Review of World Economics

, Volume 147, Issue 3, pp 543–566 | Cite as

Sectoral border effects and the geographic concentration of production

  • Gianluca CafisoEmail author
Original Paper


The object of this paper is to study the relationship between the border effect and the geographic concentration of production. We explain this relationship through the home market effect and test the robustness of this explanation by using an analysis that considers the European single market. A sectoral gravity equation is estimated with different econometric estimators; in particular, we discuss a recently suggested estimator for log-linear CES models. Overall, our findings suggest a steady relationship between the border effect and the concentration of production. Furthermore, the analysis of concentration through a synthetic index provides us with valuable insights into the structure of the European industry.


Trade Border effect Geographic concentration Home market effect European single market 

JEL Classification

F10 F12 F15 



This work is partially drawn from my PhD thesis at the University of Pavia. I thank Paolo Epifani and Rodolfo Helg for their guidance and useful comments. I acknowledge financial support from the Italian Ministry of Education and Research by way of a PhD scholarship.


  1. Aiginger, K., & Davies, S. (2004). Industrial specialisation and geographic concentration: Two sides of the same coin? Not for the European Union. Journal of Applied Economics, 7(2), 231–248.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, R., Forslid, R., Martin, P., Ottaviano, G., & Robert-Nicoud, F. (2005). Economic geography and public policy. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, R., & Taglioni, D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations (Discussion Paper 5850). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  5. Behrens, K., Ottaviano, G. I., Lamorgese, A. R., & Tabuchi, T. (2005). Testing the home market effect in a multi-country World (Working Paper 2005/55). Louvain: Centre for Operations Research and Econometrics.Google Scholar
  6. Biewen, M. (2002). Bootstrap inference for inequality, mobility and poverty measurement. Journal of Econometrics, 108(2), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brulhart, M., & Traeger, R. (2005). An account of geographic concentration patterns in Europe. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35(6), 597–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cafiso, G. (2008). The Euro’s influence upon trade: Rose effect versus border effect (Working Paper 941) Frankfurt am Main: European Central Bank.Google Scholar
  9. Cafiso, G. (2009). Sectorial border effects in the European single market: An explanation through industrial concentration (Working Paper 1116). Frankfurt am Main: European Central Bank.Google Scholar
  10. Cameron, A., & Trivedi, P. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, N. (2004). Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: Why do national borders matter? Journal of International Economics, 63(1), 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Combes, P., & Overman, H. (2004). The spatial distribution of economic activities in the European Union. In J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (vol. 4). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Cutrini, E. (2006). The Balassa index meets the dissimilarity Theil index: A decomposition methodology for location studies. (Working Paper 274). Ancona: Università Politecnica delle Marche.Google Scholar
  14. Drukker, D. (2002). Bootstrapping a conditional moments test for normality after Tobit estimation. Stata Journal, 2(2), 125–139.Google Scholar
  15. Ellison, G., & Glaeser, E. (1997). Geographic concentration in US manufacturing industries: A dartboard approach. Journal of political economy, 105(5), 889–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, C. (2003). The economic significance of national border effects. American Economic Review, 93(4), 1291–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldberger, A. (1981). Linear regression after selection. Journal of Econometrics, 15(3), 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haaland, J., Kind, H., Knarvik, K., & Torstensson, J. (1999). What determines the economic geography of Europe? (Discussion Paper 2072). London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  19. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2000). Non-Europe: The magnitude and causes of market fragmentation in the EU. Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 136(2), 284–314.Google Scholar
  20. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2002). Illusory border effects: Distance mismeasurement inflates estimates of home bias in trade (Working Paper 2002–01). Paris: Centré d’ Études Prospectives et d’Informationes Internationales.Google Scholar
  21. Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. (1985). Market structure and foreign trade. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hummels, D. (2001). Toward a geography of trade costs (Working Paper). West Lafayette (IN): Purdue University.Google Scholar
  23. Hummels, D., & Lugovskyy, V. (2006). Are matched partner trade statistics a usable measure of transportation costs? Review of International Economics, 14(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krugman, P. (1980). Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. The American Economic Review, 70(5), 950–959.Google Scholar
  25. Mayer, T., & Zignago, S. (2006). Notes on CEPII’s distances measures. Paris: Centré d’ Études Prospectives et d’Informationes Internationales.Google Scholar
  26. McCallum, J. (1995). National borders matter: Canada-US regional trade patterns. American Economic Review, 85(3), 615–623.Google Scholar
  27. Nitsch, V. (2000). National borders and international trade: Evidence from the European Union. Canadian Journal of Economics, 33(4), 1091–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ottaviano, G., & Thisse, J. F. (2004). Agglomeration and economic geography. In J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (vol. 4). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. Pagan, A., & Vella, F. (1989). Diagnostic tests for models based on individual data: A survey. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 4(S1), S29–S59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramsey, J. (1969). Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 31(2), 350–371.Google Scholar
  31. Ruud, P. (1986). Consistent estimation of limited dependent variable models despite misspecification of distribution. Journal of Econometrics, 32(1), 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Silva, S., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 26(1), 24–36.Google Scholar
  34. Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics DepartmentUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations