Shaar, Karam (2017): Reconciling International Trade Data.
Preview |
PDF
MPRA_paper_81572.pdf Download (630kB) | Preview |
Abstract
International trade data are in substantial measurement error. Data reported by some countries mean next to nothing. This study develops an index of trade data quality based on the consistency between a country’s claims on bilateral trade and the corresponding claims of the rest of the world from 1962 to 2014. The index takes the relative significance of each partner and data availability into account. We produce a more reliable set of bilateral and total international trade data using the index. Findings include (a) the actual exports of most countries with low data quality are considerably higher than self-reported. (b) Corruption and poor data quality are strongly correlated. (c) Global trade data quality has been deteriorating in the past three decades even though more countries have improved their data quality over time. This is because low-quality reporters have recently increased their share in global trade. (d) China tends to under-report exports and over-report imports. (e) There is only a trivial difference between US self-reported and reconciled data. The same applies to all high-quality reporters. We recommend future studies on trade use our reconciled data.
Item Type: | MPRA Paper |
---|---|
Original Title: | Reconciling International Trade Data |
Language: | English |
Keywords: | Trade data quality, data discrepancy, trade data reconciliation |
Subjects: | C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C0 - General > C02 - Mathematical Methods C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C18 - Methodological Issues: General F - International Economics > F1 - Trade |
Item ID: | 81572 |
Depositing User: | Mr. Karam Shaar |
Date Deposited: | 26 Sep 2017 01:35 |
Last Modified: | 28 Sep 2019 14:10 |
References: | 2011. International Merchandise Trade Statistics- Concepts and Definitions (Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Division, United Nations, No. 52, Series M, New York). Bahmani-Oskooee, Mohsen, Scott Hegerty, and Hanafiah Harvey, 2013. Exchange-rate sensitivity of commodity trade flows: Does the choice of reporting country affect the empirical estimates?, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 22, 1183-1213. Calderon, Cesar, Alberto Chong, and Ernesto Stein, 2007. Trade intensity and business cycle synchronization: Are developing countries any different?, Journal of international Economics 71, 2-21. Ferrantino, Michael J, Xuepeng Liu, and Zhi Wang, 2012. Evasion behaviors of exporters and importers: Evidence from the US–China trade data discrepancy, Journal of international Economics 86, 141-157. Gehlhar, Mark, 1996. Reconciling bilateral trade data for use in GTAP, GTAP Technical Papers, 11. Gujarati, Damodar, 2004. Basic Econometrics, Fourth Edition (McGraw Hill, New York, United States). "The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System", 2014. http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature/overview/what-is-the-harmonized-system.aspx. Yeats, Alexander J, 1990. On the accuracy of economic observations: Do sub-Saharan trade statistics mean anything?, The World Bank Economic Review 4, 135-156. |
URI: | https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/id/eprint/81572 |