Abstract
This paper employs a weighted network approach to study the empirical properties of the web of trade relationships among world countries, and its evolution over time. We show that most countries are characterized by weak trade links; yet, there exists a group of countries featuring a large number of strong relationships, thus hinting to a core-periphery structure. Also, better-connected countries tend to trade with poorly-connected ones, but are also involved in highly-interconnected trade clusters. Furthermore, rich countries display more intense trade links and are more clustered. Finally, all network properties are remarkably stable across the years and do not depend on the weighting procedure.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Jackson (2004) for an introduction.
Cf. also Fagiolo et al. (2009), where links are weighted using trade flows only.
We refer the reader to Fagiolo et al. (2007) for more formal definitions and notation.
Self-loops, i.e. links connecting i with itself are not typically considered. This means that a ii = 0, for all i.
For example in random networks where each link is in place with a certain given probability, independently on all the others (i.e., according the simplest Erdös-Renyi random-graph model: see e.g. Bollobás 1985). In what follows, we employ the term “random network” as a synonym for the Erdös-Renyi random-graph model.
Network clustering is a well-known concept in sociology, where notions such as “cliques” and “transitive triads” have been widely employed (Wasserman and Faust 1994; Scott 2000). For example, friendship networks are typically highly clustered (i.e. they display high cliquishness) because any two friends of a person are very likely to be friends.
That is (a ij ,w ij ) are replaced by (max{a ij ,a ji },0.5(w ij + w ji )), see De Nooy et al. (2005).
Sacks et al. (2001) build a measure of country position in the network based on the concept of “structural autonomy” and show that it has a positive effect on country’s per capita GDP.
Very similar results are obtained by Mahutga (2006), who shows that the globalization process has induced structural heterogeneity and thus inequality.
There is no agreement whatsoever on the way this threshold should be chosen. For example, Kim and Shin (2002) use cutoff values of US$ 1 million and 10 million. Kastelle et al. (2005) endogenously set a cutoff so as to have, in each year, a connected graph. Kali and Reyes (2009) experiment with different lower thresholds defined as shares of country’s total exports. On the contrary, other papers (Serrano and Boguñá 2003; Garlaschelli and Loffredo 2004a, 2005; Kali and Reyes 2007) straightforwardly define a link whenever a non-zero trade flow occurs.
See Fagiolo et al. (2007) for technical details. Note that the corresponding standardized index takes values at least 10 standard deviations below zero.
Due to the extreme symmetry of the network, results do not change if one symmetrizes the export matrix first and then divides by the GDP of the exporting country.
As the right panel of Fig. 5 shows, there seems to be a subset of countries featuring low ND and relatively high strength.
As discussed in Section 5.7, this holds true even if one replaces the baseline weighting procedure with a few, economically meaningful, alternative schemes.
The key assumptions are that the benefits from connections exhibit decreasing returns, and that they depend negatively on distance. Contrary to the predictions of the model, the WTW does not display a single country as its center. This is due to the fact that in the (real) world of international trade, the benefit from connecting to a country is not monotonically increasing in the number of its trading partners. This suffices for a network to display more that one hub.
This interpretation is further corroborated by the fact that geographically-structured networks are typically highly clustered, with short-distance links counting more than long-distance ones.
Indeed, the weighted version of the CC, albeit quite stable over time, is significantly smaller (from a statistical point of view) than its expected value in a random network. Indeed, average clustering ranges from 3.8776×10 − 4 (in 1994) to 5.5106×10 − 4 (in 1982) whereas the expected value of weighted clustering in random networks goes in the same years from 0.2272 to 0.2717—that is, \(\frac{27}{64}\) times network density (see Fagiolo et al. 2007 for details).
To do so, for each year we generated a sample of 10000 random networks whose adjacency matrices have been kept fixed and equal to the observed one, whereas observed link weights have been randomly reshuffled across the links.
Also the shape of the underlying relation is different. While degree seems to be linearly related to pcGDP, a log-log relation holds between strength and pcGDP. This means that pcGDP influences more heavily node strength than node degree.
The correlation between the two indicators is not statistically different from 1.
A very similar result is obtained if one attributes the core status to those countries displaying values of RWBC above the mean plus one standard deviation.
This is expected since one of the interpretations of node strength is related to the degree of influence that a given node has on the network or to what extent other nodes depend on a given node; also, the correlation between RWBC and NS is very high.
As mentioned, we have also experimented with another weighting scheme where we have symmetrized the graph before dividing by exporter (or importer) GDP. All these alternatives did not result in any significant change of our main findings.
This counter-intuitive result depends on the fact that the index computed controls for magnitude effects. Therefore, GDP scaling may enhance differences between imports and exports rather than balancing them.
More detailed results are available from the authors upon request.
In this respect, an interesting exercise would imply to find (if any) a proper rescaling or manipulation of original trade flows that makes weighted and binary undirected network results looking the same.
References
Abeysinghe T, Forbes K (2005) Trade linkages and output-multiplier effects: a structural var approach with a focus on Asia. Rev Int Econ 13:356–375
Albert R, Barabási AL (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74:47–97
Almaas E, Kovács B, Vicsek T, ZN O, Barabási AL (2004) Global organization of metabolic fluxes in the bacterium Escherichia coli. Nature 427:839–843
Arora V, Vamvakidis A (2005) How much do trading partners matter for economic growth? IMF Staff Papers 52(1):24–40
Baier S, Bergstrand J (2004) Economic determinants of free trade agreements. J Int Econ 64:29–63
Barabási AL (2003) Linked. Plume, Cambridge
Barrat A, Barthélemy M, Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2004) The architecture of complex weighted networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 101:3747–3752
Barrat A, Barthélemy M, Vespignani A (2005) Weighted evolving networks: coupling topology and weights dynamics. arxiv:cond–mat/0401057v2
Barthélemy M, Barrat A, Pastor-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2005) Characterization and modeling of complex weighted networks. Physica A 346:34–43
Bhattacharya K, Mukherjee G, Manna S (2007a) The international trade network. arxiv:0707.4347v1
Bhattacharya K, Mukherjee G, Sarämaki J, Kaski K, Manna S (2007b) The international trade network: weighted network analsys and modeling. arxiv:0707.4343v1
Bollobás B (1985) Random graphs. Academic, New York
Breiger R (1981) Structure of economic interdependence among nations. In: Blau PM, Merton RK (eds) Continuities in structural inquiry. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 353–380
Carrington P, Scott J, Wasserman S (eds) (2005) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dall’Asta L, Barrat A, Barthélemy M, Vespignani A (2006) Vulnerability of weighted networks. arxiv:physics/0603163v1
De Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V (2005) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
DeMontis A, Barthélemy M, Chessa A, Vespignani A (2005) The structure and evolution of inter-urban traffic: a weighted network analysis. arxiv:physics/0507106v2
Dorogovtsev S, Mendes J (2003) Evolution of networks: from biological nets to the internet and WWW. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Fagiolo G (2006) Directed or undirected? A new index to check for directionality of relations in socio-economic networks. Econ Bull 3:1–12. http://economicsbulletin.vanderbilt.edu/2006/volume3/EB–06Z10134A.pdf
Fagiolo G (2007) Clustering in complex directed networks. Phys Rev E 76:026107
Fagiolo G, Reyes J, Schiavo, S (2007), The evolution of the world trade web. LEM working paper, 2007/17, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa
Fagiolo G, Schiavo S, Reyes J (2008) On the topological properties of the world trade web: a weighted network analysis. Physica A 387:3868–3873
Fagiolo G, Schiavo S, Reyes J (2009) World-trade web: topological properties, dynamics, and evolution. Phys Rev E 79:036115
Fisher E, Vega-Redondo F (2006) The linchpins of a modern economy. Working paper, Cal Poly
Forbes K (2002) Are trade linkages important determinants of country vulnerability to crises? In: Sebastian E, Jeffrey F (eds) Preventing currency crises in emerging markets. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Freeman L (1996) Some antecedents of social network analysis. Connections 19:39–42
Furusawa T, Konishi H (2007) Free trade networks. J Int Econ 72:310–335
Garlaschelli D, Loffredo M (2004a) Fitness-dependent topological properties of the world trade web. Phys Rev Lett 93:188701
Garlaschelli D, Loffredo M (2004b) Patterns of link reciprocity in directed networks. Phys Rev Lett 93:268701
Garlaschelli D, Loffredo M (2005) Structure and evolution of the world trade network. Physica A 355:138–144
Gleditsch K (2002) Expanded trade and gdp data. J Confl Resolut 46:712–724. http://ibs.colorado.edu/~ksg/trade/
Goyal S, Joshi S (2006) Bilateralism and free trade. Int Econ Rev 47:749–778
van der Leij M, Goyal S (2006) Strong ties in a small world. Tinbergen Institute discussion papers 06-008/1, Tinbergen Institute
Granovetter M (1974) Getting a job: a study of contracts and careers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Herfindahl O (1959) Copper costs and prices: 1870–1957. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Hirschman A (1964) The paternity of an index. Am Econ Rev 54:761–762
Hojman D, Szeidl A (2008) Core and periphery in networks. J Econ Theory 139:295–309
Jackson M (2004) A survey of models of network formation: stability and efficiency. In: Demange G, Wooders M (eds) Group formation in economics; networks, clubs and coalitions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kali R, Reyes J (2009) Financial contagion on the international trade network. Econ Inq (in press)
Kali R, Reyes J (2007) The architecture of globalization: a network approach to international economic integration. J Int Bus Stud 38:595–620
Kali R, Méndez F, Reyes J (2007) Trade structure and economic growth. J Int Trade Econ Dev 16:245–270
Kastelle T, Steen J, Liesch P (2005) Measurig globalisation: an evolutionary economic approach to tracking the evolution of international trade. Paper presented at the DRUID summer conference on knowledge, innovation and competitiveness: dynamycs of firms, networks, regions and institutions, Copenhagen, Denmark
Kim S, Shin EH (2002) A longitudinal analysis of globalization and regionalization in international trade: a social network approach. Soc Forces 81:445–471
Li X, Jin YY, Chen G (2003) Complexity and synchronization of the world trade web. Physica A 328:287–296
Mahutga MC (2006) The persistence of structural inequality?: a network analysis of international trade, 1965–2000. Soc Forces 84(4):1863–1889
Milgram S (1967) The small world problem. Psychol Today 2:60–67
Nemeth R, Smith D (1985) International trade and world-system structure: a multiple network analysis. Rev J Fernand Braudel Center 8(4):517–560
Newman M (2003) The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Rev 45:167–256
Newman M (2005) A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Soc Netw 27:39–54
Onnela J, Saramaki J, Kertész J, Kaski K (2005) Intensity and coherence of motifs in weighted complex networks. Phys Rev E 71:065103
Ottaviano G, Tabuchi T, Thisse JF (2002) Agglomeration and trade revisited. Int Econ Rev 43:409–436
Padgett J, Ansell C (1993) Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. Am J Sociol 98:1259–1319
Pastos-Satorras R, Vespignani A (2004) Evolution and structure of the internet. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rapoport A, Horvath W (1961) A study of a large sociogram. Behav Sci 6:279–291
Rauch J (2001) Business and social networks in international trade. J Econ Lit 39:1177–1203
Rauch J, Casella A (2003) Overcoming informational barriers to international resource allocation: prices and ties. Econ J 113(113):21–42
Rivera-Batiz L, Romer P (1991) Economic integration and endogenous growth. Q J Econ 106:531–555
Sacks M, Ventresca M, Uzzi B (2001) Global institutions and networks: contingent change in the structure of world trade advantage, 1965–1980. Am Behav Sci 44(10):1579–1601
Saramaki J, Kivelä M, Onnela J, Kaski K, Kertész J (2007) Generalizations of the clustering coefficient to weighted complex networks. Phys Rev E 75:027105
Scott J (2000) Social network analysis: a handbook. Sage, London
Serrano A, Boguñá M (2003) Topology of the world trade web. Phys Rev E 68:015,101(R)
Serrano A, Boguñá M, Vespignani A (2007) Patterns of dominant flows in the world trade web. J Econ Interact Coord 2:111–124
Smith D, White D (1992) Structure and dynamics of the global economy: network analysis of international trade, 1965–1980. Soc Forces 70:857–893
Snyder D, Kick E (1979) Structural position in the world system and economic growth 1955–70: a multiple network analysis of transnational interactions. Am J Sociol 84:1096–1126
Szabó G, Alava M, Kertész J (2005) Intensity and coherence of motifs in weighted complex networks. Phys Rev E 71:065103
Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Watts D (1999) Small worlds. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Watts D (2003) Six degrees: the science of a connected age. W.W. Norton, New York
Watts D, Strogatz S (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393:440–442
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Marc Barthélemy, Diego Garlaschelli, and to an anonymous referee for their useful and insightful comments. All usual disclaimers apply.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A: Countries in the balanced panel (1981–2000)
Appendix A: Countries in the balanced panel (1981–2000)
The dataset provided by Gleditsch (2002) includes 196 countries for which there are data on trade flows from 1948 to 2000. However, trade data contain many missing (or badly reported) values before 1970. In addition, there are some countries with zero total exports in some years.
Notice also that our analysis requires to match trade data with real GDP (both in levels and per capita). This is because: (i) weights are defined as exports divided by GDP; (ii) one wants to cross-sectionally correlate network measures with country-specific variables like per-capita GDP.
We have therefore selected countries in such a way to have: (i) a time horizon and a country sample size as long as possible; (ii) no missing values in trade data and GDP (both in levels and per capita); (iii) non-zero total exports.
By applying conditions (i) and (ii) we get only 83 countries from 1960–2000. This number becomes 138 for the period 1970–2000; 152 for the period 1970–2000; 163 for the period 1981–2000; and 168 for the period 1990–2000. We thus decided to select the time interval 1981-2000 using 163 countries. However, 4 of them (San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco) have total exports equal to zero in some years. This leaves us with N = 159 countries, whose list is in Table 2.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fagiolo, G., Reyes, J. & Schiavo, S. The evolution of the world trade web: a weighted-network analysis. J Evol Econ 20, 479–514 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-009-0160-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-009-0160-x