Impact of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims at assessing the impact of institutional and cultural distances and trade barriers on ASEAN's trade efficiency using a panel data set of 65 countries for the period 2006–2017.

Design/methodology/approach

First, the authors applied an improved version of the stochastic frontier model to estimate the trade efficiency scores. After that, we used the system generalized method of moment (GMM) estimator to investigate the impacts of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency.

Findings

The results show that the trade efficiency of ASEAN countries with the rest of the world (ROW) is moderate, ranging from 0.561 to 0.612, but shows a downward trend. This result indicates that considerable trade potential exists between ASEAN countries and ROW. Institutional and cultural distances, as well as the trade barriers, negatively affect ASEAN's trade efficiency. Efforts to reduce differences in institutions and cultures and to promote trade liberalization are vital remedies for ASEAN countries to turn potentials into actual trade performance.

Originality/value

This study contributes to the existing literature in three different ways. First, this is the first study on the impact of the differences between internal and external characteristics on trade efficiency, specifically, the impact of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency. Second, to obtain accurate efficiency scores, the authors use an improved version of the stochastic frontier model proposed by Karakaplan (2018), which can control the problem of endogeneity. Third, in quantifying the determinants of trade efficiency, the authors apply a system GMM estimator, which allows us to overcome the problems of endogeneity, measurement errors, and omitted variables.

Citation

Doanh, N.K., Truong, L.T. and Heo, Y. (2022), "Impact of institutional and cultural distances on ASEAN's trade efficiency", Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-07-2020-0343