No place like home: geography and culture in the dissemination of economic research articles

Abstract

This paper examines the existence of distance and border effects in the dissemination of knowledge in economics research using a state-of-the-art gravity model for domestic and international citations between 1970 and 2016 for the top 20 source countries. We extend the model with two novel indicators, English proficiency and bilateral internet ties-two key forces in the dissemination of research and knowledge more generally. Our results show that (i) citations decrease with distance, (ii) citations exhibit a significant home bias greater than 1.68, i.e. a more than 50% higher propensity to cite domestic articles, (iii) home bias as well as geographic and cultural distance measures remain significant and at persistent levels over time, (iv) bilaterally high levels of English proficiency are insignificant for citations beyond the measure of general language similarity, (v) countries with closer internet ties have higher shares of bilateral citations, and (vi) geographic proximity is insignificant for citations to econometric articles while cultural linkages are significant.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source: WoS and Scopus

Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Source: Own calculations based on WoS data

Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    More generally, Jaffe et al. (1993) provides evidence for strong geographic concentration of patent citations which is further confirmed by Breschi and Lissoni (2009) who links this concentration of knowledge back to the lack of mobility of inventors who are likely to remain in their co-inventor network.

  2. 2.

    The twenty leading countries are Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and USA.

  3. 3.

    Articles with authors in multiple countries are attributed to each country.

  4. 4.

    We exclude citing countries with less than 100 total citing articles from our analysis.

  5. 5.

    To understand why, imagine picking a random economics article written in 2016, it is reasonable to assume that the article cites at least one article from the United States. By just counting citing articles for the United States overall, we would end up simply counting all 2017 economics articles. However, a new article might not reference American articles from each of the last 10 years and is very unlikely to reference 47 American articles covering each year from 1970 to 2016. Technically, we only observe an article’s first citation to a given year-country which underestimates countries and years that have relatively high citation averages.

  6. 6.

    The average number of references given per paper almost doubled over the last 20 years from 25 to 40 [see Kuld and O’Hagan (2018)].

  7. 7.

    http://www.ef.edu/epi/.

  8. 8.

    To this end Chung (2011) uses Yahoo’s search function and LexiURL Searcher, a social science web analysis tool developed by Thelwall (2009). At the time, Yahoo had indexed about 47 billion websites. For more detailed information on obtaining the measure of bilateral hyperlinks, please refer to Chung (2011).

  9. 9.

    For the United States, usually the sum of the domains .edu, .us, .mil and .gov has been used Barnett et al. (2001) in the literature. In previous studies [e.g. Barnett and Sung (2005)], the .com domain had either been disregarded or completely attributed to the United States.

  10. 10.

    For comparison, Gloetzl and Aigner (2017) count articles in 441 economics journals from 1980 to 2014. In this sample, North American researchers alone authored half of the world’s economics articles indexed by WoS between 1980 and 2014 which then received 75% of total citations. 98.4% of the economics articles from the top ten countries are written in English (WoS classification). The next two languages are French with 0.8% and German with 0.3% of the total indexed article output of these countries (WoS).

  11. 11.

    To obtain positive counts, we show the exponential of log demeaned by citing and cited country (thereby using the geometric mean).

  12. 12.

    In addition, incentives to cite articles within local networks create opportunity costs for citations to unconnected researchers.

  13. 13.

    \(P_i=\left( \displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{N} (a_{ij}p_{ij})^{1-\sigma } \right) ^\frac{1}{1-\sigma }\).

  14. 14.

    The results are unchanged for Poisson with clustered errors, but other methods are less robust with respect to the aggregation level.

  15. 15.

    \(Asinh(x)=\ln (x+\sqrt{x^2+1})\). For \(x \ge 2, asinh(x)\approx \ln (x) + \ln (2)\), but \(asinh(0)=0\). Also suggested for citation counts by Card and DellaVigna (2020), for instance.

  16. 16.

    However, both, OLS and negative binomial regressions, have stronger identification assumptions and are not consistent with the theoretical multilateral resistance model. As an indication, they overestimate the actual sum of citing articles considerably. For instance, the total flows involving the United States are overestimated by 20% (OLS) and 31% (negative binomial) in the standard specification. While smaller countries are underestimated, the ratios of total estimated flows to actual flows are 1.15 (OLS) and 1.22 (NegBin2) as opposed to 1 using Poisson.

  17. 17.

    The estimation tables underlying the results for the figures presented are available upon request.

  18. 18.

    Additionally we ran a specification excluding the US (results not presented but available upon request). If we do so, this value rises to 16% but can be as big as 90% for larger language differences.

  19. 19.

    The lower effect estimated for geographic distance reflects the change in the sample size and year. Table 6, for instance, shows that the omission of the home variable alone does not affect the same distance estimate significantly in the baseline sample.

  20. 20.

    These articles are classified by WoS as economics as well as mathematics or statistics and probability. The data are collected for articles written in the top ten leading countries between 2004 and 2008.

References

  1. Arora A, Belenzon S, Lee H (2018) Reversed citations and the localization of knowledge spillovers. J Econ Geogr 18(3):495–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balta N, Delgado J (2009) Home bias and market integration in the EU. CESifo Econ Stud 55(1):110–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnett GA, Chon B-S, Rosen D (2001) The structure of the internet flows in cyberspace. NETCOM 15(2):61–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett GA, Sung E (2005) Culture and the structure of the international hyperlink network. J Comput Med Commun 11(1):217–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyack KW, Klavans R, Börner K (2005) Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64(3):351–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Breschi S, Lissoni F (2009) Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. J Econ Geogr 9(4):439–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Card D, DellaVigna S (2020) What do editors maximize? Evidence from four economics journals. Rev Econ Stat 102(1):195–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen N (2004) Intra-national versus international trade in the european union: why do national borders matter? J Int Econ 63(1):93–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Choi C (2010) The effect of the Internet on service trade. Econ Lett 109(2):102–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chung CJ (2011) The geography of global internet hyperlink networks and cultural content analysis. Dissertation, University at Buffalo

  11. Disdier A-C, Mayer T (2007) Je t’aime, moi non plus: bilateral opinions and international trade. Eur J Polit Econ 23(4):1140–1159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fally T (2015) Structural gravity and fixed effects. J Int Econ 97(1):76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Felbermayr GJ, Toubal F (2010) Cultural proximity and trade. Eur Econ Rev 54(2):279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fourcade M, Ollion E, Algan Y (2015) The superiority of economists. J Econ Perspect 29(1):89–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Francois J, Hoekman B (2010) Services trade and policy. J Econ Lit 48(3):642–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Frenken K, Hardeman S, Hoekman J (2009) Spatial scientometrics: towards a cumulative research program. J Inf 3(3):222–232

    Google Scholar 

  17. Frenken K, Hoekman J (2014) Spatial scientometrics and scholarly impact: a review of recent studies, tools, and methods. In: Ding Y, Rousseau R, Wolfram D (eds) Measuring scholarly impact. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–146

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gloetzl F, Aigner E (2017) Six dimensions of concentration in economics: scientometric evidence from a large-scale data set. Ecological economics papers IEEP15, Institute of Ecological Economics

  19. Guellec D, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2001) The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data. Res Policy 30(8):1253–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guiso L, Sapienza P, Zingales L (2009) Cultural biases in economic exchange? Q J Econ 124(3):1095–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Head K, Mayer T (2002) Illusory border effects: distance mismeasurement inflates estimates of home bias in trade, vol 1. CEPII, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hellmanzik C, Schmitz M (2015) Virtual proximity and audiovisual services trade. Eur Econ Rev 77:82–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hellmanzik C, Schmitz M (2017) Taking gravity online: the role of virtual proximity in international finance. J Int Money Finance 77:164–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108(3):577–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kimura F, Lee H-H (2006) The gravity equation in international trade in services. Rev World Econ 142(1):92–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuld L (2017) The university as a local idea space: benefits from research links. Working paper, Trinity College Dublin

  27. Kuld L, O’Hagan J (2018) Rise of multi-authored papers in economics: demise of the ’lone star’ and why? Scientometrics 114(3):1207–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li YA (2014) Borders and distance in knowledge spillovers: dying over time or dying with age? Evidence from patent citations. Eur Econ Rev 71:152–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Marco AD, Scellato G, Ughetto E, Caviggioli F (2017) Global markets for technology: evidence from patent transactions. Res Policy 46(9):1644–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Matthiessen C, Schwarz A, Find S (2002) The top-level global research system, 1997–99: centres, networks and nodality. An analysis based on bibliometric indicators. Urban Stud 39(5–6):903–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Melitz J, Toubal F (2014) Native language, spoken language, translation and trade. J Int Econ 93(2):351–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Morescalchi A, Pammolli F, Penner O, Petersen AM, Riccaboni M (2015) The evolution of networks of innovators within and across borders: evidence from patent data. Res Policy 44(3):651–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nitsch V (2000) National borders and international trade: evidence from the european union. Can J Econ Rev Can d’écon 33(4):1091–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. OECD (1999) OECD communications outlook 1999. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Pan RK, Kaski K, Fortunato S (2012) World citation and collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in science. Scientific reports 2

  36. Peri G (2005) Determinants of knowledge flows and their effect on innovation. Rev Econ Stat 87(2):308–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Picci L (2010) The internationalization of inventive activity: a gravity model using patent data. Res Policy 39(8):1070–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Silva JMCS, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88(4):641–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Thelwall M (2009) Introduction to webometrics: quantitative web research for the social sciences. Synth Lect Inf Concepts Retr Serv 1(1):1–116

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christiane Hellmanzik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hellmanzik, C., Kuld, L. No place like home: geography and culture in the dissemination of economic research articles. Empir Econ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01860-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gravity
  • Border effect
  • Economics
  • Citations
  • Knowledge dissemination

JEL Classification

  • A14
  • F16
  • O34