2023
DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2023.2167918
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the effects of hard and soft infrastructure on traditional vs supply-chain trade: the case of Central and Eastern EU member states (CEMS)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When we compare our results with previous findings, the important role of upstream position in global value chains is consistent with the findings of Caraballo and Jiang (2016) that innovation and patents increase the quality of export potential because one of the upstream activities in GVCs are R&D, innovation, and design, and the most developed economies participate in GVCs with these activities, while developing countries participate with assembly activities, for example. The results of Zaninović (2023) show that trade in value-added is most responsive to improvements in institutional efficiency and are consistent with our findings that institutional quality is an important determinant of domestic value-added in exports.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When we compare our results with previous findings, the important role of upstream position in global value chains is consistent with the findings of Caraballo and Jiang (2016) that innovation and patents increase the quality of export potential because one of the upstream activities in GVCs are R&D, innovation, and design, and the most developed economies participate in GVCs with these activities, while developing countries participate with assembly activities, for example. The results of Zaninović (2023) show that trade in value-added is most responsive to improvements in institutional efficiency and are consistent with our findings that institutional quality is an important determinant of domestic value-added in exports.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…In regression analysis of panel data, the most commonly used estimators are Pooled Ordinary Least Square (POLS) estimator, which in most cases lead to biased estimates, then Fixed Effects (FE) estimator, Poisson Pseudo Maximum Likelihood (PPML) estimator, and Generalized Method of Moments (GMM). The PPML estimator (Silva & Tenreyro, 2006) has been shown to be robust in the presence of zero trade values and heteroscedasticity (Saslavsky & Shepherd, 2014;Kejžar et al, 2022, Zaninović, 2023, so we chose to estimate our model using the PPML estimator, however to compare results for both, POLS and PPML regression results (Table 2). Our panel data include value-added trade data between 181 reporting countries and 237 partner countries, covering the period from 2000 to 2019.…”
Section: Model Specificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the world is moving forward, the importance of soft infrastructure (ICT) is increasing. While an organization's supply-chain efficiency is required for trade, the ICT infrastructure and custom policies have a significant role in enhancing trade, particularly traditional commerce (Zaninovic et al 2023). Shikur (2022) explored the contributions of each LP factor to merchandised products and services trade.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the years, in addition to the fundamental gravity variables, the gross domestic products of the trading partners, which stand for economic masses, and the weighted distance between the capitals of the trading partners, many authors have included various trade facilitation, logistics, socio-economic variables that influence bilateral trade (Anderson & van Wincoop, 2004;Baier & Bergstrand, 2001;Baldwin & Taglioni, 2007;Soloaga et al 2006;Head & Mayer, 2014;Host et al, 2019;Bugarčić et al, 2020;Zaninović et al, 2020;Zaninović et al, 2023). This equation was previously estimated based on cross-section data.…”
Section: Methodology and Datamentioning
confidence: 99%