The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Controlling for Heterogeneity in Gravity Models of Trade and Integration
Abstract
This paper argues that it is necessary to allow for country-pair heterogeneity when using the gravity model to estimate international trade flows. We propose and estimate a fixed-effects model that eliminates the heterogeneity bias inherent in standard methods. Further, we show that there is no statistical support for the restrictions necessary to obtain existing empirical models, which are special cases of our model. Because the gravity model has become the 'workhorse' baseline model for estimating the effects of international integration, this has important empirical implications. In particular, our results suggest that standard gravity estimates of the effects of integration can differ a great deal from what is obtained when heterogeneity is accounted for.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Consistent with the critique of Cheng and Wall (2005, p. 52, fn.8) that '[f]ixed-effects estimation is sometimes criticised when applied to data pooled over consecutive years on the grounds that dependent and independent variables cannot fully adjust in a single year's time', many gravity papers in the existing literature use interval data instead of data for consecutive years.”
From Estimating the effects of trade agreements: Lessons from 60 years of methods and data (2024) · cites this paper as Cheng and Wall (2005, p. 52, fn.8)
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Estimating the effects of trade agreements: Lessons from 60 years of methods and data
Larch, M., & Yotov, Y. V. (2024) · The World Economy · doi:10.1111/twec.13569 · Cited by 56
Quantifying the partial and general equilibrium effects of sanctions on Russia
Flach, L., Heiland, I., Larch, M., Steininger, M., & Teti, F. A. (2024) · Review of International Economics · doi:10.1111/roie.12707 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheng, I.-H., & Wall, H. J.
- Affiliations
- National University of Kaohsiung (TW)
- Lindenwood University (US)
- ORCID
- Cheng, I-Hui
- Venue
- Review
- Publisher
- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 1
- OpenAlex
- W3123095336
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 13.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Global trade and economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Growth and Productivity
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Technological Innovation
- Keywords
- gravity model of trade, fixed effects model, international trade flows, international trade integration, heterogeneity bias
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