This paper develops a modified shift-share model for foreign exports of states. We identify the sectoral mix as a proxy for supply conditions and the relative mix of foreign markets as a proxy for demand conditions. We measure the relative importance of both demand and supply factors using the MISER data set. The results suggest that demand conditions are as important, if not more so, than supply conditions in explaining recent foreign export among states.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahern, R.
, and A. Reifman. 1988. Trade legislation in 1987. In Issues in the Uruguay round, eds. R. E. Baldwin and J. D. Richardson. Cambridge: NBER.
2.
Balassa, B.1979. The changing pattern of comparative advantage in manufactured goods. The Review of Economics and Statistics61: 259-266.
3.
Canto, V.1986. The determinants and consequences of trade restrictions in the U.S. economy. New York: Praeger.
4.
Coughlin, C. C.
, and P. A. Cartwright. 1987a. An examination of state foreign export promotion and manufacturing exports. Journal of Regional Science27: 439-449.
5.
Coughlin, C. C.
, and P. A. Cartwright. 1987b. An examination of state foreign export promotion and manufacturing employment. Economic Development Quarterly1: 257-267.
6.
Coughlin, C. C.
, and O. Fable. 1985. State factor endowments and exports: An alternative to cross-industry studies. University of Georgia, Department of Economics, unpublished.
7.
Erickson, R. A.1989. Export performance and state industrial growth. Economic Geography65: 280-292.
8.
Erickson, R. A.
, and D. J. Hayward. 1991. The international flows of industrial exports from U.S. regions. Annals of the Association of American Geographers81: 371-390.
9.
Erickson, R. A.
, and D. J. Hayward. 1992. Interstate differences in relative export performance: A test of factor endowment theory. Geographical Analysis24: 223-238.
10.
Gazel, R.
, G. J. D. Hewings, and M. Sonis. 1996. Trade, sensitivity and feedbacks: Interregional impacts of the US-Canada free trade agreement. In Recent Advances in Spatial Equilibrium Modeling: Methodology and Applications, eds. J. C. J. M. van den Bergh, P. Nijkamp, and P. Rietveld. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag.
11.
Hayward, D. J.
, and R. A. Erickson. 1995. The North American trade of U.S. States: A comparative analysis of industrial shipments, 1983-91. International Regional Science Review18: 1-31.
12.
Jenkins, G. P.1980. Costs and consequences of the new protectionism: The case of Canada's clothing sector. Ottawa: North-South Institute.
13.
Krugman, P. R.
, and R. E. Baldwin. 1987. The persistence of the U.S. trade deficit. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity1: 1-43.
14.
Lawrence, R. Z.1984. Can America compete?Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
15.
Manrique, G. G.1987. Foreign export orientation and regional growth in the U.S. Growth and Change18: 1-12.
16.
Markusen, A.
, H. Noponen, and K. Driessen. 1991. International trade, productivity, and U.S. regional job growth: A shift-share interpretation. International Regional Science Review14: 15-39.
17.
Pinchin, H. M.1979. The regional impact of the Canadian tariff. Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada.
18.
Richardson, H. M.1979. Regional economics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
19.
Tyson, L.
, D'Andrea. 1992. Who's bashing whom: Trade conflict in high technology industries. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.
20.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration
. 1992. National Trade Data Bank: The export connection. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration
. 1992. U.S. exports to Mexico, A state-by-state overview: 1987-1991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
22.
U.S. Department of Commerce
. Statistical Abstract of the United States (various years). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23.
Whalley, J.
, and I. Trela. 1986. Regional aspects of Confederation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
