Today’s basic trade thread: gravity. Gravity in trade means that distance matters in trade. (Thread)
Here’s an excerpt from one of the leading international economics textbooks (Krugman/Obstfeld/Melitz): “All estimated gravity models show a strong negative effect of distance on international trade; ...
... typical estimates say that a 1 percent increase in the distance between two countries is associated with a fall of 0.7 to 1 percent in the trade between those countries.”
What explains this effect? Krugman goes on to explain this with transport cost, but also less tangible factors: contacts, for example. Borders, by the way, aggravate the situation: Krugman states the Canad—US border deters trade like a distance of 1500-2500 miles.
It is certainly true that modern technology (superstar in this regard: the container - there’s even a book on that) has reduced the cost of distance and its significance. But there are limits to that.
Many services currently cannot be delivered over distances or only at a disadvantage and cost, namely those requiring physical objects: think haircuts. But think also car repair services. Or servicing needs of goods in general.
Finally some services that CAN be delivered via distances nevertheless become less attractive if that is done. Think of architects: They can make plans and e-mail them. And that is done quite a bit, I guess.
But architects can also help with organising work, they have contacts, they know who does what (and does it well) and get them more quickly than individuals do. So for huge projects - that’s less of a consideration. But for small projects that counts.
Technology will certainly lead to a further drop in the relevance of gravity, but as long as we have bodies and use objects and rely on the physical world, it is unlikely to become irrelevant.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I know some will brush off @RishiSunak 's comments on the ECtHR and the ECHR as irrelevant given that his days in office are almost over. They are not. They are dangerous for the UK and show some politicians have not learned a thing. Why? /1
First: Once again a UK leader makes a commitment to leave an international system to limit immigration without any regard to the impact of leaving. That impact? /2
The UK was instrumental in drafting the ECHR. The agreement is at the core of the Council of Europe, underlies the good Friday agreement and the TCA. Leaving it means the UK leaves the CoE, destroys the Belfast Agreement and ultimately terminates significant chunks of the TCA. /3
Sorry to emphasize this again, but please note the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" aspect of the case, which weirdly is often left out of commentary on the ICJ case. It is incredibly important. /1
South Africa submitted numerous statements that show that a cavalier attitude has developed to say truly horrendous things. Now that does not equal showing a state policy of genocide. But it is deeply troubling. And the court decided to remind Israel of what needs to be done /2
And the order of the Court in this regard is all the more stronger by who voted for it: Also Israel's ad hoc judge Barak, the former President of Israel's Supreme Court. /3
Some thoughts on the South Africa-Israel case before the ICJ, as I am unhappy with some comments. I’ll try to keep this untechnical. /1
1) South Africa files the case as a state party to the genocide convention against Israel as another state party alleging violations of the convention. This is permissible, as every state party is held to have an interest in upholding the convention.
2) This is not the first time that this has happened. The Gambia has filed a case concerning genocide against Myanmar. If you are interested… icj-cij.org/case/178
Ofcom has published a list of swearwords by degree of offensiveness, which really is a f****** great service for non-native speakers. So here it is (thread)