4.7 Article

Does cultural distance hinder exports?: A comparative study of China and the United States

期刊

ECONOMIC MODELLING
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2021.105668

关键词

Gravity model; Poisson pseudo maximum likelihood estimation; Cultural distance; Exports

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of cultural distance in exports lacks consensus, with studies showing that the positive or negative effects are attributed to substitution or complementary effects through trade costs and preferences. Using export data from China and the US with 97 trading partners, it was found that cultural distance hinders exports for both countries through trade costs and preference channels, specifically in traditional vs. secular-rational values and survival vs. self-expression values dimensions. Additionally, different factors such as differentiated products, continental variations, and trading partners' economic development levels have varying effects on the exports of China and the US.
There is little consensus on the role of cultural distance in exports. Studies have shown that positive or negative effects of cultural distance on exports are attributed to the substitution or complementary effects through trade costs and preference. Using export data of the two world's largest exporting countries, China and the United States (US), with 97 trading partners from 2004 to 2016, we employ a nonlinear gravity equation to examine the potential effects of cultural distance. We find that cultural distance hinders exports for both China and the US through trade costs and preference channels. Cultural distance impedes the exports of China and the US along traditional vs. secular-rational values (TSR) and survival vs. self-expression values (SSE) dimensions, respectively. Furthermore, differentiated products, variations in continents, and levels of economic development of trading partners separately vary for the effects of cultural distance on the exports of China and the US.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据