Product-level tariff regressions need not say much about terms-of-trade effects

Who paid the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration in 2018? Many studies aiming to answer this question have run product-level tariff regressions. These are straightforward to implement and exploit that the administration’s tariffs varied greatly across products, countries, and time.

Overwhelmingly, these regressions show that the pre-tariff price (the price paid to the foreign exporter) did not respond to the Trump tariffs. Rather, the tariff-inclusive price jumped up by about the amount of the tax. Here’s a typical exhibit featuring such a result, from Cavallo, Gopinath, Neiman, Tang (2021):

Figure 1a from Cavallo et al. (2021)

You’ll find similar exhibits in Amiti, Redding, Weinstein (2019) and Fajgelbaum, Goldberg, Kennedy, Khandelwal (2020).

Do these patterns mean that the US is a small open economy and that its trade policy has no effect on prices paid to foreign exporters? We need a bit of theory to connect product-level tariff regression results to changes in the US terms of trade.

Let’s work this out in the Ricardian trade model of Dornbusch, Fischer, and Samuelson (1977), my favorite model for thinking through most trade questions. Recall that DFS77 features two countries, a continuum of goods, and the (double-factoral) terms of trade are just relative wages. All else equal, Home is better off when w/ww/w^* is higher. (Set w=1w=1 as the numeraire for convenience.)

What does a product-level tariff do in DFS77? Foreign’s export supply curve for good zz is perfectly elastic at price wa(z)w^*a^*(z). When Home applies a tariff, either Foreign still exports it at the same producer price with the Home consumers bearing the full incidence of the tax, or Home becomes the least-cost supplier of good zz and it ceases to be traded. For the “continuing” set of imported products, there is complete pass-through of import tariffs to tariff-inclusive import prices.

Because product zz is measure zero, ww^* doesn’t move in response to the tariff on zz. But suppose exogenous supply shocks might move ww^* or a(z)a^*(z), such that we want to compare product zz to a control product that experiences similar shifts in input prices or input requirements. We would then estimate a product-level tariff regression with time fixed effects and product fixed effects in order to see how the price of the tariffed good responds relative to other goods. This difference-in-differences regression would show complete product-level pass-through.

Is Home powerless to manipulate its terms of trade in DFS77? Far from it. Suppose that Home applies a uniform tariff to all goods. Equations (23) and (26) in DFS77 tell us that “an increase in the tariff improves the imposing country’s relative wage and terms of trade”. In this model, to change the terms of trade, one must use tariffs to move relative wages. Tariffs on a non-zero measure of products do move the foreign wage ww^*, but that input price shifts the product-level export supply curves of both tariffed and non-tariffed products. The difference-in-differences regression aims to difference out shifts in ww^*.

The advantage of working through an explicit model of international trade is that it clarifies the meaning of the estimand. A product-level tariff regression need not answer the question “did the Trump tariffs improve the US terms of trade?”.

This is why Fajgelbaum, Goldberg, Kennedy, Khandelwal (2020) report both “prices of imports targeted by tariffs did not fall, implying complete pass-through of tariffs to duty-inclusive prices” and “the results do not imply that the United States is a small open economy unable to affect world prices, as terms-of-trade effects could have occurred through wage adjustments at the country-sector level.” In their quantitative model of the US supply side, they get “a model-implied 0.7% increase in the export price… Because import prices essentially do not change, these export price changes mean terms-of-trade improvements at the country level.”

At this summer’s NBER ITI meeting, Adao, Beirne, Costinot, Donaldson made this point in a paper in which they attempt to estimate both the product-level response and the aggregate response to tariffs. A “micro” regression comparing tariffed products to otherwise similar products shows very little change in the exporter’s price, whereas a “macro” regression shows that a country’s average export price does respond to its overall exposure to tariffs. Such a contrast is consistent with the DFS77 distinction: full pass-through at the product level, but, absent retaliation, tariffs do improve the imposing country’s terms of trade.

Market Size and Trade in Medical Services (revised and expanded)

My coauthors and I posted a substantially revised draft of “Market Size and Trade in Medical Services” last week. As I wrote about the first draft:

There’s a long-running discussion in health policy about “spatial mismatch”: are doctors and clinics too concentrated in big cities? Our paper emphasizes that you need to quantify the trade-off between local increasing returns and trade costs to answer this question. If the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market, there’s an upside to geographically concentrating production. The downside depends on how difficult it is for patients to travel.

New to the June 2026 edition are some demographics-based instrumental variables that provide evidence of regional increasing returns in the production of medical services. For example:

Table 3… regresses quality at the region-by-procedure-group level on the interaction of the region’s elderly share and the procedure group’s elderly demand share. This regression includes region and procedure group fixed effects, so a positive coefficient on the interaction means that regions with a higher elderly share produce disproportionately higher quality for care that the elderly disproportionately demand… For supply shifters to explain these results, factors used to produce elderly-oriented care would have to be relatively cheaper in elderly-abundant regions. We think this is unlikely. Doctors who specialize in care disproportionately consumed by the elderly are not likely to have systematically different preferences for regional amenities from other doctors.

We also present a case study of mesothelioma care:

These regressions using demand variation caused by past asbestos exposure suggest scale economies similar in magnitude to our aggregate estimates. Because mesothelioma death rates are orthogonal to aggregate service quality when controlling for log population and state fixed effects, a peculiar alignment of supply shifters would be required to explain these estimates without scale economies. Namely, the doctors who treat mesothelioma would need to find regions with past asbestos exposure particularly attractive, conditional on state fixed effects and total population.

We’ve also overhauled our counterfactual scenarios to make dollar-for-dollar comparisons of travel subsidies and output subsidies. Check it out.

Dingel and Tintelnot (2026)

Econometrica distributed the published version of Spatial Economics for Granular Settings in March. It’s relevant for anyone working with high-dimensional data like commuting flows, trade flows, or migration flows. Our main point is that spatial models calibrated to observed flows suffer overfitting problems in granular settings. Felix Tintelnot and I diagnose the problem, show data smoothing performs better, and introduce a finite model to quantify counterfactual uncertainty.

We examine the application of quantitative spatial models to the growing body of fine spatial data used to study local economic outcomes. In granular settings in which people choose from a large set of potential residence‐workplace pairs, observed outcomes in part reflect idiosyncratic choices. Using analytical examples, Monte Carlo simulations, and event studies of neighborhood employment booms, we demonstrate that calibration procedures that equate observed shares and modeled probabilities perform very poorly in these high‐dimensional settings. Parsimonious specifications of spatial linkages deliver better counterfactual predictions. To quantify the uncertainty about counterfactual outcomes induced by the idiosyncratic component of individuals’ decisions, we introduce a quantitative spatial model with a finite number of individuals. Applying this model to Amazon’s proposed second headquarters in New York City reveals that its predicted consequences for most neighborhoods vary substantially across realizations of the individual idiosyncrasies.

The PDFs and links to replication package are available via the Econometric Society’s page and my website.

Spatial economics JMPs (2025-2026)

Here’s a list of job-market candidates whose job-market papers fall within spatial economics, as defined by me quickly skimming webpages and two dozen candidates who responded on Twitter. I’m sure I missed folks, so please add them in the comments.

Here’s a cloud of the words that appear in these papers’ titles:

Yuanhang Yu (LSE) – Pollution Without Borders: Transboundary Air Pollution and the Geography of Pollutant Control Policy
Po-Shyan Wu (Indiana) – Assault on the Low-Wage Economy: Federal Wage-Hour Law and Southern Industrial Development
Jacob Wright (Minnesota) – On the Spatial Distribution of Colleges
Martin Wiegand (UPF) – Cities with Benefits
Zhichun Wang (Yale) – The Expansion and Dynamic Equilibrium Effects of Institutional Landlords
Óscar Vilargunter (Toulouse) – Spatial Effects of the Minimum Wage
Michael Tueting (St. Gallen) – Climate Change, Income Inequality, and Migration in a Spatial Economy
Tuyetanh Tran (Yale) – The Trade-Offs of Curbside Parking: Evidence from Demand-Based Pricing
Anya Tarascina (Wisconsin) – The Value of Intermediation in Bikeshare
Idil Tanrisever (UCI) – Upzoning and Neighborhood Change: Evidence from Los Angeles
Caterina Soto Vieira (LSE) – Home Production in the City
Christopher Sims (Northwestern) – The Origins of the Nitrogen Revolution
Jacob Shepard (Arizona State) – Spatial Mobility and the Macroeconomic Effects of Housing Policy
Jin Seok Park (USC) – Priced Out of Entrepreneurship? Rising Local Home Prices Lower Economic Opportunities for Young Renters
Bas Sanders (Harvard) – A New Bayesian Bootstrap for Quantitative Trade and Spatial Models
Álvaro Sánchez-Leache (CEMFI) – The Internal Geography of America’s Housing Crisis
Matteo Saccarola (Berkeley) – Geographic Price Extrapolation, Learning, and Housing Search: Evidence from Danish Movers
Brietta Russell (Oregon) – Short-Term Rental Regulations, Enforcement, and Host Behavior: Evidence from Denver
Francesco Ruggieri (Chicago) – Overlapping Jurisdictions and the Provision of Local Public Goods in U.S. Metropolitan Areas
Vincent Rollet (MIT) – Zoning and the Dynamics of Urban Redevelopment
Christina Qiu (Yale) – Endogenous Transfer Networks Under Spatial Risk
Zeyi Qian (Clark University) – Trade Costs, Entry Costs, and Regional Economic Growth in China
Helena Pedrotti (NYU) – Local Discretion in Low-Income Housing Policy: Evidence from France
Giovanni Paolo Mariani (ULB ECARES) – The Value of Local Public Goods: Evidence from Massachusetts’ Property Tax Limits
Junni Pan (Purdue) – Migration Restrictions, College Choices, and Spatial Skill Sorting
Julian Oolman (Illinois) – Endogenous Consumption Amenities of the Country Mouse and City Mouse
Fernando Ochoa (NYU) – Targeting and Price Pass-Through in Housing Voucher Design
Matias Navarro (Cornell) – On the Right Track? Designing Optimal Public Transit Contracts
Alberto Nasi (Bocconi) – Mortgage Rates and the Price-to-Rent Ratio Across Space
Jordan Mosqueda (UCSD) – Equilibrium Commuting Costs: The Role of Private and Public Transit
Iris Margetis (Michigan State) – The Effects of a Mandatory Flood Risk Disclosure Law on Rent Prices and Residential Sorting in Texas
Anna Lukianova (Wisconsin) – Income Taxation, Entrepreneurship, and Inequality in the U.S.
Feng Lin (Chicago) – Sorting, Displacement, and the Limited Welfare Benefits of Non-Local Firms
Furkan Kilic (Chicago) – Spatial Allocation of Inventors, Knowledge Diffusion and Growth
Aja Kennedy (Tufts) – Local Spillover Effects of Density Bonus Policy on Housing Production: Evidence in Massachusetts
Zane Kashner (Stanford GSB) – Building with Externalities: Local Governments and Wind Farms
Nathan Jones (UPF) – Pricing Out the Poor: Income Segregation and Housing Supply Regulation
Richard Jin (Berkeley) – College Alumni Networks and Mobility Across Local Labor Markets
Jiahao Jiang (Virginia) – Rise of Homeownership in China: Insights from a Life Cycle Analysis
Yuyang Jiang (Princeton) – Strategic Transportation Investment and Coordinative Policies: Evidence from the U.S. Highway Network
Yikuan Ji (UMD) – Travel Mode Choice and Distributional Impacts of Congestion Charge Policy in New York City
Razi Iqbal (Michigan) – Sectoral and spatial reallocation via multi-establishment firms
Ji Hwan Kim (UPenn) – Adapting to Storms in the U.S.: A Spatial Dynamic Analysis
Zong Huang (Stanford) – The Redistributive and Efficiency Effects of Property Taxes
Bisma Haseeb Khan (Toronto) – Public Transit, Residential Sorting and Labor Supply: Evidence and Theory from Lahore’s Bus Rapid Transit System
Raymond Han (MIT) – Equilibrium Effects of Neighborhood Schools
Lucy Hackett (Berkeley ARE) – Land subsidence: Environmental risk in housing markets in Mexico City
David H. Buller (Illinois) – Estimating Spatial Heterogeneity in the Labor Market Effects of Place-Based Business Incentive Deals
Gabrielle Grafton (Brown) – The Great Migration and Those Left Behind
Daniel Gold (Wisconsin) – Regulatory Hurdles and Costly Delay in Housing Development
Sebastian Espinoza Rojas (UCL) – Market Power and Local Labor Markets
Plinio Dias Bicalho Jr (Boston U) – Quantifying the Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Competition: the Brazilian “Fiscal War”
Agustín Deambrosi (Penn State) – When, where, and how quickly? A model of Venezuelan stepwise migration with network effects, credit constraints, and official assistance
Lindsey Currier (Harvard) – Competition in U.S. Infrastructure
Benjamin Couillard (Toronto) – Build, Baby, Build: How Housing Shapes Fertility
Beau Bressler (UC Davis) – Building Segregation: The Long-Run Neighborhood Effects of American Public Housing
Lukas Boehnert (Oxford) – The Regional Specialization Trade-off
Devin Bissky Dziadyk (Toronto) – Little School on the Prairie: A Push for Structural Transformation
Aditya Bhandari (Chicago) – Technology and the Geography of Industrial Policy
Sebastián Bauer (Stanford GSB) – Competition and Welfare in Airport Slot Allocation
Elif Basaran (Penn State) – Refugees, Amenities, and the Skill Premium
Mark Bamba (Princeton) – The Centralizing Effects of Tokyo’s Train System
Abdelrahman Amer (Toronto) – Monopsony in Space: Commuting & Labor Market Power
Elena Aguilar (Princeton) – Credit Constraints, Learning, and Spatial Misallocation

Trade JMPs (2025-2026)

For the 16th year running, I’ve gathered a list of trade-related job-market papers. If I’ve missed someone, please contribute to the list in the comments.

Here’s a cloud of the words that appear in these papers’ titles:

Fanwen Zhu (UCLA) – Sanctions and Startups: Trade Shocks and Innovator Entrepreneurship in the U.S.-China Trade War
Qi Zhang (Virginia) – Pollution Haven Next Door: Evidence from China
Viktoriia Zezerova (Penn State) – Market Power, Misallocation, and Trade Policy
Chek Yin Choi (IIES) – Supplier Search and Market Concentration
Yan Yan (Yale University) – The Informational Value of Lobbying in the Tariff Exclusion Process – https://yanyan-econ.github.io
Yuyao Wu (Michigan) – State Ownership and International Business Cycle
Cihang Wang (UIUC) – Taxing Production Networks: Trade, Misallocation, and Vertical Integration
Tao Wang (CEMFI) – Beyond Cheap Supplies: Risk and Competition in Global Sourcing
Germano Wallerstein (Michigan) – Exporter entry, expansion, and the skill premium
Barron Tsai (Duke University) – When Cutting Out the Middleman Backfires: Disintermediation, Wholesale Markups, and Misallocation
Ngan Tran (Oregon) – Unequal Gains: The Gendered Impact of Trade Liberalization in Vietnam
Lidia Smitkova (Oxford) – Export Subsidies as Industrial Policy: the Case of the 19th Century Sugar Industry
Sebastian Sardon (Northwestern) – Trade, Land Consolidation, and Agricultural Productivity
Bas Sanders (Harvard) – A New Bayesian Bootstrap for Quantitative Trade and Spatial Models
Alisha Saini (University of Illinois Chicago) – How Government Procurement affects Trade: Evidence from the U.S.
Jose Rojas-Fallas (Oregon) – Global Firms, Local Students: Multinational Presence Shapes College Major Choice
Yinan Qiu (Princeton) – Venture Capital Networks and Cross-Border Startup Knowledge Spillovers
Alberto Palazzolo (ULB ECARES) – Deglobalization and the Reorganization of Supply chains: Effects on Regional Inequalities in the EU
Guilherme Paiva Pinto (Indiana) – External Negotiations and Customs Union Stability
Saera Oh (Michigan State) – Related Party Trade and Gravity: Revisiting the Distance Effects
Vishan Nigam (MIT) – Specialization by design: the unequal geographic effects of modular product design
Ashwin Nair (Virginia) – Paving the Way for Higher Costs? The Impact of Steel Tariffs on Highway Procurement
Timothy Meyer (Uni Bonn, Kiel Institute) – Hegemonic Competition with Carrots and Sticks
Hubert Massoni (Bologna) – Climate Trade Costs: Extreme Weather, Transportation, and Supply Chains
Ignacio Marra de Artiñano (ULB ECARES) – The Labor Market Effects of Multinational Entry
Max Marczinek (Oxford) – Labour Scarcity and Productivity: Insights from the Last Nordic Plague
Jacob Lefler (Berkeley ARE) – Freight in the Time of Covid: A Model of US Trucking
Taylor Lathrop (Syracuse) – Foreign Direct Investment and Local Productivity Spillovers: Evidence from Indonesia
Guido Lamarmora (Nottingham) – The Food Problem in an Open Economy
Ananya Kotia (London School of Economics) – When Competition Compels Change: Trade, Management, and Productivity
Xianglong Kong (Chicago) – Learning in Firm-to-Firm Trade
Kazuma Inagaki (Rochester) – Born Global, New Exporter Dynamics and the Aggregate Gains from Trade
Vanya Georgieva (Toronto) – Trade and Industrial Policy with Global Production Networks
Enrico Cristoforoni (Boston College) – International Prices, Domestic Wages, and Labor Market Power
Junyuan Chen (UCSD) – Sourcing Frictions Meet Inventories: A Dynamic Ricardian Framework for the Impact of Trade Shocks
Yaming Chang (Penn State) – Trade, Research Productivity and Growth: A Dynamic General Equilibrium Approach
Jonas Casper (LMU Munich) – Unproductive Exporters
Carlos Bolivar (Minnesota) – The Micro Effects of Aggregate Shocks in Endogenous Trade Networks
Shania Bhalotia (LSE) – Trade in Services under Regulatory Barriers: Evidence from UK Banking

Spatial economics JMPs (2024-2025)

Here’s a list of job-market candidates whose job-market papers fall within spatial economics, as defined by me quickly skimming webpages and 24 candidates who responded on Twitter. I’m sure I missed folks, so please add them in the comments.

Here’s a cloud of the words that appear in these papers’ titles:

Deepti Sikri (Albany) – The Fiscal Effects of Housing Prices: Evidence from School Districts
Ozgen Kiribrahim-Sarikaya (Arizona State) – Place-Based Environmental Regulations and Labor Market Dynamics
Marianna Magagnoli (Barcelona) – The price of silence
Konhee Chang (Berkeley Haas) – Diversifying the suburbs: Rental supply and spatial inequality
Lei Ma (Boston University) – Build What and for Whom? The Distributional Effects of Housing Supply
Peter Deffebach (Boston University) – Labor Market Churn, Development, and Quits: Evidence from Urban Ghana
Michael Neubauer (Brown) – Race, Poverty, and the Changing American Suburbs
Jake Fabian (Brown) – The Price of Risk: Flood Insurance Premium Reform and Housing Development
Megan Haasbroek (Cambridge postdoc) – Land Acquisition Costs and Sectoral Composition: Evidence from India
Fern Ramoutar (Chicago Booth) – Market Power in Residential Real Estate: Evidence from Chicago Rental Properties
Jeanne Sorin (Chicago) – Public Roads on Private Lands: Land Costs and Optimal Road Improvements in Urban Uganda
Thomas Hierons (Chicago) – Spreading the Jam: Optimal Congestion Pricing in General Equilibrium
Jordan Rosenthal-Kay (Chicago) – Urban costs around the world
Dongkyu Yang (Colorado) – Time to Accumulate: The Great Migration and the Rise of the American South
Matthew Easton (Columbia) – Populations in Spatial Equilibrium
Emiliano Harris (Cornell) – The First Era of American Federal Public Housing (1940-1960) Effects on Neighborhoods
Thomas Monnier (CREST) – The Informality Trade-Off: Wages and Rural-Urban Migration in South Africa
Yan Hu (Edinburgh postdoc) – The roadblock effect: War shocks, modal shifts, and population changes
Yanbin Xu (Georgetown) – Internal Migration Restrictions, Aggregate Productivity, and Spatial Growth
Leonardo D’Amico (Harvard) – Capital Market Integration and Growth Across the United States
Oluchi Mbonu (Harvard) – Market Segmentation and Coordination Costs: Evidence from Johannesburg’s Minibus Networks
Martin Koenen (Harvard) – Social Ties and Residential Choice: Micro Evidence and Equilibrium Implications
Sébastien Box-Couillard (Illinois) – Do Minorities Pay More to Avoid Flood Risk?
Sidharth Moktan (LSE) – An Empirical Equilibrium Model of the Markets for Rental and Owner-Occupied Housing
Giorgio Ravalli (LSE) – The Effect of Transport Infrastructure on Innovation: The Role of Market Access in the English Railway Boom
Sandra Kurniawati (Mannheim) – Quantifying the Effects of Commodity Booms on Regional and Sectoral Outcomes
Daniel O’Connor (MIT) – Revitalize or Relocate: Optimal Place-based Transfers for Local Recessions
Tishara Garg (MIT) – Can Industrial Policy overcome Coordination Failures? Theory and Evidence
Daniel Velasquez (Michigan) – Highways, Commuting and Trade: Unpacking Suburban Growth
Chun Chee Kok (Monash) – Ethnic Proximity and Politics: Evidence from Colonial Resettlement in Malaysia
Helena Pedrotti (NYU) – Local Discretion in Low Income Housing Policy
Hyeseon Shin (Ohio State) – Agriculture, trade, migration, and climate change
Amrutha Manjunath (Penn State) – Language Barriers, Internal Migration, and Labor Markets in General Equilibrium
Dongyang He (Penn State) – The Distributional Effects of Residential Zoning Policies: Insights from the Greater Boston Area
Felipe Barbieri (Penn) – Market Power and the Welfare Effects of Institutional Landlords
Mikhail Zavarzin (Pittsburgh) – Work from Home and Spatial Misallocation
Allison Green (Princeton) – Networks and Geographic Mobility: Evidence from World War II Navy Ships
Huilin Zhang (Purdue) – Productivity Externality of Working from Home: Welfare and Policy Implications
Sisi Zhou (Purdue) – Residential Sorting and Access to Consumption
Sihui Ong (Queens) – Are Uniform or Fragmented Carbon Taxes Optimal? Evidence from Canadian Manufacturing
Daniel Teeter (Queens) – The Impact of Internal Trade Liberalizations on Plant Productivity and Markups
Brad Ross (Stanford GSB) – Measuring and Mitigating Traffic Externalities
James Macek (Toronto) – Housing Regulation and Neighborhood Sorting Across the US
Maximilian Günnewig-Mönert (Trinity College Dublin) – Public housing design, racial sorting and welfare: Evidence from New York City public housing 1930-2010
Carolyn Pelnik (Tufts) – Moving to Profitability? Alleviating Constraints on Microentrepreneur Location
Manali Sovani (Tufts) – Women on the Move: Effect of Transportation Access on Women’s Education in Delhi
Alice Wang (UBC Sauder) – Are Highways Conduits or Barriers for Urban Travelers? A Welfare Analysis Using Smartphone Data
Pablo Valenzuela-Casasempere (UBC) – Displacement and Infrastructure Provision: Evidence from the Interstate Highway System
Max Norton (UBC) – Who benefits from local bond elections? Evidence from California’s school bond reform
Alexander Abajian (UC Santa Barbara) – Savings and Migration in a Warming World
Marko Irisarri (UPF) – Entrepreneurship Across Cities: Uncovering Policy Implications
Alejandro Parraguez-Tala (UT Austin) – Dynamic Migration: From Local Effects to Aggregate Implications
Romain Fillon (Université Paris-Saclay) – The Biophysical Channels of Climate Impacts
Qiaohairuo Lin (Vanderbilt) – Bidding for Firms or Bidding for People? Urban Land Allocation in China
Eutteum Lee (Virginia) – Automation, Spatial Wage Inequality, and Place-Based Policy
Chunru Zheng (Virginia) – Local Land Allocation and Demographic Transitions across Time and Space in China
Joshi Sarthak (Warwick) – Spatial shocks and gender employment gaps: evidence from rising import competition in India
Gi Kim (Wharton) – The Equilibrium Impacts of Broker Incentives in the Real Estate Market
Prakash Mishra (Wharton) – The Global Allocative Efficiency of Deforestation
Benjamin Edelstein (Wharton) – Water Scarcity Management and Housing Markets: Evidence from Water Impact Fees in Colorado
Jack Liang (Yale) – Knowledge and Firm Growth in Space
Xiangyu Shi (Yale) – The allocative and welfare effects of disrupting supply chains by government interventions

Trade JMPs (2024-2025)

For the 15th year running, I’ve gathered a list of trade-related job-market papers. If I’ve missed someone, please contribute to the list in the comments.

Here’s a cloud of the words that appear in these papers’ titles:
trade_wordcloud_2024

Ernesto Ugolini (Aix-Marseille) – Varieties of Democracy and Preferences for Economic Integration
Tingting Peng (Albany) – The Impact of Air Connectivity on Travel Trade: Evidence from Cross-border Card Payments
Jiancong Liu (Bocconi) – Pro-Competitive Gains of Trade Facilitation: Evidence from China
Sanghyun Han (Boston College) – The Effect of Agricultural Protectionism under Climate Change
Yosuke Higashiyama (Boston University) – The China Shock Revisited: Firm Effects of Import Competition in India
Franco Maldonado Carlin (Boston University) – Trade Policy Uncertainty and Exporter Dynamics
Sasha Petrov (Chicago) – From Colonial Lines to Optimal Borders: Quantifying Welfare Gains in Africa
Olivier Kooi (Chicago) – Power and Resilience: An Economic Approach to National Security Policy
Thomas Bourany (Chicago) – The Optimal Design of Climate Agreements: Inequality, Trade, and Incentives for Climate Policy
Vinicius Cicero (Colorado State) – Resource boom, export composition, concentration, and sophistication: evidence from Brazilian local economies
Weizhao Sun (Colorado) – Optimal Infrastructure Under a Two-Tier Government Structure in the Global Economy
Sang Hoon Kong (Columbia) – Quality Upgrading and Productivity Gains from Domestic Market Access Changes in India
Anh Nguyen (Cornell) – De-localizing the Local Impacts of Trade through Migration: Evidence from Vietnam
David Shin (Duke) – Climate Policies under Dynamic Factor Adjustment
Weiting Miao (Duke) – Technology Rivalry and Resilience Under Trade Disruptions: The Case of Semiconductor Foundries
Nida Jamil (Edinburgh) – Trading textiles along the new silk route: The impact on Pakistani firms of gaining market access to China
Camille Reverdy (Geneva Graduate Institute) – Building a new reputation: The impact of adopting voluntary standards
Constanza Abuin (Harvard) – Power Decarbonization in a Global Energy Market: The Climate Effect of U.S. LNG Exports
Maxim Alekseev (Harvard) – Trade Policy in the Shadow of Conflict: The Case of Dual-Use Goods
Yang Pei (Houston) – Demographics, Trade, and Growth
Sameer Malik (Houston) – How Do Unreported Intermediate Inputs Shape Supply Chains?
Victor Zuluaga (Houston) – The Distributional Consequences of Trade in Distorted Economies
Philipp Ludwig (KU Leuven) – Can Unilateral Policy Decarbonize Maritime Trade?
Shinnosuke Kikuchi (MIT) – Does Skill Abundance Still Matter? The Evolution of Comparative Advantage in the 21st Century
Sarah Gertler (MIT) – Exchange Rate Pass-through and Expenditure-Switching Revisited
Jie Zhou (MIT) – Firewall for Innovation
Edward Wiles (MIT) – Relational Frictions along the Supply Chain: Evidence from Senegalese Traders
Andrii Tarasenko (Mannheim) – Effects of Input Trade Liberalization with Strategic Sourcing
Chan Kim (Maryland) – From Research to Development: How Globalization Shapes Corporate Innovation
Oliver Loertscher (McMaster) – Small Resource-Rich Economies and the Green Transition
Anh Do (Michigan State) – Anticipating Tariff Changes: Did American Importers Respond to Trump’s 2016 Victory?
Xiaosheng Guo (Michigan) – Bank Loans, Trade Credit and Export Prices: Evidence from Exchange Rate Shocks in China
Daniel Velasquez (Michigan) – Highways, Commuting and Trade: Unpacking Suburban Growth
Juan Sebastián Fernández Ibáñez (Michigan) – The Dynamic Welfare Consequences of Trade Restrictions
Maurício Barbosa-Alves (Minnesota) – Climate Change, Food Prices, and Inequality
Dan Xie (PSE postdoc) – China’s Manufacturing Pollution, Environmental Regulation and Trade
Sungwan Hong (Penn State) – Green Industrial Policies and Energy Transition in the Globalized Economy
Hyungjin Kim (Penn State) – It’s Worse than You Think: On the Consequences of Chip Wars for U.S. Semiconductors
Viktoria Zezerova (Penn State) – Market Power, Misallocation, and Trade Policy
Weili Chen (Penn State) – Patent Protection in Developing Economies: The Role of Market Power and Technology Access
Yinong Tan (Penn State) – Supply Chain Disruption Risks as a Trade Barrier
Shamil Sharapudinov (Penn State) – The Distributional Effects of Trade across Local Labor Markets and Heterogeneous Consumers
John Sturm Becko (Princeton postdoc) – Strategic (Dis)Integration
Alejandro Sabal (Princeton) – Product Entry in the Global Automobile Industry
Daniel Teeter (Queens) – The Impact of Internal Trade Liberalizations on Plant Productivity and Markups
Seok (Sean) Kim (UC Davis) – Favoritism in the Fragmented Economy: When Political Incentives Meet Global Value Chains
Billy Ferguson (Stanford GSB) – Trade Frictions in Surface Water Markets
Ossian Prane (Stockholm) – Carbon Pricing and Fuel Switching by Firms: Theory and Evidence
Robin Sogalla (TU Berlin & DIW Berlin) – Unilateral Carbon Pricing and Heterogeneous Firms
Myeongwan Kim (Toronto) – Exporting State-Promoted Technologies and the Direction of Global Innovation: Evidence from 5G Standardization
Ruiqi Sun (Toronto postdoc) – Blocking the Giants: Theory and Evidence from the GFW
Sudipta Ghosh (UBC) – Re-measuring Welfare Effects of Trade with Endogenous Production Network
Giulia Lo Forte (UBC) – Trademarks and Gains from Variety: the Role of Multinational Enterprises
Cristian Espinosa (UCL) – From Protection to Retaliation: The Welfare Cost of Trade Wars
Oscar Perello (UCL) – Trade Intermediation and Resilience in Global Sourcing
Yasu Koike-Mori (UCLA) – Aggregating Distortions in Networks with Multi-Product Firm
Younghoon Kim (UCLA) – When Export Controls Backfire: Evidence from 2019 Korea-Japan Trade Dispute
Jiong Wu (Virginia) – Labor Market Responses to Trade: Job Creation and Destruction Across Space and Sectors
Lingmin Bao (Virginia) – Trade Liberalization, Structural Change, and Income Inequality: Evidence from China
Edoardo Tolva (Warwick) – One Way or Another: Modes of Transport and International Trade
Prakash Mishra (Wharton) – The Global Allocative Efficiency of Deforestation

Luck along the way

In January 2025, I will join Columbia University as a tenured Associate Professor of Economics. I’m happy to return to my alma mater.

Since folks tend to underestimate the role luck plays in career outcomes, let me note a few critical junctures at which I benefited from good fortune.

As an undergraduate student, I visited Oxford for six months. Most Oxford tutorials are taught by DPhil (PhD) students in the undergraduate’s college. Unknown reasons caused me to be assigned to a tutor in another college for international economics: Andrew Charlton, who was completing his DPhil and a book with Joe Stiglitz that year. Lucky timing meant he was an LSE faculty member the next year when I needed a reference letter for graduate-school applications.

My lucky timing continued as an Oxford MPhil student. My international trade sequence was taught by Peter Neary, Volker Nocke, Beata Javorcik, and Tony Venables. All of them arrived at Oxford during my two years as a student. I did not know I would get to study with such great trade economists when I chose the masters program.

I was also fortunate to read Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities after my second year at Columbia because my friend Tim Lee blogged his rereading of the book that summer. When I asked Don Davis, “are you still interested in talking about cities?” in the fall of my third year, we started a productive years-long conversation.

Every publication requires some sympathy from an editor or referee to get accepted. I had some good luck in that regard too.

The surprisingly small decline in trade JMPs

A number of trade economists are worried that PhD students have been losing interest in international trade. One way to measure interest in the field is to tally job-market papers, which I’ve been doing since 2010. The number of JMPs in international trade listed on my blog has grown over time, but the set of schools I cover has been expanding. When looking at the number of trade candidates produced by a fixed set of schools, I expected to find a substantial decline.

I tallied the number of candidates produced by two groups of schools: the schools who had candidates in the first two years of the list (2010-2011) and the top 11 economics departments (US News’ top 10 departments plus LSE). The results surprised me.

tradeJMPs_nospatial

The number of trade JMPs produced by the “original” cohort of schools grew steadily from 2012 through 2019. Only after the onset of the pandemic did the number of trade JMPs decline, and the nadir seen in 2022 was similar to the count of candidates in 2012 and 2015. A very small decline, if any.

The top 11 departments have typically produced about 11 trade JMPs each year over the last 14 years. The average is a little lower after 2017 than before.

I have sometimes included a JMP on both the trade and spatial lists. For example, about one JMP per year from the top-11 schools is cross-listed. If forced to dichotomize, I would have classified some of those JMPs as more spatial than trade. Rather than make such judgments now, the dashed lines present the most conservative approach, which excludes all cross-listed JMPs from the trade tally.

While the number of trade candidates has declined since 2019, this does not necessarily imply a declining market share for international trade. As described in a recent Report of the AEA Committee on the Job Market, the supply of new PhD economists appears to have declined. Both the number of students who applied to at least one job through the JOE and the number who sent a job market signal are down about 10% since 2017. In light of this, the decrease in trade candidates produced by the top 11 departments seems modest.

Cawley_table2

What to make of the surprisingly small decline in trade JMPs? When people complain about the decline of international trade among job-market candidates, do they say “the number of candidates has declined to 2012 levels”? Or are they reflecting on something other than the the raw count of trade JMPs, like placement outcomes or particular styles of research? A counterfactual scenario in which the number of trade JMPs would have been growing if spatial candidates had studied international trade instead?

Notes on Kuala Lumpur

I was in Malaysia this week for a family wedding. Five short observations:

The story of Balassa and Samuelson, or at least the Penn effect that it aims to explain, is a reliable guide to relative prices. Non-traded services are relatively cheaper in Kuala Lumpur. Eat until you are stuffed.

Automobiles compete in a global market, but the makes and models in KL differ from what I usually see on the road. Many vehicles were manufactured by Proton, Malaysia’s national car brand, which one doesn’t see in the United States or Europe, because it only exports about a thousand vehicles per year. I also saw models that aren’t sold in the United States, such as the Alphard. This is Toyota’s flagship minivan. It’s a bit of a luxury: in Malaysia, a brand-new Alphard starts at more than 100,000 USD (“From RM538,000”).

Downtown Kuala Lumpur is not particularly walkable. The downtown infrastructure is friendlier to drivers than pedestrian in many respects. For example, KL Sentral (the central transit hub) and Muzium Negara (the national museum) are only about a kilometer apart as the crow flies. Yet Google Maps says that this would be a 3-minute 1.3-km drive, 15-minute train journey, or 52-minute 3.5-km walk. Google Maps overstates pedestrians’ disadvantage, however. If you leverage a multimillion-dollar walkway from KL Sentral towards the Muzium Negara MRT station and then cut out a service door, you can make this a 10-minute walk.

Some local services are too cheap for the Balassa-Samuelson story alone to explain. Grab rides were often as little as one ringgit per minute. How does one get a 30-minute ride for under seven US dollars? It seems likely that government fuel subsidies are part of the story.

Residents of a small open economy are more attuned to international transactions. Upon learning that I was American, the wedding MC complimented me by saying that I am 4.7 times the man he is. I doubt US weddings often feature jokes that require knowing the exchange rate.