Can changes in the trade of the world’s largest trading countries be considered more global? Or should they be labeled as more regional? We investigated these questions for the G7 countries for the time period from 1980 to 1997. We found that the usual dichotomy of global-regional is not rich enough to answer these questions because globalization can be measured in terms of both physical and cultural distance. Our new taxonomy allows for testing these separate impacts on world trade and suggests that trade changes are best described as regional, though with some qualification. With respect to physical distance, we find that trade is clearly becoming more regional. On the cultural dimension, however, we find conflicting results. These results are robust to a series of tests. We find the same pattern at industry level, except for Paper Products and Motor Vehicles. The regionalization pattern holds for both imports to and exports from the G7, but it is stronger for exports.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy in its series Working Papers with number
2006-15.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)