Common Spoken Languages and International Trade
International trade economists are used to controlling for common languages in most studies on the determinants of bilateral trade. The usual measure of common language is a binary variable based on one or several common official languages. The use of this measure lies mainly in the difficulty of quantifying common language use more thoroughly. However, it is not obvious that a common official language adequately reflects the broader impact of language commonality on trade, including language-related ethnic ties and trust and the mere ability to communicate. For this reason, the impact of a binary common official language variable on bilateral trade might mismeasure the role of common languages on bilateral trade at large. In a recent study, Melitz and Toubal (2014) provide an important step toward the understanding of the impact of common languages on bilateral trade based on data on 42 common native and spoken languages in 195 countries. They find that the joint impact of different aspects of common languages is at least twice as large as the one of a common official language. Their findings, moreover, suggest that common spoken languages are particularly important, and the ease of communication plays a substantial role in explaining the role of common languages for bilateral trade.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- J. Anderson (1979) ‘A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation’, American Economic Review, 69, 106–116.Google Scholar
- B. Baltagi, P. Egger and M. Pfaffermayr (forthcoming) ‘Panel Data Gravity Models of International Trade’, In B. Baltagi (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Panel Data (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
- P. Egger, M. Larch, K. Staub and R. Winkelmann (2011) ‘The Trade Effects of Endogenous Preferential Trade Agreements’, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3, 113–143.Google Scholar
- P. Egger and A. Lassmann (2013) ‘The Causal Impact of Common Native Language On International Trade: Evidence from a Spatial Regression Discontinuity Design’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 9441.Google Scholar
- P. Egger and S. Nigai (2014) ‘Structural Gravity with Dummies Only’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 10427.Google Scholar
- P. Egger and K. Staub (2015) ‘GLM Estimation of Trade Gravity Models with Fixed Effects’, Empirical Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
- P. Egger and F. Toubal (2014) ‘Consumer Welfare Gains from Speaking Common Languages’, Mimeo.Google Scholar
- G. Felbermayr, B. Jung and F. Toubal (2011) ‘Ethnic Network, Information and International Trade: Revisiting the Evidence’, Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 97–98, 41–70.Google Scholar
- V. Ginsburgh, J. Melitz and F. Toubal (2014) ‘Foreign Language Learning: An Econometric Analysis’, CESifo Working Paper No. 4923.Google Scholar
- K. Head and T. Mayer (2015) ‘Gravity Equations: Workhorse, Toolkit, and Cookbook’, In E. Helpman, K. Rogoff and G. Gopinath (eds) Handbook of International Economics 4 (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers).Google Scholar
- T. Mayer and G. Ottaviano (2007) ‘The Happy Few: The Internationalisation of European Firms: New Facts Based on Firm-Level Evidence’, Bruegel Blueprint Series, Vol. III.Google Scholar
- J. Wooldridge (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).Google Scholar