| "Infant Formula Trade and Food Safety"|
with Sarah Adelman (Mount Holyoke College)
Applied Economics and Finance Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2019 (abstract) (paper)
Beginning in 2004, the Chinese formula market suffered from a string of contamination events from counterfeit formula in 2004, melamine in 2008 to mercury and aflatoxin (a human carcinogen) in 2012. In this paper, we seek to understand the effects of these safety concerns in a market which lacks product substitutes. Whereas the literature shows international flows for produce, beef, and poultry are changed by persistent contaminations, the international infant formula market is less responsive to repeated health concerns.
| "Infant Formula Trade and the Family Friendly Workplace"|
with Sarah Adelman (Mount Holyoke College)
Applied Economics Letters Volume 25, Issue 8, 2018 pp 527-530 (abstract) (paper)
The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, and breastfeeding with complimentary feeding for up to two years. We use a gravity model of trade to analyze the relationship between formula imports and parental leave policies around the world. Countries with longer maternity leave policies have lower formula imports, however conditional on offering paid maternity leave, higher wage replacement is associated with more infant feeding options for parents.
| "Teaching Writing in Economics"|
Journal of Economic Education Volume 48, Issue 4, 2017 pp 254-264 (abstract) (paper)
In this article, the author provides motivation and a template for integrating and teaching writing in a variety of economics courses: core theory or introductory courses, topic courses, and economic writing/research courses. For each assignment, pedagogical reasoning and syllabus integration is discussed. Additionally, the author shows that using grading practices and peer review as suggested in the literature can make the grading and time burden of teaching writing accessible to even large lecture courses.
| "Exporting Spatial Externalities"|
with Andrew Cassey (Washington State University) and Andreas Waldkirch (Colby College)
Open Economies Review Volume 27, Number 4, September 2016 pp 697-720. (abstract) (paper)
Using spatial econometrics, we estimate the effect of externalities generated by neighbors' exports on place-level exports, explicitly modeling the distance to those neighbors. We find there is a positive effect of neighbors' exports on exports to the same country but less so for exporting generally. We also find that using a spatial-weights term based on the physical distance between exporters greatly outperforms a dichotomous measure based on exporters in the same region. The results are robust to alternative definitions of the spatial weight.
| "Six Comparisons of Firm-Level and Product-Level Data"|
with Andrew Cassey (Washington State University) Applied Economics Letters Volume 20, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 382-385 (abstract) (paper)
We compare readily available product-level export data with hard-to-obtain firm-level export data along six dimensions such as value and the number of destination countries. We find the product data qualitatively matches the firm-level data, but not quantitively, particularly on dynamics. This is due to the categorization of products. However, product data can be used to establish a lower estimate on statistics compared to firm-level data that may be useful in monopolistic competition model of international trade.
| "Multilateral Export Decompositions"|
with Andrew Cassey (Washington State University)
Open Economies Review Volume 24, Number 5, November 2013, pp 901-918. (abstract) (paper)
We analyze exports along five margins to observe the changes of newly exported products, products removed from the export market, and continuously traded products to new, old, and exited destinations on export growth. We find export shares differ between developing and developed countries: 1) entering and exiting products are an important source of export value, but more so for developing than developed countries, 2) that continuously exported products to new destinations are a more important source of export value for developing than developed countries, 3) that though the removal of exiting products has a large impact on export value, the removal of products from one destination that continue to be exported elsewhere results in little loss to total export value, and 4) that larger and richer exporting countries have less opportunity to increase exports from new destinations than smaller and poorer exporting countries. Understanding the change in these margins across different types of countries may be important for formulating trade agreements and targeting of new trade partners.
| "The Agglomeration of Exporters by Destination"|
with Andrew Cassey (Washington State University) The Annals of Regional Science Volume 51, Issue 2, October 2013, pp 495-513 (abstract) (paper) (online appendix)
Precise characterization of informational trade barriers is neither well documented nor understood. Using Russian customs data, we document that regional destination-specific export spillovers exist for developing countries, extending a result that was only known for developed countries. This result suggests behavior responding to a destination barrier. To account for this fact, we build on a monopolistic competition model of trade by postulating an externality in the international transaction of goods. We test the model's prediction on region-level exports using Russian data and find improvement over gravity-type models without agglomeration. This finding has important development implications in that export policy that considers current trade partners may be more effective than policy that focuses only on the exporting country's industries. Furthermore, our findings can be considered in the burgeoning literature refining transaction costs beyond the traditional iceberg cost.
| "The Firm Export and FDI Choice in the Context of Gravity"|
International Review of Economics & Finance Volume 27, June 2013, Pages 592-596. (abstract) (paper)
In this paper, I show that in a theoretical environment where monopolistic competitive firms choose between exporting and servicing through a multinational with foreign direct investment (FDI), a gravity representation of exports and FDI can be derived. I then discuss the extent to which the resulting gravity equations are comparable and suggest a gravity- type regression that allows for direct interpretation of the differential effects of variables on exports and FDI.
| "The Agglomeration by Destination of U.S. State Exports"|
with Andrew Cassey (Washington State University)
Economics Bulletin Vol. 33 No. 2, 2013, pp. 1504-1510 (abstract) (paper)
Exporting firms in France, the Netherlands, and Russia cluster by destination beyond that expected by GDP or ports (Choquette and Meinen 2011; Koenig 2009). It is un- known if this also occurs in the United States. The difficulty of obtaining U.S. customs data is the reason this remains unknown. Using the aggregate reduced form equation based on a firm-level theory of exporter agglomeration in Cassey and Schmeiser (forthcoming), we estimate the coefficient on an agglomeration variable as measured by aggregate export weight and test its statistical significance. We find a 1% increase in aggregate weight increases exports by 0.4%. This estimate is economically and statistically significant and robust.
| "Learning to Export: Export Growth and the Destination Decision of Firms"
Journal of International Economics Volume 87, Issue 1, May 2012, Pages 89-97 (abstract) (paper)
I find evidence that the geographic expansion of firm exports occurs slowly over time and that a large share of export growth is due to incumbent exporters entering new destinations. New exporters enter large countries and destinations with characteristics similar to their domestic market. Less similar, distant or less developed countries are entered by firms already exporting to other destinations. I formulate a dynamic general equilibrium model to test if these patterns are due to firms learning how to export (as other recent empirical findings have suggested) or other factors considered in the literature. In this model, heterogeneous firms experience learning in the form of market entry costs that depend on export history. Using Russian firm level data, I find that learning plays a significant role in explaining the observed entry patterns, which standard trade models cannot account for.
| "Tradability and Market Penetration Costs: Explaining Foreign Market Servicing Intensities"|
with Miguel Ricaurte (Central Bank of Chile) International Review of Economics & Finance Volume 22, Issue 1, April 2012, Pages 190-200 (abstract) (paper)
Industry level data shows striking differences among sectors in ratios of exports to FDI sales. We identify the elements behind the sectoral differences in the mode of foreign market servicing in the context of a general equilibrium model of monopolistic competition. Our calibration exercise shows that traditional margins such as transportation, fixed entry costs, utility weights, and dispersion of firm productivity are not enough to capture the observed sectoral differences, as is commonly assumed. We propose augmenting the model to allow for sectoral differences in intangible costs of operating in a foreign market in order to explain these observations.
|Ph.D. in Economics, University of Minnesota (2009)|
|B.S. in Economics, Montana State University (2003)|
|Fall 2019: Econ 212 (Microeconomic Theory) and Econ 312: (Seminar in International Trade)|
|Spring 2020: Econ 212 (Microeconomic Theory) and Econ 165 (International and Development Economics)||All course information is posted on Moodle.|
|Microeconomic Theory (Econ 212)||Sp19, F18, Sp17, F16, Sp16, F15, F14, Sp14, F11, F10, F09|
|International Trade (Econ 216)||Sp10|
|International Economics (Econ 218)||F15, F14, F13, Sp12, Sp11|
|Sem: Industrial Organization (Econ 307)||Sp19, Sp17, Sp16, F13, Sp12, Sp11, Sp10|
|Sem: International Trade (Econ 312)||Sp14, F11, F10, F09||Sem: Senior Thesis (Econ 394)||F16|
|Sp09||Principles of Microeconomics (Econ 1101.01)Large Lecture|
|Principles of Microeconomics (IDL 1101)|
|Fa08||Principles of Microeconomics (Econ 1101.01) Large Lecture|
|Su08||Principles of Macroeconomics (Econ 1102.02)|
|Sp08||Principles of Microeconomics Large Lecture|
|Fa07||Major Project Seminar (Econ 3951)|
|Undergraduate Writing in Economics (Econ 4100W)|
|Su07||Principles of Microeconomics|
|Sp07||Principles of Microeconomics Large Lecture|
|Fa06||Honors Industrial Organization (Econ 4631)|
|Su06||Principles of Microeconomics|
|Sp06||Principles of Microeconomics Large Lecture|
|Sp05||Principles of Microeconomics|
|Fa04||Honors Principles of Microeconomics|