IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kof/wpskof/08-209.html

Disaggregated Trade Flows and the "Missing Globalization Puzzle"

Author

Listed:
  • Boriss Siliverstovs
  • Dieter Schumacher

Abstract

This study analyzes the stability of the distance coefficient values over time in the generalized gravity equation of Bergstrand (1989) using both aggregate and disaggregated trade flows among 22 OECD countries recorded for the sample period covering 1970 until 2000. We estimate the gravity equation both in its traditional form as well as by taking into account multilateral resistance as suggested in Baier and Bergstrand (2007). First of all, we find that the missing globalization puzzle, typically observed in empirical gravity models for aggregate trade flows, largely disappears when one estimates a gravity model using disaggregated trade data at the level of individual industries. Secondly, we document that accounting for multilateral price resistance alone can provide some evidence against the missing globalization puzzle. At the same time, the results obtained for a traditional specification of the gravity equation emphasizing the importance of disaggregated trade flows in explaining the distance puzzle remain largely intact. We also illustrate how the aggregation bias could have contributed to a typical finding of a non-declining trade-deterring role of distance in the existing literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Boriss Siliverstovs & Dieter Schumacher, 2008. "Disaggregated Trade Flows and the "Missing Globalization Puzzle"," KOF Working papers 08-209, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    • Handle: RePEc:kof:wpskof:08-209
    DOI: 10.3929/ethz-a-005703329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3929/ethz-a-005703329
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3929/ethz-a-005703329?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-François Brun & Céline Carrère & Patrick Guillaumont & Jaime de Melo, 2015. "Has Distance Died? Evidence from a Panel Gravity Model," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Developing Countries in the World Economy, chapter 13, pages 299-320, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    3. Buch, Claudia M. & Kleinert, Jorn & Toubal, Farid, 2004. "The distance puzzle: on the interpretation of the distance coefficient in gravity equations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 293-298, June.
    4. Leamer, Edward E. & Levinsohn, James, 1995. "International trade theory: The evidence," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 26, pages 1339-1394, Elsevier.
    5. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1985. "The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(3), pages 474-481, August.
    6. Eaton Jonathan & Tamura Akiko, 1994. "Bilateralism and Regionalism in Japanese and U.S. Trade and Direct Foreign Investment Patterns," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 478-510, December.
    7. Rauch, James E., 1999. "Networks versus markets in international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 7-35, June.
    8. David T Coe & Arvind Subramanian & Natalia T Tamirisa, 2007. "The Missing Globalization Puzzle: Evidence of the Declining Importance of Distance," IMF Staff Papers, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 54(1), pages 34-58, May.
    9. Thierry Mayer & Keith Head, 2002. "Illusory Border Effects: Distance Mismeasurement Inflates Estimates of Home Bias in Trade," Working Papers 2002-01, CEPII research center.
    10. Berthelon, Matias & Freund, Caroline, 2008. "On the conservation of distance in international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 310-320, July.
    11. Dieter Schumacher & Boriss Siliverstovs, 2006. "Home-Market and Factor-Endowment Effects in a Gravity Approach," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 142(2), pages 330-353, July.
    12. Gabriel J Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler, 2014. "Exploring the Intensive and Extensive Margins of World Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: European Economic Integration, WTO Membership, Immigration and Offshoring, chapter 4, pages 115-148, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. repec:lmu:muenar:20646 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1989. "The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 143-153, February.
    15. Robert C. Feenstra, 2002. "Border Effects and the Gravity Equation: Consistent Methods for Estimation," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 49(5), pages 491-506, November.
    16. Anne-Célia Disdier & Keith Head, 2008. "The Puzzling Persistence of the Distance Effect on Bilateral Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(1), pages 37-48, February.
    17. Mr. Rikhil Bhavnani & Ms. Natalia T. Tamirisa & Mr. Arvind Subramanian & Mr. David T. Coe, 2002. "The Missing Globalization Puzzle," IMF Working Papers 2002/171, International Monetary Fund.
    18. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-116, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lin, Faqin, 2013. "Are distance effects really a puzzle?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 684-689.
    2. Juyoung Cheong & Do Won Kwak & Kam Ki Tang, 2016. "The distance effects on the intensive and extensive margins of trade over time," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 253-278, March.
    3. Bassem Kahouli & Anis Omri & Anissa Chaibi, 2014. "Environmental Regulations, Trade, and Foreign Direct Investment: Evidence from Gravity Equations," Working Papers 2014-189, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    4. Kahouli, Bassem & Omri, Anis, 2017. "Foreign direct investment, foreign trade and environment: New evidence from simultaneous-equation system of gravity models," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 353-364.
    5. MARKIANIDOU, Paresa & WEEREN, Arie, 2011. "Linear and nonlinear growth models using mixed modeling: An application on European import volumes," Working Papers 2011011, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    6. Samuel Standaert & Stijn Ronsse & Benjamin Vandermarliere, 2014. "Historical trade integration: Globalization and the distance puzzle in the long 20th century," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 14/897, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Boriss SILIVERSTOVS & Dieter SCHUMACHER, 2008. "Aggregated vs Disaggregated Trade Flows and the "Missing Globalization Puzzle"," EcoMod2008 23800133, EcoMod.
    2. Scott L. Baier & Amanda Kerr & Yoto V. Yotov, 2018. "Gravity, distance, and international trade," Chapters, in: Bruce A. Blonigen & Wesley W. Wilson (ed.), Handbook of International Trade and Transportation, chapter 2, pages 15-78, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Magerman, Glenn & Studnicka, Zuzanna & Van Hove, Jan, 2016. "Distance and border effects in international trade: A comparison of estimation methods," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 10, pages 1-31.
    4. Lin, Faqin, 2013. "Are distance effects really a puzzle?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 684-689.
    5. Gert-Jan M. Linders & Henri L.F. de Groot & Raymond J.G.M. Florax & Peter Nijkamp, 2011. "Persistent Distance Decay Effects in International Trade," Chapters, in: Miroslav N. Jovanović (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Integration, Volume II, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Mario Larch & Pehr-Johan Norbäck & Steffen Sirries & Dieter M. Urban, 2016. "Heterogeneous Firms, Globalisation and the Distance Puzzle," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(9), pages 1307-1338, September.
    7. Noblet, Sandrine & Belgodere, Antoine, 2010. "Coordination cost and the distance puzzle," MPRA Paper 27502, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Yoto V. Yotov, 2021. "The Variation of Gravity within Countries (or 15 Reasons Why Gravity Should Be Estimated with Domestic Trade Flows)," CESifo Working Paper Series 9057, CESifo.
    9. Anderson, James E. & Yotov, Yoto V., 2020. "Short run gravity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    10. Yoto V. Yotov, 2024. "The evolution of structural gravity: The workhorse model of trade," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(4), pages 578-603, October.
    11. Jacks, David S. & Meissner, Christopher M. & Novy, Dennis, 2011. "Trade booms, trade busts, and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 185-201, March.
    12. Bo Xiong & Sixia Chen, 2014. "Estimating gravity equation models in the presence of sample selection and heteroscedasticity," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(24), pages 2993-3003, August.
    13. Melitz, Jacques, 2007. "North, South and distance in the gravity model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 971-991, May.
    14. Viroj Jienwatcharamongkhol, 2014. "Distance Sensitivity of Export: A Firm-Product Level Approach," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 531-554, December.
    15. Lars Håkanson & Douglas Dow, 2012. "Markets and Networks in International Trade: On the Role of Distances in Globalization," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 761-789, December.
    16. Co, Catherine Yap, 2010. "Intra- and inter-firm US trade," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 260-277, April.
    17. Sapa, Agnieszka & Kryszak, Łukasz, 2021. "Processed Food Trade of European Union Countries – The Gravity Approach," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2021(2).
    18. Daria Taglioni & Richard Baldwin, 2014. "Gravity chains: Estimating bilateral trade flows when parts and components trade is important," Journal of Banking and Financial Economics, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 2(2), pages 61-82.
    19. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 131-195, Elsevier.
    20. Francois, Joseph & Manchin, Miriam, 2013. "Institutions, Infrastructure, and Trade," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 165-175.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation

    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:kof:wpskof:08-209. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/koethch.html .

    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.