Productive experience and specialization opportunities for Portugal: an empirical assessment
- 254 Downloads
Following Hidalgo et al. (Sci Mag 317: 482–487, 2007), we use the structure of international trade to estimate a measure of “revealed relatedness” for each pair of internationally traded products, which intends to capture similarities in terms of the endowments or capabilities they use in production. Our method departs from the original one, in that we run statistical tests of equality in probabilities, instead of computing conditional probabilities. We estimate a matrix of “Revealed Relatedness Indexes” using 2005 data and we then investigate which “upscale” products in which Portugal didn’t develop comparative advantage are more related to products in which the country is currently specialized. The analysis suggests that more than 60 % of Portugal’s “upscale opportunities” lie in non-traditional sectors, such as “machinery” and “chemicals”.
KeywordsInternational trade Comparative advantage PRODY The Portuguese economy
JEL ClassificationC14 F14
The authors acknowledge the editor and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and suggestions. Luis Catela Nunes acknowledges support from FCT grant UID/ECO/00124/2013.
- Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B 57:289–300Google Scholar
- Hausmann R, Klinger B (2006) Structural transformation and patterns of comparative advantage in the product space. CID Working Paper no. 128, Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Hausmann R, Klinger B (2007) The structure of the product space and the evolution of comparative advantage. CID Working Paper no. 146, Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Hidalgo C, Klinger B, Barabasi A, Hausmann R (2007) The product space conditions the development of nations. Sci Mag 317:482–487Google Scholar
- Koopman R, Wang Z, Wei S (2014) Tracing value-added and double counting in gross exports. Am Econ Rev 104(2):459–494Google Scholar