the enlarged European Union. Journal of
Economic Studies 40, 355-389. [CrossRef]
294. Chong Wha Lee. 2013. Does religion affect international trade in services more than trade in goods?. Applied Economics Letters 20,
998-1002. [CrossRef]
295. Atef Al-Rashidi, Bidisha Lahiri. 2013. The effect of exchange rate volatility on trade: correcting for selection bias and asymmetric
trade flows. Applied Economics Letters 20, 1121-1126. [CrossRef]
296. AMLIE GUILLIN. 2013. Assessment of tariff equivalents for services considering the zero flows. World Trade Review 12, 549-575.
[CrossRef]
297. E. Peterson, J. Grant, D. Roberts, V. Karov. 2013. Evaluating the Trade Restrictiveness of Phytosanitary Measures on U.S. Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Imports. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95, 842-858. [CrossRef]
298. LEO H. KAHANE. 2013. UNDERSTANDING THE INTERSTATE EXPORT OF CRIME GUNS: A GRAVITY MODEL
APPROACH. Contemporary Economic Policy 31:10.1111/coep.2013.31.issue-3, 618-634. [CrossRef]
299. Sangkyom Kim, Innwon Park, Soonchan Park. 2013. Trade-creating regime-wide rules of origin: a quantitative analysis. Applied
Economics Letters 20, 1056-1061. [CrossRef]
300. Roberto Patuelli, Maurizio Mussoni, Guido Candela. 2013. The effects of World Heritage Sites on domestic tourism: a spatial
interaction model for Italy. Journal of Geographical Systems 15, 369-402. [CrossRef]
301. Holger Breinlich, Alejandro Cuat. 2013. Geography, non-homotheticity, and industrialization: A quantitative analysis. Journal of
Development Economics 103, 133-153. [CrossRef]
302. Clment Bosquet, Herv Boulhol. 2013. Applying the GLM Variance Assumption to Overcome the Scale-Dependence of the Negative
Binomial QGPML Estimator. Econometric Reviews 130614131347004. [CrossRef]
303. Ernest Migulez, Rosina Moreno. 2013. Do Labour Mobility and Technological Collaborations Foster Geographical Knowledge
Diffusion? The Case of European Regions. Growth and Change 44:10.1111/grow.2013.44.issue-2, 321-354. [CrossRef]
304. Estrella Gmez-Herrera. 2013. Comparing alternative methods to estimate gravity models of bilateral trade. Empirical Economics 44,
1087-1111. [CrossRef]
305. Craig Macphee, Peter Cook, Wanasin Sattayanuwat. 2013. Transportation and The International Trade of Eastern and Southern
Africa. South African Journal of Economics 81:10.1111/saje.2013.81.issue-2, 225-239. [CrossRef]
306. Rebecca Tomasik. 2013. Time zone-related continuity and synchronization effects on bilateral trade flows. Review of World Economics
149, 321-342. [CrossRef]
307. Axel Berger, Matthias Busse, Peter Nunnenkamp, Martin Roy. 2013. Do trade and investment agreements lead to more FDI?
Accounting for key provisions inside the black box. International Economics and Economic Policy 10, 247-275. [CrossRef]
308. Hyun-Hoon Lee, Donghyun Park, Jing Wang. 2013. Different types of firms, different types of products, and their dynamics: An
anatomy of China's imports. China Economic Review 25, 62-77. [CrossRef]
309. Jan Pokrivcak, Siemen van Berkum, Lenka Drgova, Marian Mraz, Pavel Ciaian. 2013. The role of non-tariff measures in EU dairy
trade with Russia. Post-Communist Economies 25, 175-189. [CrossRef]
310. A. Cheptea. 2013. Border Effects and European Integration. CESifo Economic Studies 59, 277-305. [CrossRef]
311. C. Umana Dajud. 2013. Political Proximity and International Trade. Economics & Politics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
312. Joseph Francois, Miriam Manchin. 2013. Institutions, Infrastructure, and Trade. World Development 46, 165-175. [CrossRef]
313. Miguel Flores, Mary Zey, Nazrul Hoque. 2013. Economic Liberalization and Contemporary Determinants of Mexico's Internal
Migration: An Application of Spatial Gravity Models. Spatial Economic Analysis 8, 195-214. [CrossRef]
314. Gianluca Orefice, Nadia Rocha. 2013. Deep Integration and Production Networks: An Empirical Analysis. The World Economy n/
a-n/a. [CrossRef]
315. Kevin E. Staub, Rainer Winkelmann. 2013. CONSISTENT ESTIMATION OF ZERO-INFLATED COUNT MODELS. Health
Economics 22:10.1002/hec.v22.6, 673-686. [CrossRef]
316. Fernando Ferreira, Joel Waldfogel. 2013. Pop Internationalism: Has Half a Century of World Music Trade Displaced Local Culture?.
The Economic Journal 123, 634-664. [CrossRef]

317. HYUN-HOON LEE, DONGHYUN PARK. 2013. THE FINANCIAL ROLE OF EAST ASIAN COUNTRIES IN GLOBAL
IMBALANCES: AN ECONOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENTS AFTER THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS.
Global Journal of Economics 02, 1350006. [CrossRef]
318. Simone Bertoli, Jess Fernndez-Huertas Moraga. 2013. Multilateral resistance to migration. Journal of Development Economics 102,
79-100. [CrossRef]
319. Carol McAusland, Daniel L. Millimet. 2013. Do national borders matter? Intranational trade, international trade, and the environment.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 65, 411-437. [CrossRef]
320. David Law, Murat Gen, John Bryant. 2013. Trade, Diaspora and Migration to New Zealand. The World Economy 36, 582-606.
[CrossRef]
321. Joaquim J. S. Ramalho, J. Vidigal Silva. 2013. Functional form issues in the regression analysis of financial leverage ratios. Empirical
Economics 44, 799-831. [CrossRef]
322. Mustafa Caglayan, Omar S. Dahi, Firat Demir. 2013. Trade Flows, Exchange Rate Uncertainty, and Financial Depth: Evidence from
28 Emerging Countries. Southern Economic Journal 79, 905-927. [CrossRef]
323. Andreas Fuchs, Krishna Chaitanya Vadlamannati. 2013. The Needy Donor: An Empirical Analysis of Indias Aid Motives. World
Development 44, 110-128. [CrossRef]
324. MICHAEL D. WARD, JOHN S. AHLQUIST, ARTURAS ROZENAS. 2013. Gravity's Rainbow: A dynamic latent space model
for the world trade network. Network Science 1, 95-118. [CrossRef]
325. Giorgio Fagiolo, Tiziano Squartini, Diego Garlaschelli. 2013. Null models of economic networks: the case of the world trade web.
Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination 8, 75-107. [CrossRef]
326. Fabio Montobbio, Valerio Sterzi. 2013. The Globalization of Technology in Emerging Markets: A Gravity Model on the Determinants
of International Patent Collaborations. World Development 44, 281-299. [CrossRef]
327. Valeria Costantini, Francesco Crespi. 2013. Public policies for a sustainable energy sector: regulation, diversity and fostering of
innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 23, 401-429. [CrossRef]
328. Jean-Franois Arvis, Ben Shepherd. 2013. The Poisson quasi-maximum likelihood estimator: a solution to the adding up problem
in gravity models. Applied Economics Letters 20, 515-519. [CrossRef]
329. Daniel Berger, William Easterly, Nathan Nunn, Shanker Satyanath. 2013. Commercial Imperialism? Political Influence and Trade
During the Cold War. American Economic Review 103, 863-896. [CrossRef]
330. Marco Dueas, Giorgio Fagiolo. 2013. Modeling the International-Trade Network: a gravity approach. Journal of Economic Interaction
and Coordination 8, 155-178. [CrossRef]
331. Armando J. Garcia Pires. 2013. Beyond Trade Costs: Firms Endogenous Access to International Markets. Journal of Industry,
Competition and Trade . [CrossRef]
332. E. Tani Fukui, Alexander B. Hammer, Lin Z. Jones. 2013. Are U.S. exports influenced by stronger IPR protection measures in
recipient markets?. Business Horizons 56, 179-188. [CrossRef]
333. Aleksandra Parteka, Joanna Wolszczak-Derlacz. 2013. The Impact of Trade Integration with the European Union on Productivity in
a Posttransition Economy: The Case of Polish Manufacturing Sectors. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 49, 84-104. [CrossRef]
334. Kazunobu Hayakawa. 2013. How serious is the omission of bilateral tariff rates in gravity?. Journal of the Japanese and International
Economies 27, 81-94. [CrossRef]
335. Shuhei Nishitateno. 2013. Global production sharing and the FDItrade nexus: New evidence from the Japanese automobile industry.
Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 27, 64-80. [CrossRef]
336. George Philippidis, Helena Resano-Ezcaray, Ana I. Sanjun-Lpez. 2013. Capturing zero-trade values in gravity equations of trade:
an analysis of protectionism in agro-food sectors. Agricultural Economics 44:10.1111/agec.2013.44.issue-2, 141-159. [CrossRef]
337. Marco Fugazza, Alessandro Nicita. 2013. The direct and relative effects of preferential market access. Journal of International Economics
89, 357-368. [CrossRef]
338. Z. U. Haq, K. Meilke, J. Cranfield. 2013. Selection bias in a gravity model of agrifood trade. European Review of Agricultural Economics
40, 331-360. [CrossRef]
339. D. V. Pahan Prasada. 2013. Domestic versus Multilateral Institutions in Bilateral Trade: A Comparative Gravity Analysis. International
Economic Journal 27, 127-142. [CrossRef]
340. Karel Janda, Eva Michalikova, Jiri Skuhrovec. 2013. Credit Support for Export: Robust Evidence from the Czech Republic. The World
Economy n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
341. Faqin Lin. 2013. Are distance effects really a puzzle?. Economic Modelling 31, 684-689. [CrossRef]
342. Russell Thomson. 2013. National scientific capacity and R&D offshoring. Research Policy 42, 517-528. [CrossRef]

343. Sushil Mohan, Sangeeta Khorana, Homagni Choudhury. 2013. Why Developing Countries Have Failed to Increase Their Exports of
Agricultural Processed Products. Economic Affairs 33:10.1111/ecaf.2013.33.issue-1, 48-64. [CrossRef]
344. Gabriel Felbermayr, Jasmin Grschl. 2013. Natural disasters and the effect of trade on income: A new panel IV approach. European
Economic Review 58, 18-30. [CrossRef]
345. Alejandro Cuat, Christian Fons-Rosen. 2013. RELATIVE FACTOR ENDOWMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL PORTFOLIO
CHOICE. Journal of the European Economic Association 11, 166-200. [CrossRef]
346. Volker Nitsch, Nikolaus Wolf. 2013. Tear down this wall: on the persistence of borders in trade. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue
canadienne d'conomique 46, 154-179. [CrossRef]
347. Emmanuelle Lavalle, Vincent Vicard. 2013. National borders matterwhere one draws the lines too. Canadian Journal of
Economics/Revue canadienne d'conomique 46, 135-153. [CrossRef]
348. Yan Zhou, Jiadong Tong, Puyang Sun. 2013. What's special about the extensive and intensive margins in Chinese manufacturing
exports?. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies 6, 19-34. [CrossRef]
349. Juan Alcacer, Paul Ingram. 2013. Spanning the Institutional Abyss: The Intergovernmental Network and the Governance of Foreign
Direct Investment 1. American Journal of Sociology 118, 1055-1098. [CrossRef]
350. Inmaculada Martnez-Zarzoso. 2013. The log of gravity revisited. Applied Economics 45, 311-327. [CrossRef]
351. J.M.C. Santos Silva, S. TenreyroCurrency Unions 451-461. [CrossRef]
352. Maximiliano Sosa Andrs, Peter Nunnenkamp, Matthias Busse. 2013. What Drives FDI from Non-traditional Sources? A Comparative
Analysis of the Determinants of Bilateral FDI Flows. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 7, 1. [CrossRef]
353. Jason H. Grant. 2013. Is the growth of regionalism as significant as the headlines suggest? Lessons from agricultural trade. Agricultural
Economics 44:10.1111/agec.2013.44.issue-1, 93-109. [CrossRef]
354. L. Cissokho, J. Haughton, K. Makpayo, A. Seck. 2013. Why Is Agricultural Trade within ECOWAS So High?. Journal of African
Economies 22, 22-51. [CrossRef]
355. DENNIS NOVY. 2013. GRAVITY REDUX: MEASURING INTERNATIONAL TRADE COSTS WITH PANEL DATA.
Economic Inquiry 51:10.1111/ecin.2013.51.issue-1, 101-121. [CrossRef]
356. Iza Lejrraga, Ben Shepherd, Frank van Tongeren4 Transparency in Nontariff Measures: Effects on Agricultural Trade 99-125.
[CrossRef]
357. Nhuong Tran, Norbert Wilson, Diane Hite5 Choosing the Best Model in the Presence of Zero Trade: A Fish Product Analysis
127-148. [CrossRef]
358. Bo Xiong, John C. Beghin10 Stringent Maximum Residue Limits, Protectionism, and Competitiveness: The Cases of the US and
Canada 245-259. [CrossRef]
359. Youssouf Kiendrebeogo. 2013. How Do Banking Crises Affect Bilateral Exports?. IMF Working Papers 13, i. [CrossRef]
360. Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall, Andreas Poldahl. 2012. Determinants of Firm R&D: The Role of Relationship-Specific Interactions for
R&D Spillovers. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 12, 395-411. [CrossRef]
361. Arvin Pirness, M. Rose Olfert, Mark D. Partridge, William Hartley Furtan. 2012. Assessing the Impact of State Trading Enterprises.
International Economic Journal 26, 587-608. [CrossRef]
362. Fabien Candau, Jean-Franois Hoarau, Serge Rey. 2012. Limpact de la distance et de lintgration sur le commerce dune rgion
ultrapriphrique dEurope: lle de La Runion. European Journal of Development Research 24, 808-831. [CrossRef]
363. Lars Hkanson, Douglas Dow. 2012. Markets and Networks in International Trade: On the Role of Distances in Globalization.
Management International Review 52, 761-789. [CrossRef]
364. Valentina Raimondi, Margherita Scoppola, Alessandro Olper. 2012. Preference erosion and the developing countries exports to the
EU: a dynamic panel gravity approach. Review of World Economics 148, 707-732. [CrossRef]
365. Ludo Peeters. 2012. GRAVITY AND SPATIAL STRUCTURE: THE CASE OF INTERSTATE MIGRATION IN MEXICO*.
Journal of Regional Science 52:10.1111/jors.2012.52.issue-5, 819-856. [CrossRef]
366. Sophie Drogu, Federica DeMaria. 2012. Pesticide residues and trade, the apple of discord?. Food Policy 37, 641-649. [CrossRef]
367. Jos de Sousa. 2012. The currency union effect on trade is decreasing over time. Economics Letters 117, 917-920. [CrossRef]
368. Yoto V. Yotov. 2012. A simple solution to the distance puzzle in international trade. Economics Letters 117, 794-798. [CrossRef]
369. Martin Ruf, Alfons J. Weichenrieder. 2012. The taxation of passive foreign investment: lessons from German experience. Canadian
Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'conomique 45, 1504-1528. [CrossRef]
370. RABIN HATTARI, RAMKISHEN S. RAJAN. 2012. SOURCES OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT FLOWS TO
DEVELOPING ASIA: THE IMPORTANCE OF TIME ZONE. China Economic Policy Review 01, 1250013. [CrossRef]

371. Jos de Sousa, Thierry Mayer, Soledad Zignago. 2012. Market access in global and regional trade. Regional Science and Urban Economics
42, 1037-1052. [CrossRef]
372. Neil Foster. 2012. Preferential Trade Agreements and the Margins of Imports. Open Economies Review 23, 869-889. [CrossRef]
373. Zhenhui Xu, Jianyong Fan. 2012. China's Regional Trade and Domestic Market Integrations. Review of International Economics 20,
1052-1069. [CrossRef]
374. Celine Azemar, Julia Darby, Rodolphe Desbordes, Ian Wooton. 2012. Market Familiarity and the Location of South and North MNEs.
Economics & Politics 24:10.1111/ecpo.2012.24.issue-3, 307-345. [CrossRef]
375. Pedro Verga Matos, Horcio C. Faustino. 2012. Beta-convergence and sigma-convergence in corporate governance in Europe. Economic
Modelling 29, 2198-2204. [CrossRef]
376. Joshua Aizenman, Jake Kendall. 2012. The internationalization of venture capital. Journal of Economic Studies 39, 488-511. [CrossRef]
377. Mahmut Yasar, David Lisner, Roderick M. Rejesus. 2012. Bilateral trade impacts of temporary foreign visitor policy. Review of World
Economics 148, 501-521. [CrossRef]
378. Frdric Docquier, Hillel Rapoport, Sara Salomone. 2012. Remittances, migrants' education and immigration policy: Theory and
evidence from bilateral data. Regional Science and Urban Economics 42, 817-828. [CrossRef]
379. B. Xiong, J. Beghin. 2012. Does European aflatoxin regulation hurt groundnut exporters from Africa?. European Review of Agricultural
Economics 39, 589-609. [CrossRef]
380. Nicolas Berman, Philippe Martin. 2012. The Vulnerability of Sub-Saharan Africa to Financial Crises: The Case of Trade. IMF
Economic Review 60, 329-364. [CrossRef]
381. Nelson Villoria. 2012. The effects of China's growth on the food prices and the food exports of other developing countries. Agricultural
Economics 43:10.1111/agec.2012.43.issue-5, 499-514. [CrossRef]
382. Myoung-jae Lee, Young-sook Kim. 2012. ZERO-INFLATED ENDOGENOUS COUNT IN CENSORED MODEL: EFFECTS
OF INFORMAL FAMILY CARE ON FORMAL HEALTH CARE. Health Economics 21:10.1002/hec.v21.9, 1119-1133. [CrossRef]
383. Jean-Marc Siron, Aycil Yucer. 2012. The impact of MERCOSUR on trade of Brazilian states. Review of World Economics 148,
553-582. [CrossRef]
384. Theo S. Eicher, Lindy Helfman, Alex Lenkoski. 2012. Robust FDI determinants: Bayesian Model Averaging in the presence of
selection bias. Journal of Macroeconomics 34, 637-651. [CrossRef]
385. Mark N. Harris, Lszl Knya, Lszl Mtys. 2012. Some Stylized Facts about International Trade Flows. Review of International
Economics 20:10.1111/roie.2012.20.issue-4, 781-792. [CrossRef]
386. Oliver Falck, Stephan Heblich, Alfred Lameli, Jens Sdekum. 2012. Dialects, cultural identity, and economic exchange. Journal of
Urban Economics 72, 225-239. [CrossRef]
387. Yue Ma, Baozhi Qu, Yifan Zhang. 2012. Complex Goods' Exports and Institutions: Empirics at the Firm Level. Review of International
Economics 20:10.1111/roie.2012.20.issue-4, 841-853. [CrossRef]
388. Geraldine A. Wu. 2012. The Effect of Going Public on Innovative Productivity and Exploratory Search. Organization Science 23,
928-950. [CrossRef]
389. Gianfranco De Simone, Miriam Manchin. 2012. Outward Migration and Inward FDI: Factor Mobility between Eastern and Western
Europe. Review of International Economics 20:10.1111/roie.2012.20.issue-3, 600-615. [CrossRef]
390. Faqin Lin, Nicholas C.S. Sim. 2012. Death of distance and the distance puzzle. Economics Letters 116, 225-228. [CrossRef]
391. Peter H. Egger, Andrea Lassmann. 2012. The language effect in international trade: A meta-analysis. Economics Letters 116, 221-224.
[CrossRef]
392. Aitor Garmendia, Carlos Llano, Asier Minondo, Francisco Requena. 2012. Networks and the disappearance of the intranational home
bias. Economics Letters 116, 178-182. [CrossRef]
393. N. Voigtlander, H.-J. Voth. 2012. Persecution Perpetuated: The Medieval Origins of Anti-Semitic Violence in Nazi Germany. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 127, 1339-1392. [CrossRef]
394. Pascal L. Ghazalian, Lota D. Tamini, Bruno Larue, Jean-Philippe Gervais. 2012. A gravity model to account for vertical linkages
between markets with an application to the cattle/beef sector. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 21, 579-601.
[CrossRef]
395. Segun Goh, Keumsook Lee, Jong Soo Park, M. Y. Choi. 2012. Modification of the gravity model and application to the metropolitan
Seoul subway system. Physical Review E 86. . [CrossRef]
396. Giulia Bettin, Alessia Lo Turco. 2012. A Cross-Country View on South-North Migration and Trade: Dissecting the Channels.
Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 48, 4-29. [CrossRef]

397. Kevin N. Alschuler, Laura E. Gibbons, Dori E. Rosenberg, Dawn M. Ehde, Aimee M. Verrall, Alyssa M. Bamer, Mark P. Jensen.
2012. Body mass index and waist circumference in persons aging with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, post-polio syndrome,
and spinal cord injury. Disability and Health Journal 5, 177-184. [CrossRef]
398. Michle Belot, Sjef Ederveen. 2012. Cultural barriers in migration between OECD countries. Journal of Population Economics 25,
1077-1105. [CrossRef]
399. A. Klein, N. Crafts. 2012. Making sense of the manufacturing belt: determinants of U.S. industrial location, 1880-1920. Journal of
Economic Geography 12, 775-807. [CrossRef]
400. Mohammad Mafizur Rahman, Dilip Dutta. 2012. The Gravity Model Analysis of Bangladesh's Trade: A Panel Data Approach. Journal
of Asia-Pacific Business 13, 263-286. [CrossRef]
401. Andrew B. Bernard, J. Bradford Jensen, Stephen J. Redding, Peter K. Schott. 2012. The Empirics of Firm Heterogeneity and
International Trade. Annual Review of Economics 4, 283-313. [CrossRef]
402. Derek Kellenberg. 2012. Trading wastes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 64, 68-87. [CrossRef]
403. Andr C. Jordaan, Joel H. Eita. 2012. Determinants of South Africa's exports of leather products. Agrekon 51, 38-52. [CrossRef]
404. J. de Sousa, J. Lochard. 2012. Trade and Colonial Status. Journal of African Economies 21, 409-439. [CrossRef]
405. Pascal L. Ghazalian. 2012. Home Bias in Primary Agricultural and Processed Food Trade: Assessing the Effects of National Degree
of Uncertainty Aversion. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63, 265-290. [CrossRef]
406. Katheryn Niles Russ. 2012. Exchange rate volatility and first-time entry by multinational firms. Review of World Economics 148,
269-295. [CrossRef]
407. Gregory Corcos, Massimo Del Gatto, Giordano Mion, Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano. 2012. Productivity and Firm Selection: Quantifying
the New Gains from Trade*. The Economic Journal 122, 754-798. [CrossRef]
408. Simone Juhasz Silva, Douglas Nelson. 2012. Does Aid Cause Trade? Evidence from an Asymmetric Gravity Model. The World Economy
35:10.1111/twec.2012.35.issue-5, 545-577. [CrossRef]
409. Yuan Li, John C. Beghin. 2012. A meta-analysis of estimates of the impact of technical barriers to trade. Journal of Policy Modeling
34, 497-511. [CrossRef]
410. Gordon H Hanson. 2012. The Rise of Middle Kingdoms: Emerging Economies in Global Trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives
26, 41-64. [CrossRef]
411. Yoko Asuyama. 2012. Skill Distribution and Comparative Advantage: A Comparison of China and India. World Development 40,
956-969. [CrossRef]
412. Michele Fratianni, Francesco Marchionne. 2012. Trade Costs and Economic Development. Economic Geography 88:10.1111/
ecge.2012.88.issue-2, 137-163. [CrossRef]
413. Guo-xue WEI, Ji-kun HUANG, Jun YANG. 2012. Honey Safety Standards and Its Impacts on China's Honey Export. Journal of
Integrative Agriculture 11, 684-693. [CrossRef]
414. Oxana Babeck Kucharukov, Jan Babeck, Martin Raiser. 2012. Gravity Approach for Modelling International Trade in SouthEastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States: The Role of Geography, Policy and Institutions. Open Economies
Review 23, 277-301. [CrossRef]
415. John Francis, Yuqing Zheng. 2012. Trade, Geography, and Industry Growth in U.S. Manufacturing. Southern Economic Journal 78,
1222-1241. [CrossRef]
416. Tomasz Michalski, Evren Ors. 2012. (Interstate) Banking and (interstate) trade: Does real integration follow financial integration?.
Journal of Financial Economics 104, 89-117. [CrossRef]
417. YVES BOURDET, MARIA PERSSON. 2012. Completing the European Union Customs Union: The Effects of Trade Procedure
Harmonization*. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 50:10.1111/jcms.2012.50.issue-2, 300-314. [CrossRef]
418. Theo S. Eicher, Christian Henn, Chris Papageorgiou. 2012. Trade creation and diversion revisited: Accounting for model uncertainty
and natural trading partner effects. Journal of Applied Econometrics 27:10.1002/jae.v27.2, 296-321. [CrossRef]
419. Ines Buono, Guy Lalanne. 2012. The effect of the Uruguay round on the intensive and extensive margins of trade. Journal of
International Economics 86, 269-283. [CrossRef]
420. Raj Aggarwal, Colm Kearney, Brian Lucey. 2012. Gravity and culture in foreign portfolio investment. Journal of Banking & Finance
36, 525-538. [CrossRef]
421. Donata Bessey. 2012. International student migration to Germany. Empirical Economics 42, 345-361. [CrossRef]
422. Mara Pa Olivero, Yoto V. Yotov. 2012. Dynamic gravity: endogenous country size and asset accumulation. Canadian Journal of
Economics/Revue canadienne d'conomique 45:10.1111/caje.2012.45.issue-1, 64-92. [CrossRef]

423. Valeria Costantini, Massimiliano Mazzanti. 2012. On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact of
environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Research Policy 41, 132-153. [CrossRef]
424. Nicolas Sauter. 2012. Talking trade: language barriers in intra-Canadian commerce. Empirical Economics 42, 301-323. [CrossRef]
425. Jean-Marie Grether, Nicole Andra Mathys, Jaime de Melo. 2012. Unravelling the worldwide pollution haven effect. The Journal of
International Trade & Economic Development 21, 131-162. [CrossRef]

426. Cline Carrre. 2012. UEMOA, CEMAC: quelle performance en matire de commerce?. Revue d'conomie du dveloppement 27,
33. [CrossRef]
427. Vincent Vicard. 2012. Trade, conflict, and political integration: Explaining the heterogeneity of regional trade agreements. European
Economic Review 56, 54-71. [CrossRef]
428. Willem Thorbecke, Atsuyuki Kato. 2012. The effect of exchange rate changes on Japanese consumption exports. Japan and the World
Economy 24, 64-71. [CrossRef]
429. Benedikt Heid, Mario Larch. 2012. Migration, Trade and Unemployment. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal
6, 1. [CrossRef]
430. Anna D'Souza. 2012. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention: Changing the currents of trade. Journal of Development Economics 97,
73-87. [CrossRef]
431. Lasa Ro'i, Marc-Alexandre Sngas. 2012. Bilateral trade, colonial heritage and common currency arrangements: An Oceanian
perspective. International Economics 129, 63-98. [CrossRef]
432. Rahul Giri. 2012. Local costs of distribution, international trade costs and micro evidence on the law of one price. Journal of International
Economics 86, 82-100. [CrossRef]
433. J. H. Grant, K. A. Boys. 2012. Agricultural Trade and the GATT/WTO: Does Membership Make a Difference?. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 94, 1-24. [CrossRef]
434. Ivan T. Kandilov, Thomas Grennes. 2012. The determinants of service offshoring: Does distance matter?. Japan and the World Economy
24, 36-43. [CrossRef]
435. Hyun-Hoon Lee, Hyeon-seung Huh, Won Joong Kim. 2012. Cross-border portfolio investment in the APEC region. Japan and the
World Economy 24, 44-56. [CrossRef]
436. Athiwat Sukanuntathum. 2012. Robust Estimation of Gravity Models under Heteroskedasticity and Data Censoring. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 40, 731-735. [CrossRef]
437. NIKOLAUS WOLF, MAX-STEPHAN SCHULZE, HANS-CHRISTIAN HEINEMEYER. 2011. On the Economic Consequences
of the Peace: Trade and Borders After Versailles. The Journal of Economic History 71, 915-949. [CrossRef]
438. Bernard Hoekman, Alessandro Nicita. 2011. Trade Policy, Trade Costs, and Developing Country Trade. World Development 39,
2069-2079. [CrossRef]
439. Kazunobu Hayakawa. 2011. Measuring fixed costs for firms use of a free trade agreement: Threshold regression approach. Economics
Letters 113, 301-303. [CrossRef]
440. Natalie Chen, Dennis Novy. 2011. Gravity, trade integration, and heterogeneity across industries. Journal of International Economics
85, 206-221. [CrossRef]
441. Wolfgang Hess, Maria Persson. 2011. Exploring the duration of EU imports. Review of World Economics 147, 665-692. [CrossRef]
442. Andrew J. Cassey. 2011. State Foreign Export Patterns. Southern Economic Journal 78, 308-329. [CrossRef]
443. Carlos Llano-Verduras, Asier Minondo, Francisco Requena-Silvente. 2011. Is the Border Effect an Artefact of Geographical
Aggregation?. The World Economy 34:10.1111/twec.2011.34.issue-10, 1771-1787. [CrossRef]
444. P. Cardamone. 2011. The effect of preferential trade agreements on monthly fruit exports to the European Union. European Review
of Agricultural Economics 38, 553-586. [CrossRef]
445. Gabriel Felbermayr, Wilhelm KohlerModelling the Extensive Margin of World Trade: New Evidence on GATT and WTO
Membership 92-130. [CrossRef]
446. Pierre Azoulay, Joshua S. Graff Zivin, Gustavo Manso. 2011. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. The
RAND Journal of Economics 42:10.1111/rand.2011.42.issue-3, 527-554. [CrossRef]
447. Neil Foster, Robert Stehrer. 2011. Preferential trade agreements and the structure of international trade. Review of World Economics
147, 385-409. [CrossRef]
448. James E. Anderson. 2011. The Gravity Model. Annual Review of Economics 3, 133-160. [CrossRef]
449. Gianluca Cafiso. 2011. Sectoral border effects and the geographic concentration of production. Review of World Economics 147, 543-566.
[CrossRef]

450. Florian Mlders, Ulrich Volz. 2011. Trade creation and the status of FTAs: empirical evidence from East Asia. Review of World
Economics 147, 429-456. [CrossRef]
451. Valentina Raimondi, Alessandro Olper. 2011. Trade Elasticity, Gravity and Trade Liberalisation: Evidence from the Food Industry.
Journal of Agricultural Economics 62:10.1111/jage.2011.62.issue-3, 525-550. [CrossRef]
452. Giovanni Pica, Jos V. Rodrguez Mora. 2011. Who's afraid of a globalized world? Foreign Direct Investments, local knowledge and
allocation of talents. Journal of International Economics 85, 86-101. [CrossRef]
453. Gabriel Felbermayr, Julien Prat, Hans-Jrg Schmerer. 2011. Trade and unemployment: What do the data say?. European Economic
Review 55, 741-758. [CrossRef]
454. Peter Egger, Mario Larch, Kevin E Staub, Rainer Winkelmann. 2011. The Trade Effects of Endogenous Preferential Trade
Agreements. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3, 113-143. [CrossRef]
455. J.M.C. Santos Silva, Silvana Tenreyro. 2011. Further simulation evidence on the performance of the Poisson pseudo-maximum
likelihood estimator. Economics Letters 112, 220-222. [CrossRef]
456. Anca D. Cristea. 2011. Buyer-seller relationships in international trade: Evidence from U.S. States' exports and business-class travel.
Journal of International Economics 84, 207-220. [CrossRef]
457. Marilyne Huchet-Bourdon, Angela Cheptea. 2011. Informal barriers and agricultural trade: does monetary integration matter?.
Agricultural Economics 42, 519-530. [CrossRef]
458. Alfredo Jimnez. 2011. Political Risk as a Determinant of Southern European FDI in Neighboring Developing Countries. Emerging
Markets Finance and Trade 47, 59-74. [CrossRef]
459. Hajime Katayama, Mark Melatos. 2011. The nonlinear impact of currency unions on bilateral trade. Economics Letters 112, 94-96.
[CrossRef]
460. Tom Konen. 2011. Expatriates and Trade. Journal of International Migration and Integration . [CrossRef]
461. Byron S. Gangnes, Alyson C. Ma, Ari Van Assche. 2011. China's exports in a world of increasing oil prices. Multinational Business
Review 19, 133-151. [CrossRef]
462. Marcella Nicolini. 2011. On the evolution of institutional comparative advantages. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 22,
162-172. [CrossRef]
463. Kai Sun, Daniel J. Henderson, Subal C. Kumbhakar. 2011. Biases in approximating log production. Journal of Applied Econometrics
26:10.1002/jae.v26.4, 708-714. [CrossRef]
464. Bernhard Herz, Marco Wagner. 2011. The Real Impact of GATT/WTO - a Generalised Approach. The World Economy 34:10.1111/
twec.2011.34.issue-6, 1014-1041. [CrossRef]
465. Innwon Park, Soonchan Park. 2011. Best practices for regional trade agreements. Review of World Economics 147, 249-268. [CrossRef]
466. Pascal L. Ghazalian, Bruno Larue, Jean-Philippe Gervais. 2011. Assessing the implications of regional preferential market access for
meat commodities. Agribusiness 27:10.1002/agr.v27.3, 292-310. [CrossRef]
467. Debasri Mukherjee, Susan Pozo. 2011. Exchange-rate volatility and trade: a semiparametric approach. Applied Economics 43, 1617-1627.
[CrossRef]
468. Peter Egger, David Greenaway, Tobias Seidel. 2011. Rigid labour markets with trade and capital mobility: theory and evidence.
Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'conomique 44:10.1111/caje.2011.44.issue-2, 509-540. [CrossRef]
469. Peter Egger, Doina Maria Radulescu. 2011. Labor Taxation and Foreign Direct Investment*. Scandinavian Journal of Economics nono. [CrossRef]
470. Nikolaus Wolf, Albrecht O. Ritschl. 2011. Endogeneity of Currency Areas and Trade Blocs: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.
Kyklos 64, 291-312. [CrossRef]
471. Michel Beine, Frdric Docquier, alar zden. 2011. Diasporas. Journal of Development Economics 95, 30-41. [CrossRef]
472. Imran Ullah Khan, Kaliappa Kalirajan. 2011. The impact of trade costs on exports: An empirical modeling. Economic Modelling 28,
1341-1347. [CrossRef]
473. Jrme Hergueux. 2011. How does religion bias the allocation of Foreign Direct Investment? The role of institutions. International
Economics 128, 53-76. [CrossRef]
474. Michele U. Fratianni, Francesco Marchionne, Chang Hoon Oh. 2011. A commentary on the gravity equation in international business
research. Multinational Business Review 19, 36-46. [CrossRef]
475. David S. Jacks, Christopher M. Meissner, Dennis Novy. 2011. Trade booms, trade busts, and trade costs. Journal of International
Economics 83, 185-201. [CrossRef]
476. Joakim Westerlund, Fredrik Wilhelmsson. 2011. Estimating the gravity model without gravity using panel data. Applied Economics
43, 641-649. [CrossRef]

477. Peter Egger, Mario Larch. 2011. An assessment of the Europe agreements effects on bilateral trade, GDP, and welfare. European
Economic Review 55, 263-279. [CrossRef]
478. Luc Bauwens, Giordano Mion, Jacques-Franois Thisse. 2011. The Resistible Decline of European Science. Recherches conomiques
de Louvain 77, 5. [CrossRef]
479. Johannes Brcker, Artem Korzhenevych, Marie-Catherine Riekhof. 2011. Predicting freight flows in a globalising world. Research in
Transportation Economics 31, 37-44. [CrossRef]
480. Allen Dennis, Ben Shepherd. 2011. Trade Facilitation and Export Diversification. The World Economy 34:10.1111/
twec.2011.34.issue-1, 101-122. [CrossRef]
481. Huigang Chen, Alin Mirestean, Charalambos Tsangarides. 2011. Limited Information Bayesian Model Averaging for Dynamic Panels
with an Application to a Trade Gravity Model. IMF Working Papers 11, 1. [CrossRef]
482. Harris Selod, Klaus Deininger, Rabah Arezki. 2011. What drives the global land rush?. IMF Working Papers 11, 1. [CrossRef]
483. Harald Badinger, Peter Egger. 2010. Horizontal vs. Vertical Interdependence in Multinational Activity*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics
and Statistics 72:10.1111/obes.2010.72.issue-6, 744-768. [CrossRef]
484. L. D. Tamini, J.-P. Gervais, B. Larue. 2010. Trade liberalisation effects on agricultural goods at different processing stages. European
Review of Agricultural Economics 37, 453-477. [CrossRef]
485. Michael E Waugh. 2010. International Trade and Income Differences. American Economic Review 100, 2093-2124. [CrossRef]
486. Francesco Aiello, Paola Cardamone, Maria Rosaria Agostino. 2010. Evaluating the impact of nonreciprocal trade preferences using
gravity models. Applied Economics 42, 3745-3760. [CrossRef]
487. James E Anderson, Yoto V Yotov. 2010. The Changing Incidence of Geography. American Economic Review 100, 2157-2186. [CrossRef]
488. Davin Chor. 2010. Unpacking sources of comparative advantage: A quantitative approach. Journal of International Economics 82,
152-167. [CrossRef]
489. Gabriel Felbermayr, Wilhelm Kohler. 2010. Modelling the Extensive Margin of World Trade: New Evidence on GATT and WTO
Membership. The World Economy 33:10.1111/twec.2010.33.issue-11, 1430-1469. [CrossRef]
490. Marie Daumal, Soledad Zignago. 2010. Measure and determinants of border effects of Brazilian states. Papers in Regional Science
89:10.1111/pirs.2010.89.issue-4, 735-758. [CrossRef]
491. Giovanni Peri, Francisco Requena-Silvente. 2010. The trade creation effect of immigrants: evidence from the remarkable case of Spain.
Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'conomique 43, 1433-1459. [CrossRef]
492. L. Sun, M. R. Reed. 2010. Impacts of Free Trade Agreements on Agricultural Trade Creation and Trade Diversion. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 92, 1351-1363. [CrossRef]
493. Ivan T. Kandilov, Thomas Grennes. 2010. The determinants of service exports from Central and Eastern Europe. Economics of
Transition 18, 763-794. [CrossRef]
494. Lucio Picci. 2010. The internationalization of inventive activity: A gravity model using patent data. Research Policy 39, 1070-1081.
[CrossRef]
495. J.M.C. Santos Silva, Silvana Tenreyro. 2010. Currency Unions in Prospect and Retrospect. Annual Review of Economics 2, 51-74.
[CrossRef]
496. Daniele Fabbri, Silvana Robone. 2010. The geography of hospital admission in a national health service with patient choice. Health
Economics 19, 1029-1047. [CrossRef]
497. Ben shepherd. 2010. Geographical Diversification of Developing Country Exports. World Development 38, 1217-1228. [CrossRef]
498. Waverly W. Ding, Sharon G. Levin, Paula E. Stephan, Anne E. Winkler. 2010. The Impact of Information Technology on Academic
Scientists' Productivity and Collaboration Patterns. Management Science 56, 1439-1461. [CrossRef]
499. STEFAN BOES. 2010. Count Data Models with Correlated Unobserved Heterogeneity. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 37:10.1111/
sjos.2010.37.issue-3, 382-402. [CrossRef]
500. Mariarosaria Agostino, Federica Demaria, Francesco Trivieri. 2010. Non-Reciprocal Trade Preferences and the Role of Compliance
Costs in the Agricultural Sector: Exports to the EU. Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 652-679. [CrossRef]
501. Jayjit Roy. 2010. Do Customs Union Members Engage in More Bilateral Trade than Free-Trade Agreement Members?. Review of
International Economics 18:10.1111/roie.2010.18.issue-4, 663-681. [CrossRef]
502. Anne-Clia Disdier, Lionel Fontagn. 2010. Trade impact of European measures on GMOs condemned by the WTO panel. Review
of World Economics 146, 495-514. [CrossRef]
503. Hylke Vandenbussche, Maurizio Zanardi. 2010. The chilling trade effects of antidumping proliferation. European Economic Review
54, 760-777. [CrossRef]

504. Maarten Bosker, Harry Garretsen. 2010. Trade costs in empirical New Economic Geography. Papers in Regional Science 89, 485-511.
[CrossRef]
505. Ting Chi, Peter P.D. Kilduff. 2010. An empirical investigation of the determinants and shifting patterns of US apparel imports using
a gravity model framework. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 14, 501-520. [CrossRef]
506. Elisa Giuliani, Andrea Morrison, Carlo Pietrobelli, Roberta Rabellotti. 2010. Who are the researchers that are collaborating with
industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy 39, 748-761. [CrossRef]
507. FABIAN BARTHEL, MATTHIAS BUSSE, ERIC NEUMAYER. 2010. THE IMPACT OF DOUBLE TAXATION TREATIES
ON FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT: EVIDENCE FROM LARGE DYADIC PANEL DATA. Contemporary Economic Policy
28:10.1111/coep.2010.28.issue-3, 366-377. [CrossRef]
508. S. Jayasinghe, J. C. Beghin, G. Moschini. 2010. Determinants of World Demand for U.S. Corn Seeds: The Role of Trade Costs.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92, 999-1010. [CrossRef]
509. C. Bagoulla, E. Chevassus-Lozza, K. Daniel, C. Gaigne. 2010. Regional Production Adjustment to Import Competition: Evidence
from the French Agro-Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92, 1040-1050. [CrossRef]
510. Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Laila Arjuman Ara. 2010. Bangladesh trade potential: a dynamic gravity approach. Journal of
International Trade Law and Policy 9, 130-147. [CrossRef]
511. Giorgio Fagiolo. 2010. The international-trade network: gravity equations and topological properties. Journal of Economic Interaction
and Coordination 5, 1-25. [CrossRef]
512. Keith Head, Thierry Mayer, John Ries. 2010. The erosion of colonial trade linkages after independence. Journal of International
Economics 81, 1-14. [CrossRef]
513. Gabriel J. Felbermayr, Sanne Hiller, Davide Sala. 2010. Does immigration boost per capita income?. Economics Letters 107, 177-179.
[CrossRef]
514. J.M.C. Santos Silva, Silvana Tenreyro. 2010. On the existence of the maximum likelihood estimates in Poisson regression. Economics
Letters 107, 310-312. [CrossRef]
515. Maria Bas, Ivan Ledezma. 2010. Trade integration and within-plant productivity evolution in Chile. Review of World Economics 146,
113-146. [CrossRef]
516. Matthias Busse, Jens Kniger, Peter Nunnenkamp. 2010. FDI promotion through bilateral investment treaties: more than a bit?.
Review of World Economics 146, 147-177. [CrossRef]
517. Christian Volpe Martincus, Antoni Estevadeordal, Andrs Gallo, Jessica Luna. 2010. Information barriers, export promotion
institutions, and the extensive margin of trade. Review of World Economics 146, 91-111. [CrossRef]
518. Eric Neumayer. 2010. Visa Restrictions and Bilateral Travel. The Professional Geographer 62, 171-181. [CrossRef]
519. Miaojie Yu. 2010. Trade, democracy, and the gravity equation. Journal of Development Economics 91, 289-300. [CrossRef]
520. RODOLPHE DESBORDES. 2010. GLOBAL AND DIPLOMATIC POLITICAL RISKS AND FOREIGN DIRECT
INVESTMENT. Economics & Politics 22:10.1111/ecpo.2010.22.issue-1, 92-125. [CrossRef]
521. Daniel Lederman, Marcelo Olarreaga, Lucy Payton. 2010. Export promotion agencies: Do they work?. Journal of Development Economics
91, 257-265. [CrossRef]
522. Alberto Salvo. 2010. Trade flows in a spatial oligopoly: gravity fits well, but what does it explain?. Canadian Journal of Economics/
Revue canadienne d'conomique 43, 63-96. [CrossRef]
523. Peter Egger. 2010. Bilateral FDI potentials for Austria. Empirica 37, 5-17. [CrossRef]
524. Jrn Kleinert, Farid Toubal. 2010. Gravity for FDI. Review of International Economics 18:10.1111/roie.2010.18.issue-1, 1-13. [CrossRef]
525. H. Boulhol, A. de Serres. 2010. Have developed countries escaped the curse of distance?. Journal of Economic Geography 10, 113-139.
[CrossRef]
526. T. S. Aidt, M. Gassebner. 2010. Do Autocratic States Trade Less?. The World Bank Economic Review 24, 38-76. [CrossRef]
527. Anne-Clia Disdier, Silvio H. T. Tai, Lionel Fontagn, Thierry Mayer. 2010. Bilateral trade of cultural goods. Review of World
Economics 145, 575-595. [CrossRef]
528. Laura Mrquez-Ramos, Inmaculada Martnez-Zarzoso. 2010. The Effect of Technological Innovation on International Trade. A
Nonlinear Approach. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 4, 1. [CrossRef]
529. Mahvash Saeed Qureshi, Charalambos G. Tsangarides. 2010. The Empirics of Exchange Rate Regimes and Trade: Words vs. Deeds.
IMF Working Papers 10, 1. [CrossRef]
530. Edmund Amann, Barry Lau, Frederick Nixson. 2009. Did China Hurt the Textiles and Clothing Exports of Other Asian Economies,
19902005?. Oxford Development Studies 37, 333-362. [CrossRef]

531. Simon W. Schlueter, Christine Wieck, Thomas Heckelei. 2009. Regulatory Policies in Meat Trade: Is There Evidence for Least Tradedistorting Sanitary Regulations?. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91:10.1111/ajae.2009.91.issue-5, 1484-1490. [CrossRef]
532. Markus Lampe. 2009. Effects of Bilateralism and the MFN Clause on International Trade: Evidence for the Cobden-Chevalier Network,
1860-1875. The Journal of Economic History 69, 1012. [CrossRef]
533. PIERRE AZOULAY, WAVERLY DING, TOBY STUART. 2009. THE IMPACT OF ACADEMIC PATENTING ON THE
RATE, QUALITY AND DIRECTION OF (PUBLIC) RESEARCH OUTPUT. The Journal of Industrial Economics 57:10.1111/
joie.2009.57.issue-4, 637-676. [CrossRef]
534. W. Czubala, B. Shepherd, J. S. Wilson. 2009. Help or Hindrance? The Impact of Harmonised Standards on African Exports. Journal
of African Economies 18, 711-744. [CrossRef]
535. Rabin Hattari, Ramkishen S. Rajan. 2009. Understanding bilateral FDI flows in developing Asia. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature
23:10.1111/apel.2009.23.issue-2, 73-93. [CrossRef]
536. Niven Winchester. 2009. Is there a dirty little secret? Non-tariff barriers and the gains from trade. Journal of Policy Modeling 31,
819-834. [CrossRef]
537. Charalambos Tsangarides, Pierre Ewenczyk, Michal Hulej, Mahvash Saeed Qureshi. 2009. Are Africa's Currency Unions Good for
Trade?. IMF Staff Papers 56, 876-918. [CrossRef]
538. N. B. Villoria. 2009. China and the Manufacturing Terms-of-Trade of African Exporters. Journal of African Economies 18, 781-823.
[CrossRef]
539. Marius Brlhart, Federico Trionfetti. 2009. A test of trade theories when expenditure is home biased. European Economic Review 53,
830-845. [CrossRef]
540. Kevin E. Staub. 2009. Simple Tests for Exogeneity of a Binary Explanatory Variable in Count Data Regression Models. Communications
in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 38, 1834-1855. [CrossRef]
541. Ben Shepherd, John S. Wilson. 2009. Trade facilitation in ASEAN member countries: Measuring progress and assessing priorities.
Journal of Asian Economics 20, 367-383. [CrossRef]
542. Rodolphe Desbordes, Vincent Vicard. 2009. Foreign direct investment and bilateral investment treaties: An international political
perspective. Journal of Comparative Economics 37, 372-386. [CrossRef]
543. Xuepeng Liu. 2009. GATT/WTO Promotes Trade Strongly: Sample Selection and Model Specification. Review of International
Economics 17:10.1111/roie.2009.17.issue-3, 428-446. [CrossRef]
544. Jihyung Hong, Frank Windmeijer, Diego Novick, Josep Maria Haro, Jacqueline Brown. 2009. The cost of relapse in patients with
schizophrenia in the European SOHO (Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes) study. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and
Biological Psychiatry 33, 835-841. [CrossRef]
545. Silvio H. T. Tai. 2009. Market structure and the link between migration and trade. Review of World Economics 145, 225-249. [CrossRef]
546. Thomas L. Vollrath, Mark J. Gehlhar, Charles B. Hallahan. 2009. Bilateral Import Protection, Free Trade Agreements, and Other
Factors Influencing Trade Flows in Agriculture and Clothing. Journal of Agricultural Economics 60:10.1111/jage.2009.60.issue-2,
298-317. [CrossRef]
547. Brent Neiman, Phillip Swagel. 2009. The impact of post-9/11 visa policies on travel to the United States. Journal of International
Economics 78, 86-99. [CrossRef]
548. Martijn Burger, Frank van Oort, Gert-Jan Linders. 2009. On the Specification of the Gravity Model of Trade: Zeros, Excess Zeros
and Zero-inflated Estimation. Spatial Economic Analysis 4, 167-190. [CrossRef]
549. Boriss Siliverstovs, Dieter Schumacher. 2009. Estimating gravity equations: to log or not to log?. Empirical Economics 36, 645-669.
[CrossRef]
550. Hans-Martin Zademach, Andrs Rodrguez-Pose. 2009. Cross-Border M&As and the Changing Economic Geography of Europe.
European Planning Studies 17, 765-789. [CrossRef]
551. Katheryn N. Russ. 2009. The New Theory of Foreign Direct Investment: Merging Trade and Capital Flows. International Finance
12:10.1111/infi.2009.12.issue-1, 107-119. [CrossRef]
552. Keith Head, Thierry Mayer, John Ries. 2009. How remote is the offshoring threat?. European Economic Review 53, 429-444. [CrossRef]
553. Maggie X. Chen. 2009. Regional economic integration and geographic concentration of multinational firms. European Economic Review
53, 355-375. [CrossRef]
554. Matthias Helble, Ben Shepherd, John S. Wilson. 2009. Transparency and Regional Integration in the Asia Pacific. World Economy
32:10.1111/twec.2009.32.issue-3, 479-508. [CrossRef]
555. Scott L. Baier, Jeffrey H. Bergstrand. 2009. Bonus vetus OLS: A simple method for approximating international trade-cost effects
using the gravity equation. Journal of International Economics 77, 77-85. [CrossRef]

556. Scott L. Baier, Jeffrey H. Bergstrand. 2009. Estimating the effects of free trade agreements on international trade flows using matching
econometrics. Journal of International Economics 77, 63-76. [CrossRef]
557. Jos De Sousa, Olivier Lamotte. 2009. Sparation politique et dsintgration commerciale. Revue conomique 60, 891. [CrossRef]
558. Nicolas Coeurdacier, Roberto A. De Santis, Antonin Aviat. 2009. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and European integration.
Economic Policy 24:10.1111/ecop.2009.24.issue-57, 55-106. [CrossRef]
559. M. Bosker, H. Garretsen. 2008. Economic development and the geography of institutions. Journal of Economic Geography 9, 295-328.
[CrossRef]
560. Helge Berger, Volker Nitsch. 2008. Zooming out: The trade effect of the euro in historical perspective. Journal of International Money
and Finance 27, 1244-1260. [CrossRef]
561. Hildegunn Kyvik Nords. 2008. Gatekeepers to consumer markets: the role of retailers in international trade. The International Review
of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 18, 449-472. [CrossRef]
562. Isabel Proena, Maria Paula Fontoura, Enrique Martnez-Galn. 2008. Trade in the enlarged European Union: a new approach on
trade potential. Portuguese Economic Journal 7, 205-224. [CrossRef]
563. Roger White, Bedassa Tadesse. 2008. Immigrants, cultural distance and U.S. state-level exports of cultural products. The North
American Journal of Economics and Finance 19, 331-348. [CrossRef]
564. G.-J. M. Linders, M. J. Burger, F. G. van Oort. 2008. A rather empty world: the many faces of distance and the persistent resistance
to international trade. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1, 439-458. [CrossRef]
565. Samih Antoine Azar. 2008. Jensens Inequality in Finance. International Advances in Economic Research 14, 433-440. [CrossRef]
566. Marissa D King, Heather A Haveman. 2008. Antislavery in America: The Press, the Pulpit, and the Rise of Antislavery Societies.
Administrative Science Quarterly 53, 492-528. [CrossRef]
567. Marie Daumal. 2008. Federalism, separatism and international trade. European Journal of Political Economy 24, 675-687. [CrossRef]
568. Christopher S.P. Magee. 2008. New measures of trade creation and trade diversion. Journal of International Economics 75, 349-362.
[CrossRef]
569. Badi H. Baltagi, Peter Egger, Michael Pfaffermayr. 2008. Estimating regional trade agreement effects on FDI in an interdependent
world. Journal of Econometrics 145, 194-208. [CrossRef]
570. Richard Kneller, Mauro Pisu, Zhihong Yu. 2008. Overseas business costs and firm export performance. Canadian Journal of Economics/
Revue canadienne d'conomique 41:10.1111/caje.2008.41.issue-2, 639-669. [CrossRef]
571. Peter Egger. 2008. De Facto exchange rate arrangement tightness and bilateral trade flows. Economics Letters 99, 228-232. [CrossRef]
572. Alessandro Olper, Valentina Raimondi. 2008. Agricultural market integration in the OECD: A gravity-border effect approach. Food
Policy 33, 165-175. [CrossRef]
573. Doireann Fitzgerald. 2008. Can trade costs explain why exchange rate volatility does not feed into consumer prices?. Journal of Monetary
Economics 55, 606-628. [CrossRef]
574. Daniel J. Henderson, Daniel L. Millimet. 2008. Is gravity linear?. Journal of Applied Econometrics 23:10.1002/jae.v23:2, 137-172.
[CrossRef]
575. Massimo Del Gatto, Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, Marcello Pagnini. 2008. OPENNESS TO TRADE AND INDUSTRY COST
DISPERSION: EVIDENCE FROM A PANEL OF ITALIAN FIRMS*. Journal of Regional Science 48:10.1111/jors.2008.48.issue-1,
97-129. [CrossRef]
576. Keith Head, John Ries. 2008. FDI as an outcome of the market for corporate control: Theory and evidence. Journal of International
Economics 74, 2-20. [CrossRef]
577. Martin Knapp, Frank Windmeijer, Jacqueline Brown, Stathis Kontodimas, Spyridon Tzivelekis, Josep Maria Haro, Mark Ratcliffe,
Jihyung Hong, Diego Novick. 2008. Cost-Utility Analysis of Treatment with Olanzapine Compared with Other Antipsychotic
Treatments in Patients with Schizophrenia in the Pan-European SOHO Study. PharmacoEconomics 26, 341-358. [CrossRef]
578. Lionel Fontagn, Guillaume Gaulier, Soledad Zignago. 2008. Specialization across varieties and North-South competition. Economic
Policy 23, 51-91. [CrossRef]
579. Andrei A. Levchenko, Julian di Giovanni. 2008. Trade Openness and Volatility. IMF Working Papers 08, 1. [CrossRef]
580. Mahvash Saeed Qureshi. 2008. Africa's Oil Abundance and External Competitiveness: Do Institutions Matter?. IMF Working Papers
08, 1. [CrossRef]
581. Quy-Toan Do, Andrei A. Levchenko. 2007. Comparative advantage, demand for external finance, and financial development. Journal
of Financial Economics 86, 796-834. [CrossRef]
582. Boriss Siliverstovs, Dieter Schumacher. 2007. Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade: another
look. Applied Economics Letters 14, 1065-1073. [CrossRef]

583. Markus LampeBilateral trade flows in Europe, 18571875: A new dataset 81-155. [CrossRef]
584. Sean KaskModes of Open Innovation in Service Industries and Process Innovation 137-158. [CrossRef]
585. Sean KaskModes of Open Innovation in Service Industries and Process Innovation 15-36. [CrossRef]