Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Diusion of Ideas and Centrality in the Trade Network PRELIMINARY AND VERY INCOMPLETE DRAFT Magali Pinat ∗ July 31, 2015 Abstract My work is rooted in the literature of technology's diusion through bilateral trade and its eects on sustained growth. In the literature of diusion of ideas, the amount of imports from trade partners determines the probability of learning in the importing country. My contribution lies in, rst, using a System GMM to show that trading with central countries matters for economic growth. Central countries are connected to many countries, show high-intensity ows, and are also strongly connected to other central countries. I estimate that an increase in the trade with the top-3 most central countries generates a non negligible supplement of growth of a 0.4 percentage point. Second, I build a theoretical model to present the mechanism through which the centrality of trade partners matter for economic growth. The mechanism is the following: trade leads to the diusion of technologies embedded in the goods. Countries learn technology from the partners they trade with, at a certain cost. Everything else equal, the model predicts that countries have an economic interest of trading with the most central partners because of clustering eects: adopting the technology of the most central partners will facilitate their insertion in a popular cluster where all of the partners are more likely to use the technology. Countries, however, could face a trade-o when the partner centrality is high but its technology is not the highest in the trade network or the cost of obtaining the technology is important. In a third part, I estimate the accuracy of the model's prediction with an empirical analysis following the methodology of Comin et al. (2012). Keywords: International Trade, Economic Growth, Technology Diusion, Network Analysis. JEL Classication: F14, F43, O40, D85. ∗ Université Paris I-Sorbonne - Maison des Sciences Economiques, 106-112 boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75647 Paris Cedex 13, France. e-mail address: [email protected] 1 Introduction For most of the 20th century, global trade activity was concentrated among developed countries. Since the dawn of the 21st century, however, developing countries, led by China and other large emerging economies, rose with surprising speed, becoming major players in the global trade network. The developing countries' participation in global trade rose from 20 percent in 1970 to 32 percent in 2000, and it jumped to 49 percent by 2013 (see Figure ??). This impressive change was associated with major transformations in the structure of world trade network. Figure 2 shows the global trade network in 1980 and 2012. Each node represents a country, and each link corresponds to an active bilateral between two countries measured as the exports from one country to its partner as a share of its own exports. All the countries in the network have then all 100 percent of exports to allocate across its partners. An algorithm of principal component is then applied to the matrix of share of exports in order to determine the position of each country in the trade network. Two sets of interpretations can be extracted. First, along the horizontal axis are distributed the centrality of the countries. More a country is positioned on the right, more relevant it is to the rest of the network, i.e. he is an important trade partner for a large number of countries. Further a country is situated on the right of the plot, more central it is to the trade network. Second, the gure gives also pieces of information on the similarity of the trade structures. Smaller is the distance between two countries, the more similar is the structure of their trade connections in terms of exports to the rest of the world and in term of their relative importance to the rest of the partners. Figure 2 panel a presents the results of the algorithm for 1980 data. Only advanced economies are located to the right; note that they are also very close. In economic terms, it can be implied that only advanced economies used to be central to the trade network. Moreover those countries were similar in the way they were trading, creating a clear cut in the trade network between core countries and the periphery. Panel b of Figure 2 presents some very dierent features for 2012. First, some developing countries are moving toward the right of the picture, meaning they got more central to the trade network. Moreover, those central countries are not any more closely located. Roles have changed and cluster of countries begun to appear. Nowadays, the world appears to be multipolar. The right side of the gure resembles to a star with the apparition of cluster s of countries. Japan, India and the republic of Korea forms one, Western Europe another one. In this paper, I wonder if the centrality of trade partners matter for economic growth and what are the mechanism that play a role. I take a macroeconomic approach of diusion of technology at the country level. My contribution lies in, 2 rst, using a System GMM to show that trading with central countries matters for economic growth. Central countries are connected to many countries, show high-intensity ows, and are also strongly connected to other central countries. I estimate that an increase in the trade with the top-3 most central countries generates a non negligible supplement of growth of a 0.4 percentage point.Second, I build a theoretical model to present the mechanism through which the centrality of trade partners matter for economic growth. The mechanism is the following: trade leads to the diusion of technologies embedded in the goods. Countries learn technology from the partners they trade with, at a certain cost. Everything else equal, the model predicts that countries have an economic interest of trading with the most central partners because of clustering eects: adopting the technology of the most central partners will facilitate their insertion in a popular cluster where all of the partners are more likely to use the technology. Countries, however, could face a trade-o when the partner centrality is high but its technology is not the highest in the trade network or the cost of obtaining the technology is important. In a third part, I estimate the accuracy of the model's prediction with an empirical analysis. The reminder of this paper is as follow. In Section 2, I present a System GMM showing evidence of the inuence of the trade with central partner on growth and on the diusion of technology. In Section 3, I revise the four strands of the literature that my work will be based on: the endogenous growth literature, the diusion of ideas or idea ow literature, the literature linking trade openness and growth and network analysis. In Section 4, I develop a theoretical framework that include the role of the centrality of trade partners in the diusion of technology. Section 5 presents the empirical estimation of the model. Section 6 concludes. 2 Motivation: the empirical importance of centrality on economic growth In order to motivate the construction of the theoretical model I will begin by presenting two sets of regressions on how the centrality of the trading partners inuence the economic growth and the total factor productivity. 2.1 Whether trading partners centrality matter for growth In order to assess whether the centrality of trading partner matter for economic growth I estimate the following regression specication: yc,t − yc,t−1 = β0 + β1 Cc,t + β2 Altc,t + β3 T Oc,t + β4 HKc,t +β5 yc,t−1 + µt + ηc + c,t 3 (1) where yc,t is GDP per capita for country c at time t, Cc,t is the share of trade of trade with most central partners, Altc,t share of trade with an alternative set of countries, T Oc,t is trade openness, HKc,t is human capital, yc,t−1 is the initial GDP, µt are (unobserved) time-specic eects, ηc are (unobserved) countryspecic eects, and c,t is the error term. While the growth regression specications presented above poses some challenges for estimation, empirical papers in the growth literature have typically used the system generalized method of moments (S-GMM) procedure developed, in Arellano and Bover (1995) and Blundell and Bond (1998) 1 . To assess whether the centrality of the partners aect the trade-income nexus with an SGMM framework, I analyze an unbalanced panel dataset covering 122 countries. Within each panel, the dataset includes at most 10 observations consisting of non-overlapping 5-year averages spanning the 1960-2010 period2 . In order to obtain the share of trade with most central partners, I use network analysis and particularly the random walk betweenness centrality measure to rank the most central countries in the global trade network. This measure takes into account each country's share in world trade, their number of trading partners, and the position of their partners in the global network. Based on this ranking I construct a proxies to characterize the centrality of countries' trading partners by using the share of trade with the top-3 most central countries in the network 3 . I also constructed an analogous proxies to characterize countries' composition of their main trading partners by the share of trade with its top3 trading partners. All these measures are time-varying variables and then constructed for every 5-year window in my sample. Table 1 reports the estimations associated with the share of trade with the top-3 countries in the global trade network. To contrast the eect of trading with these center countries with simply concentrated trading relations, I also include in the regressions the countries' share of trade with their 3 main partners . Column 1 of Table ?? reports the estimations associated with the share of trade with the top-3 countries in the global trade network. To contrast the eects of trading with these center countries with simply more concentrated trading relations, the regressions also include an analogous proxy to capture countries' share of trade with their main partners. The coecient on the share of trade with the most central countries in the global trade network is positive and statistically signicant, but that on the share of trade with a country's main trading partners is actually negative and statistically signicant. The dierential eect is economically large - about 0.7 percentage points. An increase of 10 1 See for example Dollar and Kraay (2004), Loayza et al. (2005), and Chang et al. (2009) in the trade-growth literature, and Beck and Levine (2004), Beck et al. (2000), and Rajan and Subramanian (2008) in the nance-growth literature. More details on the methodology in Appendix A.1 2 More details on the data inA.2 3 robustness check for top-1 and top-5 partners are presented in annex 4 percentage points in the share of trade with the top-3 most central countries is associated with an increase in growth rates of about 0.1 percentage points, whereas a similar increase in the share of trade with the top-3 main partners leads to a decline in growth rates of about 0.6 percentage points. Column 2 and 3 of Table 1 report the results of the same regression with alternative denition of the centrality measure, namely share of trade with top1 and top-5 most central countries. In those regressions, the regressions also include trade with the main partner and the top-5 trade partners, respectively. Again, the coecient associated with the share of trade with the most central countries in the global trade network is positive and statistically signicant, but that on the share of trade with a country's main trading partners is actually negative and statistically signicant. 2.2 Whether trading partners centrality matter for tfp growth As for economic growth, I evaluate the eect of the centrality of the trade partners on the TFP growth. tf pc,t − tf pc,t−1 = β0 + β1 Cc,t + β2 Altc,t + β3 T Oc,t + β4 Pc,t + µt + ηc + c,t where yc,t is GDP per capita for country c at time t, Cc,t is the share of trade of trade with most central partners, Altc,t share of trade with an alternative set of countries, T Oc,t is trade openness, HKc,t is human capital, Pc,t are the number of patent applications of 100 millions workers, µt are (unobserved) time-specic eects, ηc are (unobserved) country-specic eects, and c,t is the error term. Unlike with GDP growth regression, data of TFP are not as widely available as GDP. As a consequence, the number of observations do not allow to estimate the equation with GMM methodology. I proposed a simple x-eect estimation to get a sense of a clean correlation between the centrality of partners and the total factor of productivity. Table ?? reports the estimations associated with the share of trade with the top-3 countries in the global trade network on the TFP growth estimates. Column 1 reports the estimates associated with Equation 2. The coecient on the share of trade with Top-3 most central countries in the trade network is positive , while the share of trade with the 3 main partner is negative. Both coecient are statistically signicant. The magnitude of the coecient is also interesting. Without being able to refer to causality, an increase of 10 percentage points in the share of trade with the most central countries is associated with an increase in tfp growth of about 0.8 percentage points. 5 3 Litterature Review Most of the cross-country income dierence is based on productivity dierence (Hsieh and Klenow (2009)). Dierence in productivity across countries can be analyze through two lenses: from a microeconomic point of view, rms have large and persistent productivity which lead to an aggregate dierences at the country level; from a macroeconomic point of view, global dierences across countries lead to TFP dierences (such as dierences in institutions, in business environment, in economic context, in education? ). While my work is based on the second strand of the literature, let?s revise briey the arguments of the micro-rm level literature. A common element of the microeconomic literature is that the income dierence across countries is based on dierences of productivity across in rms that may be explained by a suboptimal allocation of resources across rms (Hsieh and Klenow (2009), Alfaro et al. (2008), and Midrigan and Xu (2010)). Based on the idea that more productive rms are in theory larger than small ones (Melitz (2003)), empirical literature has shown that it is not the case and the main reason is the imperfect mobility of resources. Syverson (2004) demonstrates this point by showing that biggest rms produce more with the same input, and, comparing with the US, the ratio is worse in China and India. Bartelsman et al. (2013) calculate covariance between eciency and labor allocation across rm, and nds that the US are doing 50% better than in a random distribution while some countries from Western Europe only 20%. One reason of this dierence may be explained by policy-induced distortion (argument also provided by Banerjee and Duo (2005)). Closer to my work, macroeconomic literature mainly explains the dierences of productivity by a dierent access to technology (among mainly others Aghion and Howitt (1992)). Two main reasons for that: rst, it is too costly for poor country to access to the latest technology, and second even if they could access it, poor countries may not have the suitable human capital (Banerjee and Duo (2005)). My work is based on four strands of the economic literature: the endogenous growth literature, the diusion of ideas or idea ow literature, the literature linking trade openness and growth and network analysis. One important strand of my work focuses on the endogenous mechanism of generating long-term growth in the economy. In most endogenous growth theory the source of growth is either knowledge spillovers that reduce the relative cost of entry in an expanding varieties framework (Romer (1990)) or productivity spillovers that allow entrants to improve the frontier technology in a quality ladders framework (Aghion and Howitt (1992)). Another important strand of this work focuses on the diusion of ideas and technologies of production. The idea ow literature generally modeled the evolu6 tion of eciency to produce by the meeting of an agent with another agent with higher productivity. Earlier papers on the diusion of ideas and technologies modeled as a stochastic process can be found in Jovanovic and Rob (1989) and Jovanovic and MacDonald (1994). In a closed economy model, Kortum (1997) develops the process of diusion of ideas drawn from an exogenous distribution of potential technologies. He obtains the 'technological frontier' which is the most ecient process to produce a good at time t. The number of techniques for producing good j discovered between time t and s has a Poisson distribution with parameter K(s) and K(t) and derived the stationary distribution of productivities is Fréchet. At the dierence of my model, there is no long term growth unless there is population growth and there is no insight from trade partners. Alvarez et al. (2008) builds on Kortum (1997) a note paper focused on diusion of technologies in an open economy. Technology of an economy is described by a dierential equation: when a producer receives a cost idea better than the one he is now producing they adopt it and this new cost becomes his state. If he receives a higher cost idea, or no idea at all, his cost state remains unchanged. The mathematics of diusion of ideas is similar to my framework. It allows an endogenous growth process based on the research intensity parameter and the distribution of productivities across countries. Nevertheless, at the dierence of their framework, arrival of ideas will not be fully stochastic. A third strand of the literature that matters for my work is the one studding the relationship between trade openness, growth and development. Keller (2004) review this large literature that is on balance nding some positive spillover. Comparative studies by Ben-David (1993), Sachs and Warner (1995), and Lucas (2009) have documented the empirical connections between openness to trade and growth rates. Coe and Helpman (1995) present a model that treat commercially oriented innovation eorts as a major engine of technological progress. They nd that a country's total factor productivity depends not only on domestic RD capital but also on foreign RD capital. Coe et al. (1997) rene those results nding that developing countries benet from developed countries' RD, particularly from the United States. Developing countries can boost their productivity by importing a larger variety of intermediate products and capital equipment embodying foreign knowledge, and by acquiring useful information that would otherwise be costly to obtain. Acharya and Keller (2009) shows that the productivity impact of international technology transfer often exceeds that of domestic technological change, more so in high-technology industries. From a more theoretical point of view, multiples papers from Helpman and Grossman on the subject are a fundamental basis. In particular, Helpman and Grossman (1991) models in a small open economy framework, researchers that develop new varieties of intermediate inputs. Technology is transferred from the rest of the world as an external eect. Nevertheless, at the dierence of my model, the pace of technology transfer is assumed to be proportional to the volume of trade. I add the inuence centrality of the country. 7 At the intersection of these three strands of the literature, four papers are particularly close to my work. Eaton and Kortum (2002) and Alvarez and Lucas (2007) are two model based on a perfectly competitive Ricardian model of international trade. In Eaton and Kortum (2002), insights are drawn from the distribution of potential producers in each country according to exogenous diffusion rates which are estimated to be country-pair specic, although countries are assumed to be in autarky otherwise. Therefore changes in trade costs do not aect the diusion of ideas. Alvarez and Lucas (2007) expands this model to establish the existence and uniqueness of an equilibrium with balanced trade. Those two models are nevertheless integrating only static eects. Alvarez et al. (2013) is based on Eaton and Kortum (2002) and Alvarez and Lucas (2007) where freerer trade replaces inecient domestic producers with more ecient foreign producers. They add a theory of endogenous growth in which people get new, production-related ideas by learning from the people they do business with or compete with. Trade has then a selection eect of putting domestic producers in contact with the most ecient (respect to trade cost) foreign and domestic producers. They use a continuous arrival of ideas (not Poisson, which is more traditional). More advanced technologies used for one good are adapt to other ones. One particularly interesting result is the fact that long term growth depend on the search of new ideas eorts and the concentration of high productivities in the economy. Buera and Obereld (2014) allow for a more general distribution of productivities. Diusion of ideas across countries in which the distribution of productivities in each country is Fréchet, and where the evolution of the scale parameter of the Fréchet distribution in each country is governed by a system of dierential equations. The main innovation of this paper is to add to this framework notions of centrality of the trade partners. The fourth strand this paper relies on is then network analysis. In this paper, I will use theoretical as well as empirical inputs from network analysis literature. Jackson (2008) oers a comprehensive introduction to network concepts. Newman (2010) has an important discussion on measurement and modelisation of network, as well as important insights on how to resolve dynamic systems on networks. The importance of the network in theoretical economics has been traditionally seen through the lense of spillover and contagion of shocks. Typically, the most central countries have a bigger propenstion to diuse shocks, as Newman (2010) and Easley and Kleinberg (2010) shows it in a model inspired by epidemics/ contagion diseases models. Later I will talk about centrality measure in a the trade network. Borgatti et al. (2013) consider direct and indirect centrality measures. They nd an increasing inuence of Asian countries in the trade network but when the data is weighted, the US and Europe remain the more central. 8 4 Model My theoretical framework is based on work is based on Alvarez et al. (2013) and Buera and Obereld (2014). Section 4.1 gives the main equations of those models; section 4.2 brings the innovation 4.1 Framework 4.1.1 in a closed economy Consumers have identical preferences over a [0, 1] continuum of goods. I use c(s) to denote the consumption of an agent of each of the s ∈ [0, 1] goods for hR iη/(η−1) 1 each period t. The period t utility function is C = 0 c(s)1−1/η ds so goods enter in a symmetrical and exchangeable way. Each consumer is endowed by one unit of labor which he supplies inelastically. Each good s can be produced by many producers, each using the same laboronly linear function y(s) = l(s)z(s) where l(s) is the labor input and z(s) the productivity associated with product s. All the producers of good s behave competitively. Using the symmetry of the utility function and the competitive framework, I group the product by their productivity and write the time t utility Ct = iη/(η−1) hR 1−1/η where c(z) is the consumption of any good s that c(z) dF (z) t R+ has the productivity z and Ft (z) the CDF of distribution of productivity. In a competitive equilibrium, the price of any good z will be p(z) = w/z and i1/(1−η) hR Real per capital GDP equal the price index p(t) = R+ p(z)1−η dFt (z) R η−1 1/(1−η) real wage, y(t) = w/p(t) = R z dFt (z) 4.1.2 in an open economy In this section I move from the autarky model to a world of n countries. I use icebergs trade costs 4 and populations as given and construct a static trade equilibrium under the assumption of continuous trade balance. The model is an adaptation of Eaton and Kortum (2002) and builds on the way Alvarez and Lucas (2007) builds the diusion of ideas. It is closely related to Alvarez et al. (2013) and (Buera and Obereld, 2014). Each country under autarky is identical to the closed economy described in Section 4.1.1. I use the same notation here, adding the country subscript i to the variables ci (s), zi (s), yi (s), 4 Trade κij = κji . cost between country i and j are assumed to be κij ≥ 1 and are symmetric so Note that κii = 1 9 and li (s). I group goods s which have the same prole z = (z1 , ..., zn ) of productivities across the n countries; production technology for goods with productivity z is yi = zi li . I assume that Qnproductivities are independently distributed across countries, and let f (z) = n=1 fi (zi ) denote the joint density of productivities. With this notation I can write the period utility as 5 Z n Ci = c(z) 1−1/η η/(η−1) f (z)dz (2) R+ where c(z) is the consumption of country i of goods that have the cost prole z. I use wi wage rates. Each good z = (z1 , ..., zn ) is available in i at the unit wn κin w1 κi1 , ..., which replace both production and transportation costs. price, z1 zn I solve for equilibrium prices, given wages. Let pi (z) be the prices paid for good wj κij z in i, so pi (z) = minj since agent i buy the good at the lowest price. zj Given prices pi (z), the ideal price index is the minimum cost of providing one unit of aggregate consumption Ci to buyers in i: p1−η i = n X j=1 (wj κij ) 1−η Z ∞ z η−1 fj (z) 0 Y k6=j Fk wk κik z dz. wj κij (3) The minimum cost of providing one unit of aggregate depends on the cost of production (wages and iceberg cost) of j times the probability that j is providing the product of productivity z at the lower cost (i.e. the probability that any other k is producing it at a lower cost). With the prices determined, given wages, I turn to the determination of equilibrium of wages. Consumption of good z in country i equals: η η pi pi wi Li ci (z) = (4) Ci = pi (z) pi (z) pi where the rst equality follows from individual maximization and the second follows from the trade balance conditions pi Ci = wi Li . 4.2 Diusion of ideas and centrality of the partners The main idea of this paper is that the diusion of what Alvarez et al. (2013) calls 'productivity-related ideas' depends on the trade partner centrality in the network, weighted by the share of trade with those partners. 5 Since the analysis is static, I temporarly supress the time subscripts. The implied dynamics will be studied in the next section. 10 4.2.1 Process of diusion of ideas First, let's present the equation of diusion of ideas in an n-country economy model. Each country i has a cdf of the productivity distribution Fi (., t) at date t. Technological prole F = (F1 , ..., Fn ) is the function determining the state variables of the economy. It evolves in function of the productivity distribution. Fi (., t) is distributed Fréchet, a good way to model extreme event such as the distribution of productivities. In equation: Fi (z, t) = e−λi,t z −θ (5) where λi,t is the state variable, country-specic and time-varying, and θ the parameter of concentration, constant across country and over time. As developed in Eaton and Kortum (2002), λi,t can be interpreted as the eciency of each countries; higher is λi,t , higher is the probability that country i will produce any good s eciently. It refers to the traditional concept in the literature of absolute advantage. θ is the variation across distribution of productivity z . It relates to the heterogeneity across goods. Lower is θ, higher is the variability of goods in terms of productivity. The potential eect of the comparative advantage against trade cost is stronger. In an open economy, the evolution of the state variable λi,t that determine the evolution of the technological prole Fi,t in country i depends on the arrival of new ideas from trade partners countries. The processus is as follow: producers in i meets producers from other countries with a certain probability and without any cost 6 . Producers in country i adopts the technology y of country j if y > z . After such a meeting, all the producers of the same good in country i use instantaneously the technology y . The cdf of the source of distribution of country i is labeled Gi (., t). d lnFi,t (z) = δi,t ln Gi,t (y) dt (6) .: with δi,t the capacity of country i to learn from other. By denition, the capacity of learning of a country grow over time following the following dierential equation: (7) δi,t = δi (0) ∗ eρt and Gi,t the foreign source of learning equals to: Gi (z, t) = n X Cj j=1 | {z } Proba of learning from j 6 Similar z Z |0 1−η Y wj κij wk κik η−1 y Fk y dy Pi wj κij {z } k6|=j {z } Share of total import of i from j to a search and matching process. 11 Proba j exports to i i.e. j lower cost provider (8) I am working on a cleaner version where the source of learning would be Domestic + Foreign The source distribution of diusion of ideas for i is modeled in function of the sells from the rest of the world to i. It is composed by, rst the centrality of country j , that will be discussed in the next section; multiplied by the importance of country j in the basket of imports of country i for goods with productivity y ; multiplied by the probability a producer j with a productivity y exports to i while no other producers can lower the price. 4.2.2 Centrality of the partners as the probability of learning The innovation of this paper resids in the reformulation of the parameter of diusion of ideas. I believe this parameter is not constant as developed in Alvarez et al. (2013) and Buera and Obereld (2014), but depends on the centrality of the partners. The idea behind is that more a trade partner is central to the trade network more she will be listened by its trade partners and more she will be able to diuse ideas. The parameter of diusion of ideas should not be understand as the probability of meeting between two producers but as the probability of willingness to learn from a partner. In network analysis, centrality refers to the importance of a node within a network. In my context, nodes are countries, edges that connect countries in the network reect the volume of trade ows between them, and paths are a sequence of nodes and edges connecting two countries. The most simple centrality measure in a network is the degree of the node, i.e. the number of other countries to which one is connected to7 . In this context, I decided to use a value of centrality that could be interpreted as the relevance of a country for the trade network. Mathematically, the centrality of country j is dened as the sum of the share of imports from j to all the other countries: I dene the centrality as the Katz centrality of the adjacent matrix of share of trade. Be the matrix of share of import of k : π1,1 π1,2 · · · π1,j π2,1 π2,2 · · · π2,j .. .. .. .. . . . . πj,k = (9) πj,1 πj,2 · · · πj,k . .. .. .. .. . . . πJ,1 πJ,2 · · · πJ,K I will use the Katz centrality8 to characterize the role in the trade network of commercial partners. This measure of centrality allows to take into account the weight of the direct connection of the countries (direct bilateral trade) but also the connections of the trade partners it self. The Katz cenrality of country 7 Alternative (and perhaps more accurate) way to modelize centrality are developed in Appendix B 8 More details on other measures of centrality in Appendix C 12 j is not only dependent of its commercial connection, but depends also ont the centrality of the nodes it is connected to. The Katz centrality of a node j, also called prestige, is based on eigenvalue centrality and is formally dened as: X Cj = α πjk Ck (10) k where πj k is the adjacency matrix of the trade network with eigenvalues α. α controls the inuence of partners' centrality on country j centrality and should be strictly inferior to λm ax−1 . The probability of learning depends then, among other factors similar to (Buera and Obereld, 2014), on the centrality in the trade network of trade partners. 4.2.3 Resolution of the dynamic of diusion of ideas The state of technology in a country is then dened by: Fi (z, t) = e−λi,t z −θ (11) 1−β β Cj,t πi,j λj,t (12) with ˙ = λi,t 1−η Γ 1−β− θ δi,t η−1 Γ 1− θ n X j=1 Details of the calculations are in the supplement of the appendix D. In order to solve the model, let's rst work on de-trended equation by reρ moving trends in the model. As λ grow asymptotically at the rate , the 1−β detrended equation of the distribution parameter Fréchet is λ̂ = λ/eρ/(1−β)t . Also the de-trended dynamic of the parameter Fréchet is: n X Γ 1 − β − 1−η ˙ 1−β β θ ˆ λi,t = δi,t (0) Cj,t πi,j λj,t − η−1 Γ 1− θ j=1 ρ ˆ 1−β λi,t (13) ˙ The de-trended stock of technology is the result of the equation λˆi,t = 0: n 1−η δi,t (0)(1 − β) Γ 1 − β − θ X 1−β β ˆ λi,t = Cj,t πi,j λj,t (14) ρ Γ 1 − η−1 θ j=1 I am going to evaluate the inuence of the centrality of trade partners respect to the case in which all the countries are symmetric, their wages identical and to simplify equal to 1, the cost to trade is null, kij = kii = 1. In that case, all the 13 obsolete - do not include β countries have the same value of centrality constant over time Cj,t = Ck,t = c̄. The de-trended stock of ideas is equal to: λ̂ = 5 1−η δi,t (0)(1 − β) Γ 1 − β − θ ρ Γ 1 − η−1 θ !β−1 Estimation Based on the methodology of Comin et al. (2012). TBW 14 1 + (n − 1)c̄ n1−β β−1 (15) References Acharya, R. C. and Keller, W. (2009). Technology transfer through imports. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 42: 1411 1448. Aghion, P. and Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60: 323351. Alfaro, L., Charlton, A. and Kanczuk, F. (2008). Plant-size distribution and cross-country income dierences. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research. Alvarez, F. and Lucas, R. E. (2007). General equilibrium analysis of the eaton kortum model of international trade. Journal of monetary Economics 54: 17261768. Alvarez, F. E., Buera, F. J. and Lucas, R. E. (2008). Models of idea ows. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research. Alvarez, F. E., Buera, F. J. and Lucas, R. E. (2013). Idea ows, economic growth, and trade. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research. Arellano, M. and Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. Journal of econometrics 68: 2951. Banerjee, A. V. and Duo, E. (2005). Growth theory through the lens of development economics. Handbook of economic growth 1: 473552. Bartelsman, E., Haltiwanger, J. and Scarpetta, S. (2013). Cross-country differences in productivity: The role of allocation and selection. The American Economic Review 103: 305334. Beck, T. and Levine, R. (2004). Stock markets, banks, and growth: Panel evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance 28: 423442. Beck, T., Levine, R. and Loayza, N. (2000). Finance and the sources of growth. Journal of nancial economics 58: 261300. Ben-David, D. (1993). Equalizing exchange: Trade liberalization and income convergence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics : 653679. Blundell, R. and Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of econometrics 87: 115143. Bond, S. R., Hoeer, A. and Temple, J. R. (2001). Gmm estimation of empirical growth models . Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. and Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks . SAGE Publications Limited. 15 Buera, F. J. and Obereld, E. (2014). The global diusion of ideas. Chang, R., Kaltani, L. and Loayza, N. V. (2009). Openness can be good for growth: The role of policy complementarities. Journal of development economics 90: 3349. Coe, D. T. and Helpman, E. (1995). Internationa rd spillovers. European Economic Review 39: 859887. Coe, D. T., Helpman, E. and Homaister, A. W. (1997). North-south r & d spillovers. The Economic Journal 107: 134149. Comin, D. A., Dmitriev, M. and Rossi-Hansberg, E. (2012). The spatial diusion of technology. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research. Dollar, D. and Kraay, A. (2004). Trade, growth, and poverty*. The Economic Journal 114: F22F49. Easley, D. and Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets: Reasoning about a highly connected world . Cambridge University Press. Eaton, J. and Kortum, S. (2002). Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica 70: 17411779. Fisher, E. and Vega-Redondo, F. (2006). The linchpins of a modern economy. In AEA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Hsieh, C.-T. and Klenow, P. J. (2009). Misallocation and manufacturing tfp in china and india. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124: 14031448. Jackson, M. O. (2008). Social and economic networks . Princeton University Press. Jovanovic, B. and MacDonald, G. M. (1994). Competitive diusion. Journal of Polical Economy : 2452. Jovanovic, B. and Rob, R. (1989). The growth and diusion of knowledge. The Review of Economic Studies 56: 569582. Keller, W. (2004). International technology diusion. Journal of economic literature : 752782. Kortum, S. S. (1997). Research, patenting, and technological change. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society : 13891419. Loayza, N., Fajnzylber, P. et al. (2005). Economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean: stylized facts, explanations, and forecasts . World Bank Publications. Lucas, R. E. (2009). Ideas and growth. Economica 76: 119. 16 Melitz, M. J. (2003). The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71: 16951725. Midrigan, V. and Xu, D. Y. (2010). Finance and misallocation: Evidence from plant-level data. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research. Newman, M. (2010). Networks: an introduction . Oxford University Press. Newman, M. E. (2005). A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social networks 27: 3954. Rajan, R. G. and Subramanian, A. (2008). Aid and growth: What does the cross-country evidence really show? The Review of economics and Statistics 90: 643665. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of political Economy : S71S102. Roodman, D. M. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to dierence and system gmm in stata. Stata Journal 9: 86136. Sachs, J. D. and Warner, A. M. (1995). Natural resource abundance and economic growth. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic Research. Syverson, C. (2004). Product substitutability and productivity dispersion. Review of Economics and Statistics 86: 534550. 17 Figure 1: Evolution of world trade 18 19 (b) 2012 Source: Pinat (2015) based on de la Torre et al. (2015) and WDI. Note: Each node represents a country, red nodes an OECD member in 1980, blue nodes the rest of the world. Each link corresponds to an active trade connection between a pair of countries. Arrows at the end of each link capture the direction of these connections. Trade connections are measured as the share of good exports of the source country. Only shares greater than 1 percent are reported. Networks are drawn using the principal component layout. (a) 1980 Figure 2: The rise of developing countries in the world trade A Appendix: Econometrics of the empirics A.1 Methodology S-GMM The S-GMM procedure estimates a system of equations that combines the regression specication in levels, as described above, and the same specication in dierences9 . This method allows to deal with both the unobserved countryspecic eects in this dynamic setup and the potential biases arising from the endogeneity of explanatory variables. Dierentiating the regressions allows us to control for the unobserved country-specic eects. This creates the additional problem that the error term of the dierentiated equation is correlated with the lagged dependent variable. Taking advantage of the panel structure of the dataset, the so-called internal instruments are then used to address this issue as well as the potential endogeneity of the explanatory variables. More specically, for the equation in levels, the instruments are given by the lagged dierences of the explanatory variables, whereas for the equation in dierences, the instruments are lagged observations of both the explanatory and the dependent variables. It is worth pointing out that the set of instruments grows with the number of explanatory variables and time periods. As the time dimension of my sample size is rather limited, I use a restricted set of moment conditions in order to avoid over-tting bias 10 . In particular, I use as internal instruments only the rst appropriate lag of each time-varying explanatory variable. For the variables measured as period averages, the instruments correspond to their average in period t − 2; for the variables measured as initial values within a given period, the instruments correspond to their observation at the start of period t − 1. In the estimations of Equation ?? and ?? as well as in higher order, proxies for the nature of trade connections are interacted one at a time in order to simplify the interpretation of the results and not to overextend the number of required instruments (and hence the number of estimated parameters)11 . Moreover, even with this restricted set of instruments, there are some specications in which the actual number of instruments is close to or even larger than the number of countries in the sample. In this case, I use a more restricted sample of control variables in order to reduce the number of explanatory variables, as suggested by Roodman (2009). This S-GMM procedure rely on four key assumptions: (i) the error term is not serially correlated; (ii) shocks to growth are not predictable given the past values 9 I use the S-GMM instead of the dierence GMM estimator, which relies solely on the dierence equation, because my explanatory variables are persistent over time and could thus render my instruments weak. In addition, Bond et al. (2001) show that for relatively small sample periods, S-GMM performs better than the dierence GMM. 10 See for example Roodman (2009). 11 I do not use instruments for the interacted terms as I already have instruments for each individual term within an interaction. A similar approach has been followed by Chang et al. (2009). 20 of the explanatory variables, (iii) the explanatory variables are uncorrelated with future realizations of the error term; and (iv) the correlation between the explanatory variables and the country-specic eects is constant over time. Nonetheless, the method allows for current and future values of the explanatory variables to be aected by growth shocks -it is exactly this type of endogeneity that the method is designed to handle. In addition, the consistency of the S-GMM estimates of the parameters of interest and their asymptotic variance-covariance matrix depend on whether lagged values of the explanatory variables are valid instruments in the growth regression. I consider three specication tests to evaluate these potential issues. First, I present the Hansen test of over-identifying restrictions on the full set of instruments. This "Full Hansen" tests the validity of the instruments by analyzing the sample analog of the moment conditions used in the estimation process. Second, I also report the Hansen test of over-identifying restriction on the additional instruments that are introduced in the levels equations. This "Incremental Hansen" tests the stationarity assumption on which these instruments are based. And third, I test whether the error term is serially correlated 12 . In all three tests, failure to reject the null hypothesis validates the estimated regression specication. A.2 Data To assess whether the centrality of the partners aect the trade-income nexus with an S-GMM framework, I analyze an unbalanced panel dataset covering 122 countries -13 from North and Central America and the Caribbean, 11 from South America, 31 from Europe, 32 from Africa, 11 from the Middle East and Central Asia, 5 from Southeast Asia, 12 from East Asia, and 3 from the Pacic. As robustness, I also considered a smaller (and perhaps more standard in the literature) sample of 82 countries. Within each panel, the dataset includes at most 10 observations consisting of non-overlapping 5-year averages spanning the 1960-2010 period. As pointed out above, the dependent variable in my empirical analysis is the average rate of growth in real per capita GDP within a 5-year period. One of my variables of interest is the degree of trade openness, which is dened as imports plus exports as a share of GDP, and is also measured as the average over any given 5-year period. I explore a number of other explanatory variables. As is standard in the literature, I control for the initial condition in an economy by including its GDP per capita at the beginning of each period as a regressor. I also include the rate of secondary and tertiary school enrollment 12 In the S-GMM system specication, the test is whether the residual of the equation in dierences is second-order serially correlated, which would indicate that the original error term is serially correlated and follows a moving average process of at least order one. In this case, it would reject the validity of the proposed set of instruments and would call for higher order lags to be used as instruments. 21 of the active population at the beginning of the period to account for human capital investment. As additional controls in the regressions, I have the number of main telephone lines per capita as a proxy for the development of the public infrastructure in each country and a country's terms of trade to proxy for relative price stability and exchange rate uctuations. Both variables are measured as averages over 5-year periods. Using network analysis, I rank the most central countries in the global network using the random walk betweenness centrality measure. This measure takes into account each country's share in world trade, their number of trading partners, and the position of their partners in the global network. Based on this ranking I construct three dierent proxies to characterize the centrality of countries' trading partners: (i) the total share of trade with the top-3 most central countries in the network; (ii) the total share of trade with the top-1 most central country in the network (iii) the total share of trade with the top-5 most central country in the network 13 . I also constructed three analogous proxies to characterize countries' composition of their main trading partners: by the share of trade with its top-3, top-1 and top-5 trading partners. All these measures are time-varying variables, they are constructed for every 5-year window in my sample. 13 Results of (ii) and (iii) are presented in annex 22 Table 1: Inuence of the most central countries on economic growth Initial GDP per capita Labor Force education Trade Openness Sh. Trade w/ Top-3 countries Sh. Trade w/ Top-3 most central countries Sh. Trade w/ Top-1 countries (1) (2) (3) -2.008*** (0.100) 3.036*** (0.152) 0.570*** (0.115) -0.528 (0.424) 1.870*** (3.222) -1.954*** (0.084) 3.082*** (0.131) 0.440*** (0.118) -2.298*** (0.096) 4.007*** (0.175) 0.264** (0.116) Sh. Trade w/ Top-1 most central countries Sh. Trade w/ Top-5 countries -1.039*** (0.059) 0.335*** (0.059) Sh. Trade w/ Top-5 most central countries Constant 5.554*** (1.685) 13.000*** (0.733) -3.138*** (0.595) 4.591*** (0.268) 6.606*** (1.858) Observations 873 873 873 # of countries 122 122 122 # of instruments (xtabond2) 109 109 109 Hansen J-test p-value 0.279 0.254 0.236 p-value of AR(2) statistic 0.443 0.406 0.496 Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. The dependent variable is GDP per capita growth. 23 Table 2: Inuence of the Top-3 most central countries on the tfp (1) Labor Force education Initial TFP Patents Trade Openness Sh. Trade w/ Top-3 countries Sh. Trade w/ Top-3 most central countries Constant 0.234 (0.455) -1.933*** (0.481) 0.080 (0.111) 0.392 (0.453) -3.002*** (0.925) 2.439*** (0.454) 8.183** (2.318) Observations 369 Number of c1 99 R2 0.168 Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. The dependent variable is TFP growth. 24 B Appendix: Centrality A natural next step to improve the measure of centrality Cj is the weight the value of πij on how it is constructed by the importance of those countries in the network. The the weighted in-degree centrality is calculated as the sum of the rows normalized by N countries of the share of import matrix: Cj = N X πjk N k (16) Betweenness centrality measures captures the extent to which a node lies on paths between two other nodes. Nodes with high betweenness centrality have a substantial inuence in the network as they 'control' the ow passing through them. Betweenness centrality is typically measured as the ratio of shortest paths between nodes pairs that pass through the node of interest. Mathematically, the normalized betweenness for country j is dened as: CjB = Pj (i, k)/P (i, k) (N − 1)(N − 2)/2 (17) where P (i, k) is the number of path between i and k , Pj (i, k) the number of path between i and k that go through j and N the total number of countries in the network. An interesting alternative in very dense network ( as it is the case for trade network) is the Random-Walk Betweenness Centrality developed by Newman (2005) and Fisher and Vega-Redondo (2006). In this variant, all the paths from country i to county k are taken into account -not only the shortest one. However, paths have dierent probabilities -typically, shorter paths and paths with a high intensity of trade have a greater contribution to the betweenness score of country j . Formally, X j rik (18) CjRW BC = ik j where rik is a combination of the number of times that the random walk from i to k passes through j and the weight of each path, averaged over many repetitions of the random walk. . Another interesting measure is the prestige centrality, calculated as the Katz centrality. Katz centrality generalizes the degree centrality, by counting number the number of direct neighbor but also all other nodes in the network that 25 check the algorithm Brandes connect to the node under consideration through these immediate neighbors. Nodes are penalized by distance. Mathematically, it is dened as: CjKatz = ∞ X N X αk Akij (19) k=1 j=1 where αk is the attenuation factor of the distant nodes comprised in [0, 1]. Nevertheless, this measure cannot be 26 Supplement of Appendix: Development of equations 27 C Appendix: from F to G . A country i has a productivity z distributed Fréchet with parameters λi,t and θ. Also, Fi (z) = e−λi,t q θ (20) Let the probability that country i can supply a good to country n at a price lower or equal to p be: (21) P r(Pni ≤ p) = Gni (p) At the equilibrium, the price equalize the cost of the product over the productivity: p= wi kni q (22) Hence, Gni (q) = 1 − Fi wi kni p (23) The price aggregate of country n is then: pn = min{Pn1 , Pn2 , ..., PnN } Y P r(pn ≤ p) = 1 − P r(Pni ≥ p) i =1− Y [1 − Gni (p)] i Y wi κni =1− 1 − (1 − Fi p i =1− Y −λi,t e wi κni p !θ i =1− Y e−λi,t Φn p θ i = Gn (p) The share of expenditure of a country i in n's country budget expenditure: Z ∞ (wj κi,j )1−η q η−1 πij = dFi j(q) Pi1−η 0 λj (wj κij )−θ =P −θ k λk (wk κik ) 28 supplement must be updated with addition of β D Appendix: Resolution of the dynamic equa- tion Let's begin with the probability of diusion 1−η Z z n Y X wk κik wj κij η−1 y Fk Gi (z, t) = y dy Cj Pi wj κij 0 j=1 (24) k6=j By simplicity, let's dene the probability j is the lower cost provider for i: Y wk κik S ij (y) = Fk y dy (25) wj κij k6=j D.1 Determination of the share of trade Z ∞ πij = 0 1−η (wij κij ) y η−1 dS ij (y) 1−η Pi (26) To be developed D.2 Determination of the Price P i1−η = X (wj κij ) 1−η 0 j = X ∞ Z (wj κij ) 1−η y η−1 dS ij (y) ∞ Z −1 y (η−1) e−πij λj y −θ λj y −θ−1 θdy 0 j −1 Let's make the following change variable x = πij λj y −θ = X 1−η (wj κij ) 1−η η−1 πij θ λ θ Z X x− η−1 θ e−x dx 0 j = ∞ η−1 η−1 − θ λ θ Γ 1 (wj κij )1−η πij − j η−1 θ Using the denition of πij in Equation26 = X λj (wj κij ) 1−η P (wj κij ) j P i1−η = X η−1 − θ k (wk κi k) λj (wj κi j) η−1 η−1 θ λ θ Γ j 29 η−1 λ θ Γ 1− η−1 1− θ η−1 θ (27) D.3 Determination of the diusion of ideas The source distribution is given by the expenditure weighted distribution of productivity of sellers Gi (y, t) = n X Cj j=1 wj κij Pi 1−η Z y 0 y η−1 dS ij (y) and me want to represent the dynamic of the state variable λ Z ∞ ˙ λi,t = y θ dGi (y, t) 0 Let's develop this expression: Z ∞ θ y dGi (y, t) = 0 n X Cj j=1 = = n X j=1 n X Cj Cj j=1 wj κij Pi 1−η Z wj κij Pi 1−η Z wj κij Pi 1−η Z ∞ 0 ∞ y θ dS ij (y) − P yθ e k wk κik y wj κij λk !−θ λj θy −θ−1 dy 0 ∞ −1 y θ e−πij λj y −θ λj θy −θ−1 dy 0 −1 Let's make the following change variable x = πij λj y −θ = n X Cj j=1 = = n X j=1 n X j=1 Cj Cj wj κij Pi 1−η Z wj κij Pi 1−η wj κij Pi 1−η ∞ y θ e−x λj θy −θ−1 dy 0 1−η η−1 πij θ λj θ Z ∞ x 1−η θ −1 e−x dx 0 1−η η−1 1 πij θ λj θ Γ 30 −η θ Including the price equation obtained in Equation 27 Pn = P j 1−η j=1 Cj (wj κij ) η−1 η−1 λj (wj κij ) θ λ θ Γ 1 − 1−η η−1 θ 1−η Γ n X θ = Cj λj η−1 j=1 Γ 1− θ 1−η Γ n n X n X πkj X θ = λj η−1 N j=1 j=1 k=1 Γ 1− θ 31 η−1 θ Γ 1 πij θ λj −η θ