Computational Economics

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 709–742 | Cite as

Trade Costs and Endogenous Nontradability in a Model with Sectoral and Firm-Level Heterogeneity

  • Manoj AtoliaEmail author


The paper takes a first step in the direction of simultaneously incorporating sectoral and firm-level heterogeneity in the models of international trade and macroeconomics in a tractable manner: without increasing the complexity of numerical computations compared to the existing models with heterogeneity in one dimension. In a model with sectoral heterogeneity in trade costs and firm-level heterogeneity in productivity, introducing one source of heterogeneity at a time and piecing together the results implies that, on reduction in trade costs, more goods and more varieties of every tradable good become traded. In contrast, in the correctly specified model with simultaneous heterogeneity in both dimensions, while more goods do indeed become tradable, but for more than 50% of the previously traded goods, the number of traded varieties falls. The model also reconciles apparently contrasting predictions for the differences in the deviation of domestic price from the world price for the traded and nontraded goods when heterogeneity is introduced, one dimension at a time.


Heterogeneity Curse of dimensionality Endogenous nontradability Endogenous tradability Trade costs Firm-level productivity differences 

JEL Classification

C63 F11 F12 F41 


  1. Baldwin, R., & Forslid, R. (2010). Trade liberalization with heterogeneous firms. Review of Development Economics, 14(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergin, P., & Glick, R. (2007a). Endogenous nontradability and its macroeconomic implications for current account. Review of International Economics, 15(5), 916–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergin, P., & Glick, R. (2007b). Tradability, productivity, and international economic integration. Journal of International Economics, 73, 128–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergin, P., & Glick, R. (2009). Endogenous tradability and its macroeconomic implications. Journal of Monetary Economics, 56, 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, A., Redding, S., & Schott, P. (2007). Comparative advantage and heterogeneous firms. Review of Economic Studies, 74, 31–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaney, T. (2008). Distorted gravity: The intensive and extensive margins of international trade. American Economic Review, 98(4), 1707–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crucini, M., Telmer, C., & Zachariadis, M. (2005). Understanding European real exchange rates. American Economic Review, 95, 724–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dornbusch, R., Fisher, S., & Samuelson, P. (1977). Comparative advantage, trade, and payments in a Ricardian model with a continuum of goods. American Economic Review, 67, 823–839.Google Scholar
  9. Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2002). Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica, 70, 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghironi, F., & Melitz, M. (2005). International trade and macroeconomic dynamics with heterogeneous firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 865–915.Google Scholar
  11. Hummels, D. (1999). Toward a geography of trade costs. Working paper, Purdue University.Google Scholar
  12. Hummels, D. (2001). Time as a trade barrier. Working paper, Purdue University.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, R. (2014). Trade in intermediate inputs and business cycle comovement. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 6(4), 39–83.Google Scholar
  14. Melitz, M. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica, 71, 1695–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations