Poor Substitutes? Counterfactual Methods in Industrial Organization and Trade Compared
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Constant elasticity of substitution (CES) demand for monopolistically competitive firm varieties is a standard tool for models in international trade and macroeconomics. Intervariety substitution in this model follows a simple share proportionality rule. In contrast, the standard tool kit in industrial organization (IO) estimates a system in which cross-elasticities depend on similarity in observable attributes. The gain in realism from the IO approach comes at the expense of requiring richer data and greater computational challenges. This paper uses the data generating process of Berry et al. (1995), BLP, who established the modern IO method, to simulate counterfactual trade policy experiments. We use the CES model as an approximation of the more complex underlying demand system and market structure. Although the CES model omits key elements of the data generating process, the errors are offsetting, allowing it to fit BLP-based predictions closely. For aggregate outcomes, it turns out that incorporating non-unitary pass-through matters more than fixing over-simplified substitution patterns.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".