The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Has Distance Died? Evidence from a Panel Gravity Model
Open accessAbstract
The estimated coefficient of distance on the volume of trade is generally found to increase rather than decrease through time using the traditional gravity model of trade. This distance puzzle proved robust to several ad hoc versions of the model using data for 1962–96 for a large sample of 130 countries. The introduction of an “augmented” barrier to trade function removes the paradox, yielding a decline in the estimate of the elasticity of trade to distance of about 11 percent over the 35-year period for the whole sample. However, the “death of distance” is shown to be largely confined to bilateral trade between rich countries, with poor countries becoming marginalized.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle
Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803321455214 · Cited by 7,566
The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade
Hummels, D., Ishii, J., & Yi, K.-M. (2001) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/s0022-1996(00)00093-3 · Cited by 3,210
Networks versus markets in international trade
Rauch, J. E. (1999) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/s0022-1996(98)00009-9 · Cited by 2,824
Panel data and unobservable individual effects
Hausman, J., & Taylor, W. (1981) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(81)90085-3 · Cited by 2,309
The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause?
Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (2000) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w7777 · Cited by 2,018
Bergstrand, J. H. (1989) · The Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.2307/1928061 · Cited by 1,798
The Six Major Puzzles in International Macroeconomics: Is There a Common Cause?
Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (2000) · NBER Macroeconomics Annual · doi:10.1086/654423 · Cited by 1,181
Regional trading blocs in the world economic system
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.35-4604 · Cited by 1,045
Insecurity and the Pattern of Trade: An Empirical Investigation
Anderson, J. E., & Marcouiller, D. (2002) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465302317411587 · Cited by 1,037
The growth of world trade: tariffs, transport costs, and income similarity
Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2001) · Journal of International Economics · doi:10.1016/s0022-1996(00)00060-x · Cited by 948
Cited by
A simple solution to the distance puzzle in international trade
Yotov, Y. V. (2012) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2012.08.032 · Cited by 255
On the role of domestic trade flows for estimating the gravity model of trade
Yotov, Y. V. (2022) · Contemporary Economic Policy · doi:10.1111/coep.12567 · Cited by 187
The hidden hyperbolic geometry of international trade: World Trade Atlas 1870-2013
García-Pérez, G., Boguñá, M., Allard, A., & Serrano, M. Á. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1512.02233 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Brun, J.-F.
- Venue
- The World Bank Economic Review
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-05-18
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-120
- ISSN
- 0258-6770 (ISSN-L)
- 1564-698X
- OpenAlex
- W3121781108
- Cited by
- 404
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 22.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Has Distance Died? Evidence from a Panel Gravity Model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/wber/lhi004
- The paper
- Brun, J.-F. (2005). Has Distance Died? Evidence from a Panel Gravity Model. The World Bank Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhi004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
