IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp739.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating Gravity Equations: To Log or Not to Log?

Author

Listed:
  • Boriss Siliverstovs
  • Dieter Schumacher

Abstract

This study compares two alternative approaches to estimate parameters in gravity equations. We compare the traditional OLS approach applied to the log-linear form of the gravity model with the Poisson Quasi Maximum Likelihood (PQML) estimation procedure applied to the non-linear multiplicative specification of the gravity model. We use the trade flows for all products, for all manufacturing products as well as for manufacturing products broken down by three-digit ISIC Rev.2 categories. We base our conclusions on the generalised gravity model of Bergstrand (1989) that allows us to investigate differences in factor-proportions and home-market effects at the industry level. In addition, we compare the effects of other explanatory variables such as exporter and importer total income, distance, preferential trade agreements, common border, historical ties, and common language on the volume of trade. Our study provides comprehensive evidence on likely qualitative and/or quantitative differences in the values of estimated coefficients as a result of application of an alternative estimation method. Our main conclusion is that both estimation results as well as results of the regression misspecification tests provide supporting evidence for the PQML estimation approach over the OLS estimation method.

Suggested Citation

  • Boriss Siliverstovs & Dieter Schumacher, 2007. "Estimating Gravity Equations: To Log or Not to Log?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 739, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.74342.de/dp739.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan V. Deardorff, 2011. "The General Validity of the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Robert M Stern (ed.), Comparative Advantage, Growth, And The Gains From Trade And Globalization A Festschrift in Honor of Alan V Deardorff, chapter 11, pages 91-103, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    3. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    4. Robert C. Feenstra & James R. Markusen & Andrew K. Rose, 2001. "Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 430-447, May.
    5. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1985. "The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(3), pages 474-481, August.
    6. Geraci, Vincent J & Prewo, Wilfried, 1977. "Bilateral Trade Flows and Transport Costs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 59(1), pages 67-74, February.
    7. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    8. Aitken, Norman D, 1973. "The Effect of the EEC and EFTA on European Trade: A Temporal Cross-Section Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(5), pages 881-892, December.
    9. J. M. C. Santos Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2006. "The Log of Gravity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 641-658, November.
    10. André Sapir, 1981. "Trade benefits under the EEC generalized system of preferences," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/8290, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    11. Simon Peters, 2000. "On the use of the RESET test in microeconometric models," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(6), pages 361-365.
    12. Dieter Schumacher & Boriss Siliverstovs, 2006. "Home-Market and Factor-Endowment Effects in a Gravity Approach," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(2), pages 330-353, July.
    13. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1989. "The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 143-153, February.
    14. Manning, Willard G. & Mullahy, John, 2001. "Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 461-494, July.
    15. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-116, March.
    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. Tamaş Anca, 2020. "Why should the gravity model be taught in business education?," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 422-433, July.
    2. Scott L. Baier & Amanda Kerr & Yoto V. Yotov, 2018. "Gravity, distance, and international trade," Chapters, in: Bruce A. Blonigen & Wesley W. Wilson (ed.), Handbook of International Trade and Transportation, chapter 2, pages 15-78, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Jacks, David S. & Meissner, Christopher M. & Novy, Dennis, 2011. "Trade booms, trade busts, and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 185-201, March.
    4. Zhang, Daowei & Li, Yanshu, 2009. "Forest endowment, logging restrictions, and China's wood products trade," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 46-53, March.
    5. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1263 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. J. Sebastián Castillo & Emiliano C. Villanueva & M. Carmen García‐Cortijo, 2016. "The International Wine Trade and Its New Export Dynamics (1988–2012): A Gravity Model Approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 466-481, November.
    7. Felix Groba & Jing Cao, 2015. "Chinese Renewable Energy Technology Exports: The Role of Policy, Innovation and Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(2), pages 243-283, February.
    8. Bo Xiong & Sixia Chen, 2014. "Estimating gravity equation models in the presence of sample selection and heteroscedasticity," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(24), pages 2993-3003, August.
    9. Cardamone, Paola, 2007. "A Survey of the Assessments of the Effectiveness of Preferential Trade Agreements using Gravity Models," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 60(4), pages 421-473.
    10. Zongo, Amara, 2020. "The Impact of Services Trade Restrictiveness on Food Trade," MPRA Paper 101658, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Shumilov, Andrei, 2016. "Особенности Оценивания Гравитационных Моделей Международной Торговли [Estimating Gravity Models of International Trade: A Survey]," MPRA Paper 75371, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2009. "Estimating the effects of free trade agreements on international trade flows using matching econometrics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 63-76, February.
    13. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 131-195, Elsevier.
    14. Cipollina, Maria & Salvatici, Luca, 2007. "EU and developing countries: an analysis of preferential margins on agricultural trade flows," Working Papers 7219, TRADEAG - Agricultural Trade Agreements.
    15. Kareem, Fatima Olanike & Martinez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2016. "Fitting the Gravity Model when Zero Trade Flows are Frequent: a Comparison of Estimation Techniques using Africa's Trade Data," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 230588, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    16. Jacqueline Karlsson & Helena Melin & Kevin Cullinane, 2018. "The impact of potential Brexit scenarios on German car exports to the UK: an application of the gravity model," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-22, December.
    17. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1163 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Brad Christerson, 1994. "World Trade in Apparel: An Analysis of Trade Flows Using the Gravity Model," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 17(2), pages 151-166, August.
    19. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    20. Dennis Novy, 2013. "Gravity Redux: Measuring International Trade Costs With Panel Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 101-121, January.
    21. Fracasso, Andrea, 2014. "A gravity model of virtual water trade," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 215-228.
    22. J. M. C. Santos Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2006. "The Log of Gravity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 641-658, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    generalised gravity equation; Poisson regression;

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp739. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.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.