The Great Trade Collapse and Rebound: A State-by-State View

Similar documents
TABLE 3c: Congressional Districts with Number and Percent of Hispanics* Living in Hard-to-Count (HTC) Census Tracts**

TABLE 3b: Congressional Districts Ranked by Percent of Hispanics* Living in Hard-to- Count (HTC) Census Tracts**

The American Legion NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP RECORD


Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Unemployment Rate (%) Rank State. Unemployment

Index of religiosity, by state

5 x 7 Notecards $1.50 with Envelopes - MOQ - 12

2015 State Hospice Report 2013 Medicare Information 1/1/15

MAP 1: Seriously Delinquent Rate by State for Q3, 2008

Rutgers Revenue Sources

Statutory change to name availability standard. Jurisdiction. Date: April 8, [Statutory change to name availability standard] [April 8, 2015]

Current Medicare Advantage Enrollment Penetration: State and County-Level Tabulations

STATE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS $ - LISTED NEXT PAGE. TOTAL $ 88,000 * for each contribution of $500 for Board Meeting sponsorship

PRESS RELEASE Media Contact: Joseph Stefko, Director of Public Finance, ;

Estimated Economic Impacts of the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act National Report

Interstate Pay Differential

Voter Registration and Absentee Ballot Deadlines by State 2018 General Election: Tuesday, November 6. Saturday, Oct 27 (postal ballot)

HOME HEALTH AIDE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS, DECEMBER 2016

Sentinel Event Data. General Information Copyright, The Joint Commission

Is this consistent with other jurisdictions or do you allow some mechanism to reinstate?

FORTIETH TRIENNIAL ASSEMBLY

Rankings of the States 2017 and Estimates of School Statistics 2018

Sentinel Event Data. General Information Q Copyright, The Joint Commission

States Ranked by Annual Nonagricultural Employment Change October 2017, Seasonally Adjusted

2016 INCOME EARNED BY STATE INFORMATION

Percentage of Enrolled Students by Program Type, 2016

Child & Adult Care Food Program: Participation Trends 2017

River Use Update Oct by Steve Sullivan

Weights and Measures Training Registration

Table 6 Medicaid Eligibility Systems for Children, Pregnant Women, Parents, and Expansion Adults, January Share of Determinations

Colorado River Basin. Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Child & Adult Care Food Program: Participation Trends 2016

*ALWAYS KEEP A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ATTENDANCE FOR YOUR RECORDS IN CASE OF AUDIT

U.S. Army Civilian Personnel Evaluation Agency

FY 2014 Per Capita Federal Spending on Major Grant Programs Curtis Smith, Nick Jacobs, and Trinity Tomsic

Larry DeBoer Purdue University September Real GDP Growth. Real Consumption Spending Growth

CRMRI White Paper #3 August 2017 State Refugee Services Indicators of Integration: How are the states doing?

Child & Adult Care Food Program: Participation Trends 2014

HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS PARTICIPATION SURVEY

Interstate Turbine Advisory Council (CESA-ITAC)

Table 8 Online and Telephone Medicaid Applications for Children, Pregnant Women, Parents, and Expansion Adults, January 2017

Senior American Access to Care Grant

Introduction. Current Law Distribution of Funds. MEMORANDUM May 8, Subject:

Percent of Population Under Age 65 Uninsured, 2013, 2014, and 2015

The Regional Economic Outlook

Critical Access Hospitals and HCAHPS

Weekly Market Demand Index (MDI)

2014 ACEP URGENT CARE POLL RESULTS

All Approved Insurance Providers All Risk Management Agency Field Offices All Other Interested Parties

STATE AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING S. 744 AS APPROVED BY THE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

HOPE NOW State Loss Mitigation Data December 2016

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH IS WORSENING AND ACCESS TO CARE IS LIMITED THERE IS A SHORTAGE OF PROVIDERS HEALTHCARE REFORM IS HELPING

HOPE NOW State Loss Mitigation Data September 2014

Date: 5/25/2012. To: Chuck Wyatt, DCR, Virginia. From: Christos Siderelis

How North Carolina Compares

Fiscal Year 1999 Comparisons. State by State Rankings of Revenues and Spending. Includes Fiscal Year 2000 Rankings for State Taxes Only

TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH VERMONT VIRGINIA WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN WYOMING ALABAMA ALASKA ARIZONA ARKANSAS

F O R E S T R I V E R M A R I N E


State Authority for Hazardous Materials Transportation

NMLS Mortgage Industry Report 2016 Q1 Update

THE METHODIST CHURCH (U.S.)

NMLS Mortgage Industry Report 2017Q2 Update

In the District of Columbia we have also adopted the latest Model business Corporation Act.

NMLS Mortgage Industry Report 2017Q4 Update

NMLS Mortgage Industry Report 2018Q1 Update

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

How North Carolina Compares

CONNECTICUT: ECONOMIC FUTURE WITH EDUCATIONAL REFORM

NURSING HOME STATISTICAL YEARBOOK, 2015

Appendix A: Carnegie 2010 Classifications and SHEEO Groupings 2010 Carnegie Classification

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION

STATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP INDEX

Cooperative Program Allocation Budget Receipts Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee August 2015

Cooperative Program Allocation Budget Receipts Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee March 2018

Pipeline Safety Regulations and the Effects on Operator Qualification Programs. March 28, 2017

Economic Freedom of North America

Cooperative Program Allocation Budget Receipts Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee January 2014

Cooperative Program Allocation Budget Receipts Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee April 2015

Cooperative Program Allocation Budget Receipts Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee March 2015

Cooperative Program Allocation Budget Receipts Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee May 2016

Cooperative Program Allocation Budget Receipts Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee December 2015

Dashboard. Campaign for Action. Welcome to the Future of Nursing:

Name: Date: Albany: Jefferson City: Annapolis: Juneau: Atlanta: Lansing: Augusta: Lincoln: Austin: Little Rock: Baton Rouge: Madison: Bismarck:

National Collegiate Soils Contest Rules

EXHIBIT A. List of Public Entities Participating in FEDES Project

November 24, First Street NE, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20002

national assembly of state arts agencies

Table 1 Elementary and Secondary Education. (in millions)

OPT OPTIONAL PRACTICAL TRAINING

Alabama Okay No Any recruiting or advertising without authorization is considered out of compliance. Not authorized

Transcription:

The views expressed are the author s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or the Federal Reserve System. Video and audio recording of this presentation is strictly prohibited, unless written permission is granted by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The Great Trade Collapse and Rebound: A State-by-State View Cletus C. Coughlin Senior Vice President and Chief of Staff Global Economic Forum July 1, 2014

Outline Introduction Country-based Results Exporting Firms and Export Markets Trade Margins: Collapse and Rebound Additional Results: Time, Size, Geographic, and Demand Perspectives on the Collapse and Rebound Summary of Results

Introduction The Great Trade Collapse and Rebound Figure 1 Explanations for Collapse Empirical Importance Aggregate demand Trade finance Trade barriers Trade Margin Adjustments: Extensive vs. Intensive Concerns about Long-lasting Effects

Figure 1- U.S. Exports of Goods USD Billions ($2005 Chained, SA) 1400 1300 1200 1100-13.4% 1000 14.9% 900 800 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Note: The export data is Census-based rather than Balance of Payments-based.

Country-based Results Total vs. Known Table 1 Adjusting for price changes: Trade Collapse 2008/2009 Known exports: -13.6% Extensive margin: -4.5% Intensive margin: -9.6% Trade Rebound 2009/2010 Known exports: 15.1% Extensive margin: 6.3% Intensive margin: 8.3% Similar Prior Results Great Trade Collapse: France, Japan, and Belgium Prior to U.S. Trade Shocks: 2001 recession and 1997 Asian financial crisis

Table 1- Exports by Identified Companies 2008 2009 2010 Total Exports 1,287.4 1,056.0 1,278.3 Known Value (Identified Exporters) 1,150.9 940.4 1,140.4 Known Value/Total Exports 89.4% 89.1% 89.2% Number: Identified Exporters 289,711 276,643 293,988

Exporting Firms and Export Markets Large firms dominate U.S. exports Large firms export to more foreign destinations Top 25/30 export markets account for bulk of U.S. exports States and Exports: Three Figures

Figure 2: Export Destinations and State Size 210 190 Country Count 170 150 130 110 90 Vermont California 70 50 Hawaii Alaska 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 SOURCE: WISER and the Bureau of Economic Analysis ln(gsp)

Figure 3:States and Export Destination Size 50 State Count 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 ln(gdp) Japan China Germany UK France Italy India Canada Spain Brazil Korea Mexico Russia Australia Netherlands Turkey SOURCE: WISER and the World Bank

Figure 4: Exporters and State Size 80000 70000 Exporters Count 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 California 10000 0 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 ln(gsp) SOURCE: WISER and the World Bank

Trade Margins: Collapse Known Exports: -13.6% New Mexico: -53.7% Alaska (3.2%) and Utah (6.5%): increased Extensive margin: declines in 46 states (declined in Alaska and Utah) Intensive margin: decline in 41 states Intensive margin declines exceed extensive margin: 33

Trade Margins: Collapse Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Alabama -5.0-14.4-18.6 Alaska -10.2 14.9 3.2 Arizona -3.7-22.3-25.2 Arkansas -8.0 5.8-2.6 California -3.0-8.8-11.5 Colorado -5.6-15.3-20.0 Connecticut -6.1 5.5-0.9 Delaware 10.2-14.0-5.3 Florida 0.0-8.4-8.4 Georgia -4.0-4.9-8.7 Hawaii -4.3-10.7-14.5 Idaho -10.8-3.4-13.8 Illinois -5.2-13.8-18.3 Indiana -5.5-2.9-8.2 Iowa -8.6-13.4-20.8 Kansas -2.3-27.6-29.2 Kentucky -5.3 3.1-2.3 Louisiana 0.3-18.6-18.3 Maine -8.2-16.2-23.0 Maryland 2.4-16.1-14.1 Massachusetts -4.4-7.8-11.9 Michigan -6.7-17.2-22.8 Minnesota -5.2-9.8-14.5 Mississippi -4.3-10.3-14.2 Missouri -6.6-16.0-21.5 Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Montana -17.4-1.6-18.7 Nebraska -7.1 1.5-5.7 Nevada -5.7 5.4-0.7 New Hampshire -7.3-5.3-12.2 New Jersey -4.4-13.4-17.2 New Mexico -4.3-51.6-53.7 New York -5.6-14.4-19.2 North Carolina -2.7-5.9-8.4 North Dakota -14.6 1.7-13.1 Ohio -5.5-17.9-22.4 Oklahoma -5.4-2.4-7.7 Oregon -7.0-11.2-17.4 Pennsylvania -5.5-7.7-12.8 Rhode Island 1.6-23.0-21.8 South Carolina -6.5-4.7-10.9 South Dakota -16.0-25.7-37.6 Tennessee -4.5-1.3-5.7 Texas -1.4-9.2-10.5 Utah -2.2 8.9 6.5 Vermont -9.3 2.5-7.1 Virginia -7.2-7.3-13.9 Washington -4.9-14.2-18.4 West Virginia -3.8-10.2-13.5 Wisconsin -3.9-9.9-13.4 Wyoming -8.3-1.8-10.0

Trade Margins: Collapse Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Alabama -5.0-14.4-18.6 Alaska -10.2 14.9 3.2 Arizona -3.7-22.3-25.2 Arkansas -8.0 5.8-2.6 California -3.0-8.8-11.5 Colorado -5.6-15.3-20.0 Connecticut -6.1 5.5-0.9 Delaware 10.2-14.0-5.3 Florida 0.0-8.4-8.4 Georgia -4.0-4.9-8.7 Hawaii -4.3-10.7-14.5 Idaho -10.8-3.4-13.8 Illinois -5.2-13.8-18.3 Indiana -5.5-2.9-8.2 Iowa -8.6-13.4-20.8 Kansas -2.3-27.6-29.2 Kentucky -5.3 3.1-2.3 Louisiana 0.3-18.6-18.3 Maine -8.2-16.2-23.0 Maryland 2.4-16.1-14.1 Massachusetts -4.4-7.8-11.9 Michigan -6.7-17.2-22.8 Minnesota -5.2-9.8-14.5 Mississippi -4.3-10.3-14.2 Missouri -6.6-16.0-21.5 Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Montana -17.4-1.6-18.7 Nebraska -7.1 1.5-5.7 Nevada -5.7 5.4-0.7 New Hampshire -7.3-5.3-12.2 New Jersey -4.4-13.4-17.2 New Mexico -4.3-51.6-53.7 New York -5.6-14.4-19.2 North Carolina -2.7-5.9-8.4 North Dakota -14.6 1.7-13.1 Ohio -5.5-17.9-22.4 Oklahoma -5.4-2.4-7.7 Oregon -7.0-11.2-17.4 Pennsylvania -5.5-7.7-12.8 Rhode Island 1.6-23.0-21.8 South Carolina -6.5-4.7-10.9 South Dakota -16.0-25.7-37.6 Tennessee -4.5-1.3-5.7 Texas -1.4-9.2-10.5 Utah -2.2 8.9 6.5 Vermont -9.3 2.5-7.1 Virginia -7.2-7.3-13.9 Washington -4.9-14.2-18.4 West Virginia -3.8-10.2-13.5 Wisconsin -3.9-9.9-13.4 Wyoming -8.3-1.8-10.0

Trade Margins: Collapse Extensive Intensive % Change Origin Margin Margin Exports Alabama -5.0-14.4-18.6 Alaska -10.2 14.9 3.2 Arizona -3.7-22.3-25.2 Arkansas -8.0 5.8-2.6 California -3.0-8.8-11.5 Colorado -5.6-15.3-20.0 Connecticut -6.1 5.5-0.9 Delaware 10.2-14.0-5.3 Florida 0.0-8.4-8.4 Georgia -4.0-4.9-8.7 Hawaii -4.3-10.7-14.5 Idaho -10.8-3.4-13.8 Illinois -5.2-13.8-18.3 Indiana -5.5-2.9-8.2 Iowa -8.6-13.4-20.8 Kansas -2.3-27.6-29.2 Kentucky -5.3 3.1-2.3 Louisiana 0.3-18.6-18.3 Maine -8.2-16.2-23.0 Maryland 2.4-16.1-14.1 Massachusetts -4.4-7.8-11.9 Michigan -6.7-17.2-22.8 Minnesota -5.2-9.8-14.5 Mississippi -4.3-10.3-14.2 Missouri -6.6-16.0-21.5 Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Montana -17.4-1.6-18.7 Nebraska -7.1 1.5-5.7 Nevada -5.7 5.4-0.7 New Hampshire -7.3-5.3-12.2 New Jersey -4.4-13.4-17.2 New Mexico -4.3-51.6-53.7 New York -5.6-14.4-19.2 North Carolina -2.7-5.9-8.4 North Dakota -14.6 1.7-13.1 Ohio -5.5-17.9-22.4 Oklahoma -5.4-2.4-7.7 Oregon -7.0-11.2-17.4 Pennsylvania -5.5-7.7-12.8 Rhode Island 1.6-23.0-21.8 South Carolina -6.5-4.7-10.9 South Dakota -16.0-25.7-37.6 Tennessee -4.5-1.3-5.7 Texas -1.4-9.2-10.5 Utah -2.2 8.9 6.5 Vermont -9.3 2.5-7.1 Virginia -7.2-7.3-13.9 Washington -4.9-14.2-18.4 West Virginia -3.8-10.2-13.5 Wisconsin -3.9-9.9-13.4 Wyoming -8.3-1.8-10.0

Trade Margins: Rebound Known Exports: 15.1% Maine and New Hampshire: > 36% Arkansas, Nevada, and Washington: declines Extensive margin: increases in all states Intensive margin: increases in 39 Intensive margin exceeded extensive margin: 29

Trade Margins: Rebound Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Alabama 1.3 23.8 25.5 Alaska 12.4 5.8 18.9 Arizona 10.8-3.5 6.9 Arkansas 12.1-20.4-10.8 California 6.1 7.1 13.7 Colorado 9.3 0.5 9.9 Connecticut 6.2 1.7 7.9 Delaware 12.7-6.0 6.0 Florida 5.5 6.8 12.6 Georgia 5.3 9.5 15.3 Hawaii 9.3 1.3 10.7 Idaho 13.7 10.8 26.0 Illinois 5.2 9.4 15.2 Indiana 5.5 12.9 19.1 Iowa 10.6 3.2 14.1 Kansas 6.9-1.6 5.2 Kentucky 6.9-1.4 5.4 Louisiana 5.2 13.2 19.1 Maine 5.9 30.9 38.7 Maryland 14.1-7.6 5.4 Massachusetts 6.4-0.3 6.1 Michigan 5.4 24.1 30.8 Minnesota 7.2 7.7 15.5 Mississippi 7.5 22.2 31.4 Missouri 6.4 22.2 30.0 Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Montana 16.4 7.8 25.4 Nebraska 7.0 7.4 15.0 Nevada 8.0-10.0-2.7 New Hampshire 10.7 23.6 36.8 New Jersey 1.8 9.0 10.9 New Mexico 6.6 5.1 12.1 New York 5.9 7.9 14.2 North Carolina 8.0 1.1 9.2 North Dakota 17.2-6.5 9.7 Ohio 5.4 14.6 20.9 Oklahoma 2.9 12.2 15.5 Oregon 7.2 3.4 10.9 Pennsylvania 5.8 10.9 17.4 Rhode Island 0.2 26.9 27.1 South Carolina 5.4 10.7 16.7 South Dakota 7.1 9.8 17.6 Tennessee 5.0 14.9 20.7 Texas 6.5 14.5 21.9 Utah 7.8 12.1 20.8 Vermont 4.3 24.0 29.3 Virginia 3.2 4.7 8.1 Washington 6.7-7.8-1.6 West Virginia 8.1 16.9 26.4 Wisconsin 4.1 7.8 12.2 Wyoming 11.7-7.0 3.8

Trade Margins: Rebound Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Alabama 1.3 23.8 25.5 Alaska 12.4 5.8 18.9 Arizona 10.8-3.5 6.9 Arkansas 12.1-20.4-10.8 California 6.1 7.1 13.7 Colorado 9.3 0.5 9.9 Connecticut 6.2 1.7 7.9 Delaware 12.7-6.0 6.0 Florida 5.5 6.8 12.6 Georgia 5.3 9.5 15.3 Hawaii 9.3 1.3 10.7 Idaho 13.7 10.8 26.0 Illinois 5.2 9.4 15.2 Indiana 5.5 12.9 19.1 Iowa 10.6 3.2 14.1 Kansas 6.9-1.6 5.2 Kentucky 6.9-1.4 5.4 Louisiana 5.2 13.2 19.1 Maine 5.9 30.9 38.7 Maryland 14.1-7.6 5.4 Massachusetts 6.4-0.3 6.1 Michigan 5.4 24.1 30.8 Minnesota 7.2 7.7 15.5 Mississippi 7.5 22.2 31.4 Missouri 6.4 22.2 30.0 Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Montana 16.4 7.8 25.4 Nebraska 7.0 7.4 15.0 Nevada 8.0-10.0-2.7 New Hampshire 10.7 23.6 36.8 New Jersey 1.8 9.0 10.9 New Mexico 6.6 5.1 12.1 New York 5.9 7.9 14.2 North Carolina 8.0 1.1 9.2 North Dakota 17.2-6.5 9.7 Ohio 5.4 14.6 20.9 Oklahoma 2.9 12.2 15.5 Oregon 7.2 3.4 10.9 Pennsylvania 5.8 10.9 17.4 Rhode Island 0.2 26.9 27.1 South Carolina 5.4 10.7 16.7 South Dakota 7.1 9.8 17.6 Tennessee 5.0 14.9 20.7 Texas 6.5 14.5 21.9 Utah 7.8 12.1 20.8 Vermont 4.3 24.0 29.3 Virginia 3.2 4.7 8.1 Washington 6.7-7.8-1.6 West Virginia 8.1 16.9 26.4 Wisconsin 4.1 7.8 12.2 Wyoming 11.7-7.0 3.8

Trade Margins: Rebound Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Alabama 1.3 23.8 25.5 Alaska 12.4 5.8 18.9 Arizona 10.8-3.5 6.9 Arkansas 12.1-20.4-10.8 California 6.1 7.1 13.7 Colorado 9.3 0.5 9.9 Connecticut 6.2 1.7 7.9 Delaware 12.7-6.0 6.0 Florida 5.5 6.8 12.6 Georgia 5.3 9.5 15.3 Hawaii 9.3 1.3 10.7 Idaho 13.7 10.8 26.0 Illinois 5.2 9.4 15.2 Indiana 5.5 12.9 19.1 Iowa 10.6 3.2 14.1 Kansas 6.9-1.6 5.2 Kentucky 6.9-1.4 5.4 Louisiana 5.2 13.2 19.1 Maine 5.9 30.9 38.7 Maryland 14.1-7.6 5.4 Massachusetts 6.4-0.3 6.1 Michigan 5.4 24.1 30.8 Minnesota 7.2 7.7 15.5 Mississippi 7.5 22.2 31.4 Missouri 6.4 22.2 30.0 Origin Extensive Intensive % Change Margin Margin Exports Montana 16.4 7.8 25.4 Nebraska 7.0 7.4 15.0 Nevada 8.0-10.0-2.7 New Hampshire 10.7 23.6 36.8 New Jersey 1.8 9.0 10.9 New Mexico 6.6 5.1 12.1 New York 5.9 7.9 14.2 North Carolina 8.0 1.1 9.2 North Dakota 17.2-6.5 9.7 Ohio 5.4 14.6 20.9 Oklahoma 2.9 12.2 15.5 Oregon 7.2 3.4 10.9 Pennsylvania 5.8 10.9 17.4 Rhode Island 0.2 26.9 27.1 South Carolina 5.4 10.7 16.7 South Dakota 7.1 9.8 17.6 Tennessee 5.0 14.9 20.7 Texas 6.5 14.5 21.9 Utah 7.8 12.1 20.8 Vermont 4.3 24.0 29.3 Virginia 3.2 4.7 8.1 Washington 6.7-7.8-1.6 West Virginia 8.1 16.9 26.4 Wisconsin 4.1 7.8 12.2 Wyoming 11.7-7.0 3.8

Additional Results: Time Do states with relatively larger trade collapses have relatively larger rebounds? No statistically significant association Is there a statistically significant association of the intensive margins over time? No Is there a statistically significant association of the extensive margins over time? Yes larger declines associated with larger rebounds

Additional Results: Size State size is not significantly associated with export percentage changes in either period State size and intensive margin: no statistically significant association in either period State size and extensive margin: Collapse: larger states, smaller declines Rebound: larger states, smaller increases

Additional Results: Geography Intensive margin: no statistically significant association for either collapse or rebound Extensive margin: statistically significant association for both collapse and rebound figures 7 and 8 Exports: no statistically significant association for either collapse or rebound

Figure 7: Extensive Margin 2008/2009

Figure 8: Extensive Margin 2009/2010

Additional Results: Demand State exports depend on foreign incomes Expect state export changes to depend on foreign income changes Using a trade-weighted growth of foreign incomes, no statistically significant association was found Intensive margin: no statistically significant association Extensive margin: statistically significant association for collapse, but not for rebound

Summary Collapse and Rebound: Intensive margin adjusted more than extensive margin Consistent with other studies Consistent with modern international trade theory that emphasize productivity differences across firms and the importance of additional costs to engage in trade U.S. export sector weather Great Trade Collapse stemming from the global recession and financial crisis quite well domination of U.S. exports by large firms contributes to resiliency of U.S. export sector