The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade
Abstract
The simple gravity equation explains a great deal about the data on bilateral trade flows and is consistent with several theoretical models of trade. We argue that alternative theories nevertheless predict subtle differences in key parameter values, depending on whether goods are homogeneous or differentiated and whether or not there are barriers to entry. Our empirical work for differentiated goods delivers results consistent with the theoretical predictions of the monopolistic‐competition model, or a reciprocal‐dumping model with free entry. Homogeneous goods are described by a model with national (Armington) product differentiation or by a reciprocal‐dumping model with barriers to entry. JEL Classification: F10, F12 Equation de gravité et différenciation entre diverses théories du commerce international. La simple équation de gravité fournit une bonne part d'explication des flux de commerce bilatéraux et donne des résultats compatibles avec plusieurs modèles de commerce international. Les auteurs suggèrent que les diverses théories prédisent néanmoins des différences subtiles dans les valeurs de paramètres clés, selon que les biens sont homogènes ou différenciés, et qu'il y a barrières ou non à l'entrée. Le travail empirique des auteurs livre des résultats compatibles avec les prévisions théoriques du modèle de concurrence monopolistique ou du modèle de dumping réciproque avec entrée libre. On décrit les flux de biens homogènes à l'aide d'un modèle de différenciation nationale de produit à la Armington ou par un modèle de dumping réciproque avec barrières à l'entrée.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Market access, economic geography and comparative advantage: an empirical test
Davis, D. R., & Weinstein, D. E. (2003) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/s0022-1996(02)00088-0 · Cited by 378
Cited by
Silva, J. M. C. S., & Tenreyro, S. (2006) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest.88.4.641 · Cited by 6,408
Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook
Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2014) · Handbook of International Economics · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-54314-1.00003-3 · Cited by 1,565
Market access, economic geography and comparative advantage: an empirical test
Davis, D. R., & Weinstein, D. E. (2003) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/s0022-1996(02)00088-0 · Cited by 378
Do we really know that trade agreements increase trade?
Kohl, T. (2014) · Review of World Economics · doi:10.1007/s10290-014-0188-3 · Cited by 165
DOES THE GRAVITY MODEL EXPLAIN SOUTH KOREA'S TRADE FLOWS?*
SOHN, C.-H. (2005) · The Japanese Economic Review · doi:10.1111/j.1468-5876.2005.00338.x · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Feenstra, R. C., Markusen, J. R., & Rose, A. K.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-05
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 430-447
- ISSN
- 0008-4085 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5982
- OpenAlex
- W2092216773
- Cited by
- 819
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 54.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/0008-4085.00082
- The paper
- Feenstra, R. C., Markusen, J. R., & Rose, A. K. (2001). Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique. https://doi.org/10.1111/0008-4085.00082
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.