Journal of Quantitative Economics

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 769–786 | Cite as

Quantifying the Landlocked Trade Penalty using Structural Gravity

  • Alexander J. MooreEmail author
Original Article


I estimate the cost of being landlocked on exports using a structural gravity model. The empirical challenge of doing so is to estimate a country-specific variable, being landlocked, in the presence of exporter and importer fixed effects. To do so I follow two alternative approaches, each of which models the exporter fixed effect as a function of country-specific variables and average trade costs. Both approaches show a substantial “landlocked penalty”, with landlocked countries on average exporting 27–41% less than non-landlocked countries over 2005–2014, all else equal. I further demonstrate that such a penalty is driven primarily by developing countries. Indeed, whilst I find no landlocked penalty in high-income countries, the penalty was over 40% in developing countries. The difference between the two sets of countries is likely driven by the income level of transit countries, and the ease with which exporters can access the coast. Developing landlocked countries are generally constrained by limited infrastructure, inefficient logistics services and lengthy border delays. This constraint appears to be increasing over time; the landlocked penalty was higher in 2014 than in both 2005 and 2010.


International trade Econometrics Economic development Economic geography 

JEL Classification

F14 O10 C01 


  1. Anderson, James, and Eric van Wincoop. 2003. Gravity with gravitas: Solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review 93 (1): 170–192.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, James, and Eric van Wincoop. 2004. Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature 42 (3): 691–751.Google Scholar
  3. Arvis, Jean-Francois, Gael Raballand, and Jean-Francois Marteau. 2010. The cost of being landlocked. Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin, Richard, and Daria Taglioni. 2007. Trade effects of the euro: A comparison of estimators. Journal of Economic Integration 22 (4): 780–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collier, Paul. 2008. The bottom billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Collier, Paul, and Jan Willem Gunning. 1999. Why has Africa grown slowly? Journal of Economic Perspectives 13 (3): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eaton, Jonathan, and Samuel Kortum. 2002. Technology, geography and trade. Econometrica 70 (5): 1741–1779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faye, Michael A., John McArthur, Jeffrey Sachs, and Thomas Snow. 2004. The challenges facing landlocked developing countries. Journal of Human Development 5 (4): 31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallup, John Luke, Jeffrey D. Sachs, and Andrew D. Mellinger. 1999. Geography and economic development. International Regional Science Review 22 (2): 179–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Head, Keith and Thierry Mayer. 2015. Gravity equations: workhorse, toolkit and cookbook. In Handbook of International Economics, ed. Elhanan Helpman, Kenneth Rogoff and Gita Gopinath Vol 4, 1–740. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Head, Keith, Thierry Mayer, and John Ries. 2010. The erosion of colonial trade linkages after independence. Journal of International Economics 81 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hummels, David. 2007. Transport costs and trade in the second era of globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21 (3): 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Limao, Nuno, and Anthony Venables. 2001. Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs, and trade. The World Bank Economic Review 15: 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Silva, Santos, M.C. João, and Silvana Tenreyro. 2006. The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics 88 (4): 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. USAID. 2010. Transport and logistics costs on the Tema-Ouagadougou corridor. West Africa Trade Hub Technical Report 25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Econometric Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Competition and Markets AuthorityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations