APEC and Regional Trading Arrangements in the Pacific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was written for a conference on Pacific Trade and Investment: Options for the 90's, Toronto, June 6-8, 1994. The conference was sponsored by the John Deutsch Institute of Queen's University, the Thailand Development Research Institute, and the Centre for International Business of the University of Toronto. The authors would like to thank Paul Wonnacott for comments, and Alan Winters and Zhen Kun Wang, for supplying data. They would also like to thank for support the Center for International and Development Economics Research, funded at U.C. Berkeley by the Ford Foundation, and the Japan-United States Friendship Commission, a U.S. government agency. Jeffrey Frankel with Shang-Jin Wei and Ernesto Stein Summary This paper examines the feared regionalization of world trade in general, and the question of an agenda for APEC in particular. Econometric evidence on bilateral trade flows suggests that trade is indeed becoming more regionalized. The gravity model is used to correct trade flows for natural determinants such as size, GNP/capita, proximity, and common borders. Even after this adjustment, some regional groupings show significant bloc effects: the EC, the Western Hemisphere, East Asia, and APEC. Some groupings also show evidence of tradediversion, although the EC and East Asia groupings tend to be open. We then turn to the implications for economic welfare. A theoretical framework can be used to show that there is an optimal degree of regionalization of trade policy that is "naturally" justified by any given magnitude of inter-continental transport costs. Rough parameter estimates suggest that world trade may currently be in danger of becoming over-regionalized, of entering what we call the super-natural zone. The criterion of static economic welfare shoul...
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".