@ARTICLE{17785838_2002,
author = {Lai, Huiwen and Trefler, Daniel},
keywords = {либерализация международной торговли, международная торговля, несовершенная конкуренция, общественное благосостояние},
title = {Competition: Specification, Estimation, and Mis-Specification},
journal = {NBER Working Paper Series},
year = {2002},
month = {},
volume = {},
number = {w9169},
pages = {},
url = {http://ecsocman.hse.ru/text/17785838/},
publisher = {},
language = {ru},
abstract = {The difficulty of incorporating general equilibrium price effects
into econometric estimating equations has deterred most researchers
from econometrically estimating the welfare gains from trade
liberalization. Using a paired-down CES monopolistic competition
example, autors show that this difficulty has been greatly
exaggerated. Along the way, we estimate indeed precisely estimate
large welfare gains from trade liberalization as measured by
compensating variation. Unlike calibration methods, econometric
methods allow researchers to isolate the violence done by the model
to the data. Autors find that the CES monopolistic competition model
horribly mis-specifies behavioural price elasticities and general
equilibrium price feedbacks. The model as conceived is therefore of
limited value for analysing the effects of trade liberalization.
Autors report a number of specification issues that should point the
way to better theoretical modeling. },
annote = {The difficulty of incorporating general equilibrium price effects
into econometric estimating equations has deterred most researchers
from econometrically estimating the welfare gains from trade
liberalization. Using a paired-down CES monopolistic competition
example, autors show that this difficulty has been greatly
exaggerated. Along the way, we estimate indeed precisely estimate
large welfare gains from trade liberalization as measured by
compensating variation. Unlike calibration methods, econometric
methods allow researchers to isolate the violence done by the model
to the data. Autors find that the CES monopolistic competition model
horribly mis-specifies behavioural price elasticities and general
equilibrium price feedbacks. The model as conceived is therefore of
limited value for analysing the effects of trade liberalization.
Autors report a number of specification issues that should point the
way to better theoretical modeling. }
}