Have developed countries escaped the curse of distance?
There is widespread evidence that a better access to markets contributes to raising income levels. However, no quantification of the impact of distance to markets has been made on the basis of a sample restricted to advanced — and therefore more homogeneous — countries. This paper applies the framework developed by Redding and Venables (2004) on a panel data covering 21 OECD countries over 1970-2004, and shows that, relative to the average OECD country, the cost of remoteness for countries such as Australia and New Zealand could be as high as 10% of GDP. Conversely, the benefit for centrally-located countries like Belgium and the Netherlands could be around 6-7%. Second, the paper explains why the key estimated parameter in the Redding-Venables model is biased upwards in cross-section samples that mix both developing and developed countries, because of the inability to adequately control for heterogeneity in technology levels across countries. The paper also provides a detailed discussion of the links between the ?death-of-distance? hypothesis, the evolution of transport costs and that of the elasticity of trade to distance. Les pays développés ont-ils échappé à la malédiction de la distance ? De nombreuses études empiriques ont montré qu‘un meilleur accès aux marchés contribue à augmenter les revenus. Cependant, aucune quantification de l‘impact de la distance aux marchés n‘a été effectuée à partir d‘un échantillon homogène limité aux pays développés. Ce papier applique le cadre développé par Redding and Venables (2004) à des données de panel couvrant 21 pays de l‘OCDE entre 1970 et 2004, et montre que, relativement à la moyenne des pays de l‘OCDE, le coût de l‘éloignement géographique pour des pays comme l‘Australie et la Nouvelle Zélande s‘élève à environ 10% de PIB. Réciproquement, le bénéfice que tirent les pays ayant une position centrale comme la Belgique et les Pays-Bas serait de l‘ordre de 6-7%. Deuxièmement, cette étude explique pourquoi le paramètre-clé d
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 10 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://joeg.oxfordjournals.org/Email:
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jecgeo:v:10:y:2010:i:1:p:113-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.