Skip to main content

Exploring the Intensive and Extensive Margins of World Trade

Review of World Economics volume 142, pages 642–674 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

World trade evolves at two margins. Where a bilateral trading relationship already exists it may increase through time (intensive margin). But trade may also increase if a trading bilateral relationship is newly established between countries that have not traded with each other in the past (extensive margin). We provide an empirical dissection of post–World War II growth in manufacturing world trade along these two margins. We propose a “corner-solutions version” of the gravity model to explain movements on both margins. A Tobit estimation of this model resolves the so-called “distance puzzle”. It also finds more convincing evidence than recent literature that WTO-membership enhances trade.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Anderson, J. E. (1979). A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation. American Economic Review 69 (1): 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, J. E., and E. van Wincoop (2003). Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle. American Economic Review 93 (1): 170–192.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baier, S., and J. H. Bergstrand (2001). The Growth of World Trade: Tariffs, Transport Costs, and Income Similarity. Journal of International Economics 53 (1): 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bernard, A. B., J. B. Jensen, and P. K. Schott (2006). Trade Costs, Firms and Productivity. Journal of Monetary Economics 53 (1): 917–937.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Buch, C., J. Kleinert, and F. Toubal (2004). The Distance Puzzle: On the Interpretation of the Distance Coefficient in Gravity Equations. Economics Letters 83 (3): 293–298.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brun, J.-F., C. Carrère, P. Guillaumont, and J. de Melo (2004). Has Distance Died? Evidence from a Panel Gravity Model. World Bank Economic Review 19 (1): 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Coe, D. T., A. Subramanian, N. T. Tamirisa, and R. Bhavnani (2002). The Missing Globalization Puzzle. IMF Working Paper 02/171. International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C.

  8. Deardorff, A. V. (1998). Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World? In J. A. Frankel (ed.), The Regionalization of the World Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  9. Deardorff A. V. (2004). Local Comparative Advantage: Trade Costs and the Pattern of Trade. Research Seminar in International Economics Discussion Paper No. 500. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  10. Disdier, A.-C., and K. Head (2004). The Puzzling Persistence of the Distance Effect on Bilateral Trade. Mimeo. University of British Columbia.

  11. Eaton, J., and S. Kortum (2002). Technology, Geography, and Trade. Econometrica 70 (5): 1741–1779.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eaton, J., and A. Tamura (1994). Bilateralism and Regionalism in Japanese and U.S. Trade and Direct Foreign Investment Patterns. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 8 (4): 478–510.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Egger, P., and M. Pfaffermayr (2004). Distance, Trade and FDI: A Hausman–Taylor SUR Approach. Journal of Applied Econometrics 19 (2): 227–246.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Eichengreen, B. (1995). Trade Blocs, Currency Blocs and the Reorientation of World Trade in the 1930s. Journal of International Economics 38 (1–2): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Eichengreen, B., and D. A. Irwin (1997). The Role of History in Bilateral Trade Flows. In J. A. Frankel (ed.), The Regionalization of the World Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  16. Evenett, S. J., and A. J. Venables (2002). Export Growth in Developing Countries: Market Entry and Bilateral Trade Flows. Mimeo. London School of Economics.

  17. Feenstra, R. (2004). Advanced International Trade – Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  18. Feenstra, R., and A. K. Rose (1997). Putting Things in Order: Patterns of Trade Dynamics and Macroeconomics. NBER Working Paper 5975. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.

  19. Feenstra, R., J. A. Markusen, and A. K. Rose (2001). Using the Gravity Equation to Differentiate among Alternative Theories of Trade. Canadian Journal of Economics 34 (2): 430–447.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Felbermayr, G. J., and W. Kohler (2004). Exploring the Intensive and Extensive Margins of World Trade. CESifo Working Paper No. 1276. Center for Economic Studies, Munich.

  21. Gleditsch, K. S. (2002). Expanded Trade and GDP Data. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (5): 712–724.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Greene, W. (2003). Econometric Analysis. New York: Prentice Hall.

  23. Haveman, J., and D. L. Hummels (2004). Alternative Hypotheses and the Volume of Trade: Evidence on the Extent of Specialization. Canadian Journal of Economics 37 (1): 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Helpman, E. (1987). Imperfect Competition and International Trade: Evidence from Fourteen Industrial Countries. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 1 (1): 62–81.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Helpman, E., M. Melitz, and Y. Rubinstein (2004). Trading Patterns and Trading Volumes. Mimeo. Harvard University.

  26. Hummels, D., and P. J. Klenow (2005). The Variety and Quality of a Nation’s Exports. American Economic Review 95 (3): 704–723.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Markusen, J. R. (2002). Multinational Firms and the Theory of International Trade. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  28. Neary, J. P. (2005). Trade Costs and Foreign Direct Investment. CER Working Paper 05/12. Available at 〈http://www.ucd.ie/economic/workingpapers/WP05.12.pdf〉.

  29. Rose, A. (2004). Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? American Economic Review 94 (1): 98–114.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Santos Silva, J. M. C., and S. Tenreyro (2003). Gravity-Defying Trade. Working Paper 03, 1. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, Mass.

  31. Subramanian, A., and S.-J. Wei. (2003). The WTO Promotes Trade Strongly but Unevenly. NBER Working Paper 10024. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.

  32. Wang, Z. K., and A. Winters (1992). The Trading Potential of Eastern Europe. Journal of Economic Integration 7 (2): 113–136.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  34. Yi, K.-M. (2003). Can Vertical Specialization Explain the Growth of World Trade? Journal of Political Economy 111 (1): 52–102.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Nauklerstrasse 47, 72074, Tübingen, Germany

    Gabriel J. Felbermayr & Wilhelm Kohler

Authors
  1. Gabriel J. Felbermayr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wilhelm Kohler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilhelm Kohler.

Additional information

JEL no.

F12, F15

About this article

Cite this article

Felbermayr, G., Kohler, W. Exploring the Intensive and Extensive Margins of World Trade. Rev. World Econ. 142, 642–674 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-006-0087-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-006-0087-3

Keywords

  • Bilateral trade
  • globalization
  • gravity model