IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/90-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Determinants of U.S. Intra-Industry Trade

Author

Listed:
  • Keun Huh
  • F M Scherer

Abstract

Responses from the Yale University survey of 650 research and development executives were linked to U.S. trade statistics at the four-digit SIC level for the years 1965-85 to test several hypotheses concerning intra-industry trade. A new index of intra-industry trade was developed to capture both the level and balance dimensions of import and export flows. Intra-industry trade is found to be more extensive, the higher industry R&D/sales ratios were, the more important economies of learning-by-doing were, and greater the relevance of academic engineering research was, and the more niche-filling strategies were emphasized in new product development. When firms oriented their R&D efforts toward meeting the specialized demands of individual customers, intra-industry trade was lower. The highest levels of intra-industry trade were found in loosely oligopolistic industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Keun Huh & F M Scherer, 1990. "The Determinants of U.S. Intra-Industry Trade," Working Papers 90-13, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:90-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/1990/CES-WP-90-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:ecorec:v:47:y:1971:i:120:p:494-517 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Scherer, F M, 1979. "The Welfare Economics of Product Variety: An Application to the Ready-to-Eat Cereals Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 113-134, December.
    3. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    4. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1988. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 862, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fors, Gunnar & Zejan, Mario, 1996. "Overseas R&D by Multinationals in foreign Centers of Excellence," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 111, Stockholm School of Economics.
    2. Cassiman, Bruno & Perez-Castrillo, David & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 775-799, June.
    3. Jeong-Eon Kim & Harvey E. Lapan, 2008. "Heterogeneity of southern countries and southern intellectual property rights policy," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 894-925, August.
    4. Elif Bascavusoglu & Maria Pluvia Zuniga, 2005. "The effects of intellectual property protection on international knowledge contracting," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla05009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    5. Penin, Julien, 2005. "Patents versus ex post rewards: A new look," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 641-656, June.
    6. Per Botolf Maurseth, 2005. "Lovely but dangerous: The impact of patent citations on patent renewal," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 351-374.
    7. Sunil Kanwar, 2006. "Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights," Working papers 142, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics.
    8. Daniel J. Wilson, 2002. "Is Embodied Technology the Result of Upstream R&D? Industry-Level Evidence," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 5(2), pages 285-317, April.
    9. Richard G. Newell & Adam B. Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 941-975.
    10. Marini, Marco A., 2006. "The value of a new idea: knowledge transmission, workers’ mobility and market structure," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 697-706.
    11. Franco Malerba, 2005. "Sectoral systems of innovation: a framework for linking innovation to the knowledge base, structure and dynamics of sectors," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1-2), pages 63-82.
    12. Diego Puga & Daniel Trefler, 2002. "Knowledge Creation and Control in Organizations," NBER Working Papers 9121, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Robert E. Carpenter & Bruce C. Petersen, 2002. "Capital Market Imperfections, High-Tech Investment, and New Equity Financing," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(477), pages 54-72, February.
    14. Michele Cincera, 2005. "Firms' productivity growth and R&D spillovers: An analysis of alternative technological proximity measures," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 657-682.
    15. Yi Deng, 2005. "The Value of Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Patent Citations Data," Computing in Economics and Finance 2005 374, Society for Computational Economics.
    16. Aoki, R. & Spiegel, Y., 1998. "Public Disclosure of Patent Applications, R&D, and Welfare," Papers 30-98, Tel Aviv.
    17. James Adams & Zvi Griliches, 1996. "Measuring Science: An Exploration," NBER Working Papers 5478, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Wagner, Stefan, 2006. "Make-or-Buy Decisions in Patent Related Services," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 1264, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
    19. David Popp, 2001. "Induced Innovation and Energy Prices," NBER Working Papers 8284, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:90-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.