Discussion Paper Details
Please find the details for DP12521 in an easy to copy and paste format below:
Title: Classical or Gravity? Which trade model best matches the UK facts?
Author(s): Patrick Minford and Yongdeng Xu
Publication Date: December 2017
Keyword(s): Bootstrap, classical trade model, gravity model, indirect inference and UK trade
Programme Area(s): Monetary Economics and Fluctuations
Abstract: We examine the empirical evidence bearing on whether UK trade is governed by a Classical model or by a Gravity model, using annual data from 1965 to 2015 and the method of Indirect Inference which has very large power in this application. The Gravity model here differs from the Classical model in assuming imperfect competition and a positive effect of total trade on productivity. We found that the Classical model passed the test comfortably, and that the Gravity model also passed it but at a rather lower level of probability, though as the test power was raised it was rejected. The two models' policy implications are similar.
For full details and related downloads, please visit: https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=12521
Minford, P and Xu, Y. 2017. 'Classical or Gravity? Which trade model best matches the UK facts?'. London, Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=12521