On the Conservation of Distance in International Trade

The volume of world trade has grown more than twice as fast as real world income since 1980. Surprisingly, the effect of distance on trade has increased during this period. It could be that countries are trading greater volumes of goods that are highly sensitive to distance. An alternative explanation is that distance has become more import for a significant share of goods. Using highly disaggregated bilateral trade data, we find that adjustment in the composition of trade has not influenced the way in which distance affects trade. In contrast, for about 25 percent of industries, distance has become more important. This implies that the increased distance sensitivity of trade is a result of a change in relative trade costs that affects many industries, as opposed to a shift to more distance-sensitive products. We also find that homogeneous products are twice as likely to have become more distance sensitive as compared with differentiated goods. This is consistent with the hypothesis that falling search costs, resulting from improvements in transport and communications, are relatively more important for differentiated goods. The results offer no evidence of the "death of distance," rather they suggest that distance- related relative trade costs have remained unchanged or shifted in favor of proximate markets.

[1]  Kenneth Rogoff,et al.  NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2003 , 2001 .

[2]  C. Engel,et al.  Regional Patterns in the Law of One Price: The Roles of Geography vs. Currencies , 1995 .

[3]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  The Economic Geography of the Internet Age , 2001 .

[4]  James E. Rauch,et al.  Networks Versus Markets in International Trade , 1996 .

[5]  Alan V. Deardorff Local Comparative Advantage: Trade Costs and the Pattern of Trade , 2004 .

[6]  Kenneth Rogoff,et al.  The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause? , 2000, NBER Macroeconomics Annual.

[7]  James E. Anderson,et al.  Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle , 2001 .

[8]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  International Trade Theory: The Evidence , 1994 .

[9]  R. Feenstra Advanced international trade : theory and evidence , 2004 .

[10]  J. Levinsohn,et al.  Chapter 26 International trade theory: The evidence , 1995 .

[11]  Jonathan Eaton,et al.  Technology, Geography, and Trade , 2002 .

[12]  K. Head,et al.  The Puzzling Persistence of the Distance Effect on Bilateral Trade , 2004 .

[13]  Céline Carrère,et al.  On the Geography of Trade: Distance is Alive and Well , 2003 .

[14]  J. Frankel Regional Trading Blocs in the world economic system, reseñado por Antonio Ortiz-Mena L.N. , 1997 .

[15]  J. Harrigan,et al.  Distance, Time, and Specialization , 2003 .

[16]  Diana Weinhold,et al.  On the Effect of the Internet on International Trade , 2000 .

[17]  David Hummels,et al.  Toward a Geography of Trade Costs , 1999, GTAP Working Paper.

[18]  Arvind Subramanian,et al.  The Missing Globalization Puzzle , 2002 .

[19]  James E. Rauch,et al.  Information, International Substitutability, and Globalization , 2003 .

[20]  Patrick Guillaumont,et al.  Has Distance Died? Evidence from a Panel Gravity Model , 2002 .

[21]  J. Harrigan,et al.  Distance, time, and specialization : Lean retailing in general equilibrium , 2005 .

[22]  James E. Anderson A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation , 1979 .

[23]  Jeffrey A. Frankel,et al.  The Regionalization Of The World Economy , 1997 .

[24]  C. Engel,et al.  Regional Patterns in the Law of One Price , 1997 .

[25]  Eric A. Hanushek,et al.  Efficient Estimators for Regressing Regression Coefficients , 1974 .