SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Business Economics and Finance / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 1

REVISITING THE DISTANCE PUZZLE: STRUCTURAL GRAVITY EVIDENCE FROM TURKIYE

Tuğba Ortay Baykal(İSTANBUL TİCARET ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0001-1414-2523
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

For policymakers, the findings suggest that trade diversification strategies should address not only physical connectivity but also currency risk management and relationship-building costs that elevate effective distance for emerging-market exporters.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose-This paper re-examines the "distance puzzle" for Türkiye's bilateral exports and assesses whether large, stable distance elasticities primarily reflect estimation choices or persistent trade frictions in an emerging-market setting.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methodology-Using CEPII benchmark-year data for 1996–2020, the study estimates three nested gravity specifications: (i) conventional log- linear OLS, (ii) PPML in levels, and (iii) an extended PPML model incorporating domestic trade flows and Türkiye–year effects to account for multilateral resistance and home bias.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:For policymakers, the findings suggest that trade diversification strategies should address not only physical connectivity but also currency risk management and relationship-building costs that elevate effective distance for emerging-market exporters.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2020 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Structural gravity · PPML · distance puzzle

Abstract

Purpose-This paper re-examines the "distance puzzle" for Türkiye's bilateral exports and assesses whether large, stable distance elasticities primarily reflect estimation choices or persistent trade frictions in an emerging-market setting. Methodology-Using CEPII benchmark-year data for 1996–2020, the study estimates three nested gravity specifications: (i) conventional log- linear OLS, (ii) PPML in levels, and (iii) an extended PPML model incorporating domestic trade flows and Türkiye–year effects to account for multilateral resistance and home bias. Institutional and macro-financial frictions are proxied by partner political stability and USD–TRY exchange-rate volatility. Findings-OLS reproduces large and stable distance coefficients averaging –1.70, exceeding meta-analytic benchmarks by 70–90 percent. Once heteroskedasticity, zero-flow structure, and home bias are addressed through structural estimation, the average distance elasticity declines to –0.58—a reduction of approximately 65 percent. Political stability loses significance under structural controls, while exchange- rate volatility becomes precisely estimated and positive, indicating intensive-margin concentration during volatile periods rather than extensive-margin expansion. Conclusion- The results support the interpretation that the distance puzzle is primarily an estimation artifact in emerging-market contexts. Distance remains economically significant as a composite trade-cost proxy bundling geographic, informational, and financial frictions. For policymakers, the findings suggest that trade diversification strategies should address not only physical connectivity but also currency risk management and relationship-building costs that elevate effective distance for emerging-market exporters.

🔖

Cite This Article

Baykal, T. O. (2026). REVISITING THE DISTANCE PUZZLE: STRUCTURAL GRAVITY EVIDENCE FROM TURKIYE. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, Volume: 15 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2026.2033

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Albornoz, F., Calvo Pardo, H. F., Corcos, G., & Ornelas, E. (2012). Sequential exporting. Journal of International Economics, 88(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2012.01.003
  2. Anderson, J. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. American Economic Review, 69(1), 106–116.
  3. Anderson, J. E., & Marcouiller, D. (2002). Insecurity and the pattern of trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(2), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465302317411587
  4. Anderson, J. E., & van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170– 192. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455214
  5. Aysan, A. F., Disli, M., & Ng, A. T. (2017). Political risk and export performance: Evidence from Türkiye. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 53(10), 2248–2262. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2017.1318667
  6. Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members’ international trade? Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.02.005
  7. Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2009). Estimating the effects of free trade agreements on international trade flows using matching econometrics. Journal of International Economics, 77(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.09.006
  8. Baldwin, R. E. (1989). Hysteresis in import prices: The beachhead effect. American Economic Review, 79(4), 773–785.
  9. Baldwin, R. E., & Taglioni, D. (2006). Gravity for dummies and dummies for gravity equations. NBER Working Paper No. 12516. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12516
  10. Bems, R., Johnson, R. C., & Yi, K.-M. (2010). Demand spillovers and the collapse of trade in the global recession. IMF Economic Review, 58(2), 295–326. https://doi.org/10.1057/imfer.2010.7
  11. Bergstrand, J. H., Egger, P., & Larch, M. (2008). Economic structure, distance, and trade. Journal of International Economics, 75(1), 32–52.
  12. Berman, N., Martin, P., & Mayer, T. (2012). How do different exporters react to exchange rate changes? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 437–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr057
  13. Beverelli, C., Neumueller, S., & Teh, R. (2018). Export diversification effects of the WTO trade facilitation agreement. World Development, 111, 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.016
  14. Buch, C. M., Kleinert, J., & Toubal, F. (2004). The distance puzzle: on the interpretation of the distance coefficient in gravity equations. Economics Letters, 83(3), 293-298.
  15. Campos, R., Timini, J., & Vidal, E. (2021). Structural gravity and trade agreements: Does the measurement of domestic trade matter? Banco de España Working Papers, No. 2117. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3847753
  16. Carrere, C., De Melo, J., & Wilson, J. (2013). The distance puzzle and low‐income countries: an update. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(4), 717-742.
  17. Chaney, T. (2008). Distorted gravity: The intensive and extensive margins of international trade. American Economic Review, 98(4), 1707– 1721. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.4.1707
  18. Correia, S., Guimarães, P., & Zylkin, T. (2020). Fast Poisson estimation with high-dimensional fixed effects. Stata Journal, 20(1), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X20909691
  19. Demir, B., & Javorcik, B. S. (2021). Exporters of services: A firm-level analysis. The World Economy, 44(3), 741–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13020
  20. Disdier, A.-C., & Head, K. (2008). The puzzling persistence of the distance effect on bilateral trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.1.37
  21. Duan, Y., Hong, B., & Chen, B. (2022). Distance puzzle: An explanation from global value chain perspective. China Finance and Economic Review, 11, 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1515/cfer-2022-0017
  22. Egger, P. H., & Larch, M. (2008). Interdependent preferential trade agreement memberships: An empirical analysis. Journal of International
  23. Economics, 76(2), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2008.08.003
  24. Egger, P., & Staub, K. E. (2016). GLM estimation of gravity models. Stata Journal, 16(1), 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1601600102
  25. Freeman, R., Larch, M., Theodorakopoulos, A., & Yotov, Y. V. (2025). Unlocking new methods to estimate country-specific effects and trade elasticities with the structural gravity model. Journal of Applied Econometrics. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.3133
  26. Gopinath, G., Itskhoki, O., & Rigobon, R. (2020). Currency choice and exchange rate pass-through. American Economic Review, 110(1), 241– 286. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160084
  27. Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2014). Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In G. Gopinath, E. Helpman, & K. Rogoff (Eds.), Handbook of International Economics (Vol. 4, pp. 131–195). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-54314-1.00003-3
  28. Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., & Rubinstein, Y. (2008). Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 441–487. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.441
  29. Hu, Y., & Zhang, P. (2021). Semiparametric estimation of varying trade elasticities in gravity. Economics Letters, 209, 110120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.110120
  30. Kondaridze, M., Liu, X., & Luckstead, J. (2025). Dairy trade reconsidered: Gravity and the distributional effect of non-tariff barriers and distance. Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70081
  31. Larch, M., Shikher, S., & Yotov, Y. V. (2025). Estimating gravity equations: Theory implications, econometric developments, and practical recommendations. Review of International Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12789
  32. Larch, M., Yotov, Y. V., & Zylkin, T. (2022). On the robustness of gravity estimations. Journal of International Economics, 139, 103627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2022.103627
  33. Lin, F., & Sim, N. (2012). Death of distance and the distance puzzle. Economics Letters, 116(2), 225–228.
  34. McCallum, J. (1995). National borders matter: Canada–U.S. regional trade patterns. American Economic Review, 85(3), 615–623.
  35. Melitz, M. J., & Redding, S. J. (2014). Missing gains from trade? American Economic Review, 104(5), 317–321. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.5.317
  36. Nicita, A., & Olarreaga, M. (2007). Trade, production, and protection database, 1976–2004. World Bank Economic Review, 21(1), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhl016
  37. Rasoulinezhad, E. (2018). BRICS countries’ similar trade pattern and the distance puzzle. Economic Change and Restructuring, 51(2), 109–
  38. Ortay Baykal, T., & Güneren Genç, E. (2025). Reassessing bilateral trade flows of an emerging economy through structural gravity: Case from Türkiye. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 14(9), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v14i9.4614
  39. Pfaffermayr, M. (2020). Constrained Poisson pseudo maximum likelihood estimation of structural gravity models. International Economics, 161, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2019.11.014 135.
  40. Rezitis, A., Zangelidis, L., & Karytsas, S. (2025). Examining the distance puzzle in the global coffee trade. Economics and Business Letters, 14(2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.17811/ebl.14.2.2025.88-94
  41. Rosselló-Nadal, J., & Santana-Gallego, M. (2024). Toward a smaller world. The distance puzzle and international border for tourism. Journal of Transport Geography, 115, 103809.
  42. Santos Silva, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.641
  43. Stewart, J. Q. (1941). An inverse distance variation for social influences. Science, 93(2404), 89–90. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.93.2404.89
  44. Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
  45. Wei, S.-J. (2000). How taxing is corruption on international investors? Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465300558533
  46. WTO, & UNCTAD. (2016). A practical guide to trade policy analysis: The structural gravity model. Geneva: World Trade Organization and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
  47. Yılmazkuday, H. (2017). A solution to the missing globalization puzzle by non-CES preferences. Review of International Economics, 25(3), 649–676.
  48. Yılmazkuday, H. (2021). Welfare implications of solving the distance puzzle: Global evidence from the last two centuries.
  49. Yotov, Y. V. (2022). The structural gravity model. Journal of Economic Literature, 60(3), 677–779. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20201556
  50. Yotov, Y. V. (2022). On the role of domestic trade flows for estimating the gravity model of trade. Contemporary Economic Policy, 40(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12567
  51. Yotov, Y. V., Piermartini, R., Monteiro, J. A., & Larch, M. (2016). An advanced guide to trade policy analysis: The structural gravity model. Geneva: WTO–UNCTAD.