Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 105, Issue 1, pp 537–556 | Cite as

International trade negotiation analysis: network and semantic knowledge infrastructure

  • Jacob Wood
  • Gohar Feroz Khan
Article

Abstract

This study utilizes the social network analysis technique to analyze and better understand the semantic and knowledge networks that are associated with the field of international trade and more specifically international free trade agreements. This study builds on the research that currently exists in the field of international trade negotiation by using the SNA technique to construct, visualize, and investigate the International Trade networked knowledge infrastructure by analyzing 3074 publications, 1054 journal sources, 4047 authors, 1516 organizations, 87 countries and keywords associated with this field of research. The network and ego level properties—such as, degree centralities, density, components, structural holes, and degree distribution—suggest that the international trade co-authorship network analyzed is relatively fragmented. The knowledge and sematic networks exhibit power law distribution in which the incoming nodes and links prefer to attach to the nodes that are already well connected. The study also sheds light on the emerging and fading themes in the domain.

Keywords

International trade research Social network analysis Authors network Network and semantic knowledge infrastructure Emerging themes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a Korea University of Technology and Education Research Fund in 2014.

Supplementary material

11192_2015_1651_MOESM1_ESM.docx (52 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 56 kb)

References

  1. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 957–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adar, E. (2006). GUESS: A language and interface for graph exploration. CHI. http://graphexploration.cond.org/
  3. Ahn, Y. H. (2002). Domestic institution and politics of international negotiation: Analysis on agricultural negotiation under the two-level game. Asian Research, 45, 167–189. (in Korean).Google Scholar
  4. Ahn, S. H., & Kim, J. (2007). A political economic analysis of free trade agreements: Temporal and distribution effects. Korea Development Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, R. E. (1996). The Poltical economy of trade policy: Integrating the perspectives of economists and political scientists. In R. C. Feenstra, B. M. Grossman & D. A. Irwin (Eds.), Political Economy of Trade Policy: Paper in Honor of Jagdish Bhagwati (pp. 147–173). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barabási, A.-L., Jeong, H., Neda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311, 590–614.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Capling, A., & Low, P. (2010). Government, non-state actors and trade policy making. Negotiating preferentially or multilaterally. New York: CUP.Google Scholar
  10. Cattell, J. M. (1906). A statistical study of American men of science. II. The measurement of scientific merit. Science, 24, 699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chakraborty, D., & Mukherjee, S. (2013). How do trade and investment flows affect environmental sustainability? Evidence from panel data. Environmental Development, 6, 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, C. (2006). Citespace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, H. (2009). A literature review on the relationship between foreign trade and economic growth. International Journal of Economic and Finance, 1, 127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, C., Chen, Y., Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009). Towards an explanatory and computational theory of scientific discovery. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Choi, J., Yi, S., & Lee, K. C. (2011). Analysis of keyword networks in MIS research and implications for predicting knowledge evolution. Information & Management, 48, 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Congcong, W. (2010a). A social network analysis of international trade of copper ore. 2010 International conference on future information technology and management engineering (FITME) (pp. 464–467). 9–10 Oct 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Congcong, W. (2010b). A social network analysis of international wheat trade. 2010 International conference on information management, innovation management and industrial engineering (ICIII) (pp. 413–416). 26–28 Nov 2010.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, W., & Manyin, M. (2011). The US–South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Looking ahead—Prospects and potential challenges. International Journal of Korean Studies, 15, 127–150.Google Scholar
  19. Copeland, B., & Taylor, M. S. (2005). Free trade and global warming: A trade theory view of the Kyoto protocol. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49, 205–234.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis, C. L. (2004). International institutions and issue linkage: Building support for agricultural trade liberalization. American Political Science Review, 98, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis, C. L. (2005). Food fights over free trade: How international institutions promote agricultural trade liberalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ding, Y., Chowdhury, G., & Foo, S. (2000). Journal as markers of intellectual space: Journal co-citation analysis of information retrieval area, 1987–1997. Scientometrics, 47, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dur, A., & De Bievre, D. (2008). The question of interest group influence. Opening EU-governance to civil society gains and challenges. Mannheim: Connex.Google Scholar
  24. Dutt, P., & Mitra, D. (2005). Political ideology and endogenous trade policy: An empirical investigation. Review of Economic and Statistics, 87, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans, P. B., Jacobson, H. K., & Putnam, R. D. (1993). Double-edged diplomacy: International bargaining and domestic politics. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through Association of Ideas Science. Science, 122, 108–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garriaga, A. C. (2009). Regime type and bilateral treaty formation: Do too many cooks spoil the soup? The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53, 698–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldberg, P., & Maggi, G. (1999). Protection for sale: An empirical investigation. Amercian Economic Review, 89, 1135–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Griswold, G. (2010). Unions, protectionism, and U.S competitiveness. Cato Journal, 30, 191–196.Google Scholar
  30. Guo, H., Weingart, S., & Borner, K. (2011). Mixed-indicators model for identfying emerging research areas. Scientometrics, 89, 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hafner-Burton, E. M., Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization, 63, 559–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamulic, I., & Bijedic, N. (2009). Social network analysis in virtual learning community at faculty of information technologies (fit), Mostar. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 2269–2273.Google Scholar
  33. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California. Published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/
  34. Harris, R., & Li, Q. C. (2005). Review of the literature: The role of international trade and investment in business growth and development. UKTI 05/01, 1–95.Google Scholar
  35. Hug, S. (2009). Models of multilateral negotiations and ratification. Department of Political Science, University of Geneve.Google Scholar
  36. Hwang, C. H. (2011). Analysis of negotiation with the theoretical game model and its implications. Social Research, 21, 95–120.Google Scholar
  37. Hwang, G. S., & Lee, I. W. (2009). Analysis of Korea–US beef negotiation under the two-level game model. The Korea Association for Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 19, 153–179.Google Scholar
  38. Ishikawa, J., & Kiyono, K. (2006). Greenhouse-gas emission controls in an open economy. International Economic Review, 47, 431–450.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ishikawa, J., & Okubo, T. (2008). Greenhouse-gas emission controls and international carbon leakage through trade liberalization. Hitotsubashi COE/RES Conference on International Trade and FDI. Google Scholar
  40. Kandogan, Y. (2014). The effect of foreign trade and investment liberalization on spatial concentration of economic activity. International Business Review, 23, 648–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Khan, G. F., & Park, H. W. (2013). International collaboration within electronic government research domain: A triple helix network analysis of collaboration at the Regional, Country, and Institutional levels. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, S., & Shin, E. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of globalization and regionalization in international trade: A social network approach. Special Forces, 81, 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kinsella, D. T. (2004). Mapping the small arms trade: Insights from social network analysis. Political Science Faculty Publications and Presentations (Paper 21).Google Scholar
  44. Kleinberg, J. (2003). Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7, 373–397.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Komolavanji, S., Jeenamunta, C., Ammarapala, V., & Chongphaisal, P. (2008). Thailand regiona l free trade agreements and the effect of industrial clustering. The formation of industrial clusters in Asia and regional integration. IDE.Google Scholar
  46. Krystallis, A., Ormond, R., & Christensen, K. V. (2011). Patterns and regularities in the European marketing academic community: A social network analysis of the EMAC annual conferences 2000–2010. In Proceedings of the 2011 EMAC conference. Ljubliana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  47. Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. The Journal of Political Economy, 108, 632–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lesser, E., & Prusak, L. (2004). Creating value with knowledge: Insights from the IBM Institute for business value. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42, 1515–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liesch, P., Håkanson, L., McGaughey, S., Middleton, S., & Cretchley, J. (2011). The evolution of the international business field: A scientometric investigation of articles published in its premier journal. Scientometrics, 88, 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Liu, X., Bollen, J., Nelson, M. L., & Van de Sompel, H. (2005). Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing and Management, 41, 1462–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ma, J., & Lu, Y. (2011). Free trade or protection: A literature review on trade barriers. Research in World Economy, 2, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mahutga, M. C. (2006). The persistence of structural inequality? A network analysis of international trade, 1965–2000. Social Forces, 84, 1863–1889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mail, F., Kronegger, L., & Ferligo, A. (2010). Co-authorship trends and collaboration patterns in the Slovenian Sociological Community. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 1, 29–50.Google Scholar
  56. Mane, K., & Borner, K. (2004). Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Americas (PNAS), 101, 5287–5290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mansfield, E. D., & Milner, H. V. (2012). Votes, vetoes, and the political economy of international trade agreements. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Marsden, P. V. (2008). Network data and measurement. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Milner, H. V., & Judkins, B. (2004). Partisanship, trade policy and globalization: Is there a left–right divide on trade policy? International Studies Quarterly, 48, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Morel, C. M., Serruya, S. J., Penna, G. O., & Guimar E. S. (2009). Co-authorship network analysis: A powerful tool for strategic planning of research, development and capacity building programs on neglected diseases. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 3, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nooy, W. D., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Structural analysis in the social sciences (Vol. 27). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Oh, C. H., Travis Selmier, W., & Lien, D. (2011). International trade, foreign direct investment, and transaction costs in languages. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pahre, R. (1997). Endogenous domestic institutions in two-level games and parliamentary oversight of the European Union. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pahre, R. (2001). Divided government and international cooperation in Austria–Hungary, Sweden–Norway and the European Union. European Union Politics, 2, 131–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pahre, R. (2006). Democratic foreign policy making: Problems of divided government and international cooperation. Palgrave: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Price, D. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42, 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ren, S., Yuan, B., Ma, X., & Chen, X. (2014). International trade, FDI (foreign direct investment) and embodied CO2 emissions: A case study of Chinas industrial sectors. China Economic Review, 28, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roy, P., Martínez, A. J., Miscione, G., Zuidgeest, M. H. P., & van Maarseveen, M. F. A. M. (2012). Using social network analysis to profile people based on their e-communication and travel balance. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Santa-Cruz, A. (1997). Domestic politics and international negotiations: NAFTA’s two-level games. Journal of International and Area Studies, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
  72. Sarigol, E., Pfitzner, R., Scholtes, I., Garas, A., & Scheitzer, F. (2014). Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks. Working paper to appear in EPJ Data Science.Google Scholar
  73. Sci2team. (2009). Science of science (Sci2) TooI Indiana University and SciTech strategies. http://sci2.cns.iu.edu.
  74. Sen, S. (2010). International trade theory and policy: A review of the literature. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, working paper no. 635.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, M., Milic-Frayling, N., Shneiderman, B., Mendes Rodrigues, E., & Leskovec, J. (2010). NodeXL: A free and open network overview, discovery and exploration add-in for Excel 2007/2010. The Social Media Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  76. Smith, D. A., & White, D. R. (1992). Structure and dynamics of the global economy: Network analysis of international trade 1965–1980. Social Forces, 70, 857–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sofia Pereira, C., & Soares, A. L. (2007). Improving the quality of collaboration requirements for information management through social networks analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 86–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tsay, M.-Y., Xu, H., & Wu, C.-W. (2003). Journal co-citation analysis of semiconductor literature. Scientometrics, 57, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vidgen, R., Henneberg, S., & Naude, P. (2007). What sort of community is the European Conference on Information Systems? A social network analysis 1993–2005. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vymětal, D., & Šperka, R. (2014). MAREA—from an agent simulation application to the social network analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 35, 1416–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Willging, P. A. (2009). Using social network analysis techniques to examine online interactions. US-China Education Review, 2(9), 46–56.Google Scholar
  85. Williams, B. R., Manyin, M. E., Jurenas, R., & Platzer, M. D. (2014). The U.S.–South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and implementation. Congressional Research Service Reports, 1–50.Google Scholar
  86. Worrell, J., Wasko, M., & Johnston, A. (2013). Social network analysis in accounting information systems research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. WTO. (2011). Wo rld trade report. World Trade Organization.Google Scholar
  88. Yi, S., & Choi, J. (2012). The organization of scientific knowledge: The structural characteristics of keyword networks. Scientometrics, 90, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yoon, B., & Park, Y. (2005). A systematic approach for identifying technology opportunities: Keyword-based morphology analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial ManagementKorea University of Technology and EducationCheonan CityRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations