The Gravity Model and the Test for the Regional Integration Effect: The Case of Tanzania
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper demonstrates that the appropriate econometric technique of testing for the effect of regional integration on bilateral trade is to augment the standard gravity model with country specific dummies instead of regional integration dummies. Using data on bilateral trade between Tanzania and her 23 trading partners over the period 1980–2004, the paper reports three important results. First, contrary to results from the traditional approach, estimates from the new econometric technique indicate that both the EU and the EAC have had moderate trade creation effects on Tanzania’s bilateral trade. Second, I find that Tanzania’s non-traditional trading partners such as Japan, India, Singapore, Hong Kong and the USA are relatively more opened to Tanzania’s exports. Third, the results also indicate that whereas it is difficult for Tanzania’s exports to penetrate foreign markets, foreign goods easily penetrate Tanzania’s market. The policy implication is that the government should continue with its efforts to strengthen the EAC, and to gain more exports market to the non-traditional trading partners, if the export growth development strategy is to become a reality in Tanzania.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it