IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/reviec/v34y2026i2p437-471.html

Conflict and Knowledge Flows: Evidence From the 9/11 Attacks

Author

Listed:
  • Cathy Ge Bao
  • Jie Cui
  • Ying Tie

Abstract

We assess how geopolitical conflict affects cross‐border knowledge flows by exploring an unexpected event: the 9/11 attacks. Exploiting cross‐country patent citation, collaboration data from the PATSTAT (1990–2015), patent transaction and grant outcome data from Bureau van Dijk's Orbis (Q1 2001–Q4 2003), we show that the trust‐erosion shock between ethnic groups significantly reduced knowledge flows between NATO and Muslim‐majority countries, with sharper declines in high‐trust sectors and patents involving Muslim inventors. Our analysis reveals that trust erosion, rather than conventional economic channels like trade, FDI, or migration serves as the primary mechanism, evidenced by asymmetric knowledge flow patterns, and mitigated effects for Muslim‐majority countries with stronger pre‐existing NATO ties. Our results highlight the enduring impact of geopolitical conflict on knowledge flows, underscoring trust as a critical yet vulnerable component for global knowledge exchange.

Suggested Citation

  • Cathy Ge Bao & Jie Cui & Ying Tie, 2026. "Conflict and Knowledge Flows: Evidence From the 9/11 Attacks," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 437-471, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:reviec:v:34:y:2026:i:2:p:437-471
    DOI: 10.1111/roie.70034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.70034
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/roie.70034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:reviec:v:34:y:2026:i:2:p:437-471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0965-7576 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.