Import price elasticities: reconsidering the evidence
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
Recent economic geography and trade empirical studies based on monopolistic competition suggest high levels of trade price elasticities (between 3 and 11). However, price elasticity estimations in trade equations using unit values as price proxies usually lead to lower values of around unity. We show that those inconclusive results may be due to some misspecification in these equations as well as measurement errors in prices. When suitable instrumental variables are used, within a panel of industrialized countries, we obtain high price elasticities, the majority ranging from 1 to 13. The highest estimates correspond to industries producing homogeneous goods. JEL classification: C2, C3 and F1. Les élasticités prix des importations : un nouveau coup d’oeil aux résultats. Plusieurs études empiriques récentes fondées sur des modèles de concurrence monopolistique exhibent des élasticités prix estimées des échanges élevées (entre 3 et 11). Or, la plupart des élasticités prix estimées dans la littérature approchant les prix par des valeur unitaires sont plus faibles, de l’ordre de 1. Nous montrons que ces résultats non concluants pourraient provenir d’une mauvaise spécification des équations d’échanges ou d’erreurs de mesure sur les prix. Quand ceux‐ci sont correctement instrumentés, sur un panel de pays industrialisés, nous obtenons des élasticités prix élevées (de 1 à 13). Les plus fortes correspondent aux secteurs produisant des biens homogènes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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