A Gravity Model Reformulation of Trade and Conflict in Turkey

  • Walter Isard
  • Sid Saltzman
  • Ahmet Yaman

Abstract

This chapter reports on an interdisciplinary experiment involving three fields — economics, political science and regional science — and involving a model from a fourth field, physics. The phenomenon to be understood is trade. From each of the first three fields, we take one and only one set of basic concepts, or components, to play a role in the gravity model and to provide a framework for specifying the variables used in the model: respectively, supply and demand; co-operation and hostility; and space or distance.

Keywords

Europe Covariance Transportation Income Turkey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitken, N. D. (1973) ‘The Effect of the EEC and EFTA on European Trade: A Temporal Cross-Section Analysis’, American Economic Review, vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 881–92.Google Scholar
  2. Bergstrand, J. H. (1985) ‘The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 67, pp. 474–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstrand, J. H. (1989) ‘The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor Proportions Theory in International Trade’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 71, pp. 143–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergstrand, J. H. (1992) ‘On Modeling the Impact of Arms Reductions on World Trade’, in W. Isard and C. H. Anderton (eds) Economics of Arms Reduction and Peace Process (New York: Elsevier).Google Scholar
  5. Biessen, G. (1991) ‘Is the Impact of Central Planning on the Level of Foreign Trade Really Negative?’, Journal of Comparative Economics, vol. 15, pp. 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brada, J. C. and J. A. Méndez (1983) ‘Regional Economic Integration and the Volume of Intraregional Trade: A Comparison of Developed and Developing Country Experience’, Kyklos, vol. 36, pp. 589–603.Google Scholar
  7. Brada, J. C., and J. A. Méndez (1985) ‘Economic Integration Among Developed, Developing and Centrally Planned Economies: A Comparative Analysis’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 67, pp. 549–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gasiorowski, M. J. (1986) ‘Economic Interdependence and International Conflict’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 30, pp. 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gasiorowski, M. and S. W. Polachek (1982) ‘Conflict and Interdependence: East-West Trade and Linkages in the Era of Détente’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 709–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanink, D. M. (1990) ‘Linder Again’, Weltwirtschaftliches-Archiv, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 257–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hirsch, S. and B. Lev (1973) ‘Trade and Per Capita Income Differentials: A Test of the Burenstam-Linder Hypothesis’, World Development, vol. 1, pp. 11–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hua Chang-i and F. Porell (1979) ‘A Critical Review of the Development of the Gravity Model’, International Regional Science Review, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 97–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Isard, W. (1951) ‘Distance Inputs and the Space Economy, Part I: The Conceptual Framework’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 65, pp. 181–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Isard, W. (1954) ‘Location Theory and Trade Theory: Short-Run Analysis’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 68, pp. 305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Isard, W. (1975) ‘A Simple Rationale for Gravity Model Type Behavior’, Papers of Regional Science Association, vol. 35, pp. 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Isard, W. and C. Smith (1989) ‘On Bilateral Trade Matrix Adjustment’ (mimeo) Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Isard, W., D. F. Bramhall, G. A. P. Carrothers, J. H. Cumberland, L. N. Moses, D. O. Price and E. W. Schooler (1960) Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  18. Linnemann, H. (1966) An Econometric Study of International Trade Flows (Amsterdam: North-Holland).Google Scholar
  19. Mirer, T. W. (1988) Economic Statistics and Econometrics (New York: Macmillan).Google Scholar
  20. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1979) Interfutures Facing the Future: Mastering the Probable and Managing the Unpredictable (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  21. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1987) OECD Economic Surveys Turkey: 1985–86 (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  22. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1991) OECD Economic Surveys Turkey: 1989–90 (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  23. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1992) Long-Term Prospects for the World Economy (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  24. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1993) OECD Economic Outlook (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  25. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1994) OECD National Accounts 1960–1992 (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  26. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) (various years) OECD Trade by Commodities Series C (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
  27. Pelzman, J. (1977) ‘Trade Creation and Trade Diversion in the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance, 1954–1970’, American Economic Review, vol. 67, pp. 713–22.Google Scholar
  28. Polachek, S. W. (1978) ‘Dyadic Disputes: An Economic Perspective’, Papers of the Peace Science Society, vol. 28, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
  29. Polachek, S. W. (1980) ‘Conflict and Trade’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 55–78.Google Scholar
  30. Polachek, S. W. (1992) ‘Conflict and Trade: An Economics Approach to Political International Interactions’, in W. Isard and C. H. Anderton (eds), Economics of Arms Reduction and Peace Process (New York: Elsevier).Google Scholar
  31. Pollins, B. M. (1989a) ‘Does Trade Still Follow the Flag?’, American Political Science Review, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pollins, B. M. (1989b) ‘Conflict, Cooperation and Commerce: The Effect of International Political Interactions on Bilateral Trade Flows’, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 737–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pollins, B. M. and P. K. Brecke. (1986) ‘International Economic Processes’, in S. A. Bremer (ed.), GLOBUS: Computer Simulation of Worldwide Political and Economic Developments (Boulder, Col.: Campus-Westview).Google Scholar
  34. Pyndick, R. S. and D. L. Rubinfeld. (1991) Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts (New York: McGraw-Hill).Google Scholar
  35. Sapir, A. (1981) Trade Benefits under the EEC Generalized System of Preferences’, European Economic Review, pp. 339–55.Google Scholar
  36. Sayrs, L. W. (1989) ‘Trade and Conflict Revisited: Do Politics Matter?’, International Interactions, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 155–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shelburne, R. C. (1987) ‘A Ratio Test of Trade Intensity and Per-Capita-Income Similarity’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 474–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Summary, R. M. (1989) ‘A Political-Economic Model of US Bilateral Trade’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 71, pp. 179–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thursby, J. G. and M. C. Thursby (1987) ‘Bilateral Trade Flows, the Linder Hypothesis and Exchange Risk’, Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 69, pp. 488–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tinbergen, J. (1962) Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an International Economic Policy (New York: The Twentieth Century Fund).Google Scholar
  41. Yaman, A. (1994) ‘An Economic and Political Model of Turkish Bilateral Trade With the OECD Countries, 1970–1990: A Gravity Model Approach’, unpublished thesis, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Manas Chatterji and Yang Kaizhong 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Isard
  • Sid Saltzman
  • Ahmet Yaman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations