Traders, courts, and the border effect puzzle

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Volumn 40, Issue 2-3, 2010, Pages 81-91

  Turrini, Alessandro ^a,b   van Ypersele, Tanguy ^b,c  

^a EUROPEAN COMMISSION   (Belgium)

^b CEPR   (United Kingdom)

^c AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

Border effect; Legal costs; Matching

Indexed keywords

BORDER REGION; INTERNATIONAL TRADE; LEGAL SYSTEM; MODELING; TRADE FLOW;

EID: 77951938225     PISSN: 01660462     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Acemoglu D., Antràs P., Helpman E. Contracts and technology adoption. American Economic Review 2007, 97:916-943.
2. Anderson J.E., Marcouiller D. Insecurity and the pattern of trade: an empirical investigation. Review of Economics and Statistics 2002, 84:342-352.
3. Anderson J., van Wincoop E. Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review 2003, 93:170-193.
4. Antràs P. Incomplete contracts and the product cycle. American Economic Review 2005, 95:1054-1073.
5. Araujo L., Ornelas E. Trust-Based Trade. CEP Discussion Paper No. 820 2007.
6. Balistreri E., Hillerry R. Structural estimation and the border puzzle. Journal of International Economics 2007, 72:451-463.
7. Bhattacharya U., Galpin N., Haslem B. The home court advantage in international corporate litigation. Journal of Law and Economics 2007, 50:625-659.
8. Berkowitz D., Moenius J., Pistor K. Trade, law, and product complexity. Review of Economics and Statistics 2006, 88:363-373.
9. Blum,B., S. Claro, and I. J. Horstmann, 2009, Intermediation and the nature of trade costs: Theory and Evidence, mimeo, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.
10. Brenton P., Vancauteren M. The extent of economic integration in Europe: border effects, technical barriers to trade and home bias in consumption. CEPS Working Document No. 171 2001.
11. Casella A. Arbitration in international trade. NBER Working Paper No. 4136 1992.
12. Casella A. On market integration and the development of institutions: the case of international commercial arbitration. European Economic Review 1996, 40:155-186.
13. Chen N.A. Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: why do national borders matter?. Journal of International Economics 2004, 63:93-118.
14. Clermont K., Eisenberg T. Xenophilia in American courts. Harvard Law Review 1996, 109:1120-1143.
15. Combes P.-P., Laufourcade M., Mayer T. The trade creating effects of business and social networks. Journal of International Economics 2005, 66:1-29.
16. Costinot A. On the origins of comparative advantage. Journal of International Economics 2009, 77:255-264.
17. del Busto C. ICC Guide to Documentary Credit Operations for the UCP 500 1994, ICC Publishing, Paris.
18. Business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer protection: Report, Flash Eurobarometer 186 2006, European Commission, European Commission, Brussels.
19. Djankov S., La Porta R., López-de-Silanes F., Shleifer A. Courts. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2003, 118:453-517.
20. Evans, C., 2000, National border effects and heterogenous fixed costs of international trade, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, mimeo.
21. Francois J., Manchin M. Institutions, infrastructure and trade. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 6068 2007.
22. Feenstra R.C. Border effects and the gravity equation: consistent methods for estimation. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 2002, 49(5):491-506.
23. Feenstra R.C. Advanced International Trade: Theory and Evidence 2004, Princeton University Press.
24. Head K., Mayer T. Non-Europe: the magnitude and causes of market segmentation in Europe. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 2000, 136:284-314.
25. Helliwell J.F. Do national borders matter for Quebec's trade?. Canadian Journal of Economics 1996, 29:507-522.
26. Helliwell J.F. Measuring the width of national borders. Review of International Economics 2002, 10(3):517-524.
27. Marimon R., Zilibotti F. Unemployment vs. mismatch of talents: reconsidering unemployment benefits. Economic Journal 1999, 109:266-291.
28. Katz A. Indemnity in legal fees. The Economics of Crime and Litigation 2000, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. B. Bouckaert, G. De Geest (Eds.).
29. La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes F., Shleifer A., Vishny R. The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 1999, 15:222-279.
30. Levchenko A. Institutional quality and international trade. Review of Economic Studies 2007, 74:791-819.
31. Melitz M. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 2003, 71:1695-1725.
32. McCallum J. National borders matter: Canada-US regional trade barriers. American Economic Review 1995, 85:615-623.
33. Nitsch V. National borders in international trade: evidence from the European Union. Canadian Journal of Economics 2000, 22:1091-1105.
34. Nunn N. Relationship-specificity, incomplete contracts, and the pattern of trade. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2007, 122:569-600.
35. Pissarides C. Equilibrium Unemployment Theory 2000, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
36. Rodrik D. How far will international integration go?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2000, 14:177-186.
37. Rauch J.E. Trade and search: social capital, sogo shosha, and spillovers. NBER Working Paper No. 5618 1996.
38. Rauch J.E. Networks versus markets in international trade. Journal of International Economics 1999, 48:7-35.
39. Rauch J.E. Business and social networks in international trade. Journal of Economic Literature 2001, 39:1177-1203.
40. Stephen F., Love J. Regulation of the legal profession. Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, Volume V. The Economics of Crime and Litigation 2000, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. B. Bouckaert, G. De Geest (Eds.).
41. Wei S. Intra-national versus inter-national trade: how stubborn are nations in global integration?. NBER Working Paper No. 5531 1996.
42. Wolf H. Intranational home bias in trade. Review of Economics and Statistics 2000, 82:555-563.