Trade and infrastructure in the Belt and Road Initiative: A gravity analysis based on revealed trade preferences

Di Stefano, Cristina; Iapadre, P. Lelio; Salvati, Ilaria Article Trade and infrastructure in the Belt and Road Initiative: A gravity analysis based on revealed trade preferences Journal of Risk and Financial Management Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Di Stefano, Cristina; Iapadre, P. Lelio; Salvati, Ilaria (2021) : Trade and infrastructure in the Belt and Road Initiative: A gravity analysis based on revealed trade preferences, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, ISSN 1911-8074, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020052 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/239468 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article Trade and Infrastructure in the Belt and Road Initiative: A Gravity Analysis Based on Revealed Trade Preferences Cristina Di Stefano 1, P. Lelio Iapadre 1,2,* and Ilaria Salvati 3   Citation: Di Stefano, Cristina, P. Lelio Iapadre, and Ilaria Salvati. 2021. Trade and Infrastructure in the Belt and Road Initiative: A Gravity Analysis Based on Revealed Trade Preferences. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14: 52. https:// doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020052 Academic Editor: Maria Cipollina Received: 23 November 2020 Accepted: 22 January 2021 Published: 26 January 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Laboratory on Globalisation, Innovation and Local Development, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale e dell’Informazione e di Economia (DIIIE), University of L’Aquila, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy; [email protected] 2 United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS), Potterierei 72, 8000 Brugge, Belgium 3Independent Researcher, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy; [email protected] *Correspondence: lelio.iapadr[email protected]; Tel.: +39-0862-434866 Abstract: This paper aims at investigating whether and how the intensity of trade between a pair of countries changes when they experience improvements in their infrastructural systems. We carry out our analysis considering countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a project specifically designed to promote infrastructural connectivity and therefore boost trade among the countries involved. Our empirical strategy relies on a particular specification of the gravity model, in which the dependent variable consists in an index of revealed trade preferences, calculated by comparing the actual value of trade flows between two countries with their expected value, proportional to the two countries’ total trade. Such methodology allows us to estimate bilateral trade intensity without resorting to the traditional “size” variables of the gravity model, taking the entire network of multilateral trade into account. We then study the possible impact of an improvement in infrastructure on a ‘gravity-adjusted’ measure of trade preferences, given by the residuals of our first estimations. Our results indicate that bilateral preferences among BRI countries will intensify inasmuch as they succeed in coordinating their infrastructural projects. Keywords: gravity model; geography of trade; Belt and Road Initiative; infrastructure 1. The Belt and Road Initiative and the Role of Infrastructure In 2013, the Chinese government announced the launch of a new project known as ‘The Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI) to improve connectivity between Asia, Europe, and Africa. In 2015, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) of the Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Foreign Affairs defined frameworks, principles, and actions of the initiative by releasing the Blueprint ‘Vision and Actions on Jointly Building the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road’. The idea behind the program was that of a “win–win cooperation that promotes shared development and prosperity” 1 and favors integration and cultural exchange among regions. The BRI encompasses two main projects: the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (MSR). The former connects China to Central and South Asia and onward to Europe; the latter connects China to the nations of South East Asia, the Gulf countries, East and North Africa, and Europe. The BRI does not aim at strengthening only one route, but it envisages six economic corridors with overland and maritime elements, consisting in networks of rail routes, roads, waterways, pipelines, and ICT infrastructure (Das 2017); these corridors are: (1) the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor; (2) the New Eurasian Land Bridge; (3) the China–Central Asia–West Asia Economic Corridor; (4) the China–Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor; (5) the China-Pakistan Economic 1See Shaoshi (2015, p. 4). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14020052 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52 2 of 15 Corridor; and (6) the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Economic Corridor. While infrastructure connectivity is the most relevant objective of the project, others are coordination of development strategies and policies, trade facilitation to ensure “unimpeded trade”, financial integration, and people-to-people exchange. The BRI is structured as an open initiative that allows every country to participate, and there is no official list of countries involved. Up to March 2020, 138 countries had signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China. In order for the BRI to succeed, policy measures (e.g., harmonization of technical standards, single clearance mechanism, monitoring, and promotion activities) are complementary to building new infrastructure, since they can improve management of the transport network (Kunaka and Carruthers 2014). For this reason, the Chinese government has also integrated different existing regional cooperation mechanisms as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Plus China (10 + 1), China-ASEAN Expo, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and Greater Mekong Sub-region Economic Cooperation (GMS) (Yu 2017) and has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Silk Road Fund to help involved countries funding investment in infrastructure. However, although China presents the initiative as a win–win project, there are increasing concerns on the capability of the other countries involved to cope with the debts incurred to finance the new infrastructure (Hurley et al. 2018). In order to exploit the true potential of the initiative, infrastructure investment is not enough: trade facilitation reforms and policy actions able to improve infrastructure management along the corridors are needed (De Soyres et al. 2018), since trade facilitation performance, i.e., the performance of the overall supply chain (Grainger and McLinden 2013) along the BRI corridors is below the world average (Bartley Johns et al. 2018). This is also confirmed by Baniya et al. (2020) who stress the importance of complementing BRI infrastructure projects with lower border delays, better management of corridors, and higher trade cooperation. In terms of economic development, benefits deriving from investment in transportation infrastructure are well documented in the literature (e.g., Redding and Turner 2015). Some authors have also focused on the BRI, analyzing the association between transport infrastructure, trade expansion, and economic development. The increase in China’s exports towards BRI countries did not start with the BRI announcement, but it was already in progress in the early 2000s (Constantinescu and Ruta 2018): the intraregional share of BRI countries’ total exports rose from 30.6% in 1995 to 43.3% in 2015 (Boffa 2018). De Soyres et al. (2018) analyzed the impact of the transport infrastructure projects envisaged by the BRI, arguing that they will significantly reduce shipment times and trade costs not only in the BRI countries but also in the rest of the world. Results of the study show that countries located along the corridors where projects will be realized would record the largest positive impacts and may be able to experience a reduction in shipment time and trade costs by up to 11.9% and 10.2%, respectively. In a following study, De Soyres et al. (2020) estimated that carrying out the BRI transport infrastructure projects may increase gross domestic product by up to 3.4% for the countries involved and by up to 2.9% for the world. However, the high costs of infrastructure may determine a negative effect on welfare (defined as real consumption) in some countries. Moreover, Yang et al. (2020) show a possible increase in welfare and economic growth connected with infrastructure investment in Asia (particularly in Southeast Asia) and in Russia. Their analysis also identifies a possible positive effect on GDP growth in most areas of the rest of the world. Recognizing the strong connection that exists among infrastructure, trade, and economic development, the objective of this paper is to investigate how an increase in the infrastructure endowment of countries participating in the BRI may impact the intensity of their bilateral trade, relative to their total shares of world trade. In our analysis, we start with a particular specification of the gravity model in which the dependent variable is an index of ‘revealed trade preferences’, i.e., a measure of the intensity of trade between J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52 3 of 15 a couple of countries, relative to the entire network of world trade. We then take the estimated residuals from this exercise as a ‘gravity-adjusted’ measure of revealed trade preferences and use it as the dependent variable of a second regression, which focuses on the relationship between bilateral trade intensity and infrastructure. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the next paragraph we discuss the possible role of trade intensity indices in the gravity equation, and the approach we follow to study the effects of infrastructure on the geographic distribution of trade flows. In Section 3, we present the revealed trade preference (RTP) index used for our estimations. After a descriptive analysis of RTP indices in the six corridors encompassed by the BRI (Section 4), we present the results of our econometric exercise (Section 5). The last paragraph is dedicated to the conclusions. 2. Bilateral and Multilateral Trade Costs in the Gravity Model Since the seminal papers by Tinbergen (1962) and Pöyhönen (1963), several specifications of the gravity model of international trade have been proposed in the literature (Yotov et al. 2016) . In its simplest versions, the gravity equation shows how the value of trade flows between two countries is directly related to their economic size and inversely related to their distance, and/or to other factors, such as trade policies, affecting the cost of bilateral commerce. Initially, the empirical success of the gravity model in explaining the geographic distribution of trade was accompanied by a lack of theoretical support. However, after the work made by Anderson (1979), several authors introduced a range of theoreticallygrounded variants of the model (e.g., Bergstrand (1985,1989); Deardorff (1998); Eaton and Kortum (2002)). Among others, Anderson and Van Wincoop (2003) presented an augmented version of the gravity equation including multilateral trade resistance (MTR) terms. These terms capture the idea that trade flows between two countries depend not only on their bilateral trade resistance (i.e., on trade costs due to distance and other bilateral barriers to trade), but also on the costs faced by each country in trading with all its other partners (MTR). Neglecting MTR in gravity equation is considered a “gold medal mistake” (Baldwin and Taglioni 2006), which can be prevented through various econometric techniques (Yotov et al. 2016). Feenstra (2004) proposed the use of countryspecific fixed effects, Baier and Bergstrand (2009) accounted for MTR through a first-order Taylor series approximation, and, more recently, Patuelli et al. (2016) and Metulini et al. (2018) suggested the use of origin and destination-specific spatial filters. Among recent papers that study the relationship between trade and infrastructure, Donaubauer et al. (2018) adapted the method proposed by Feenstra (2004) in analyzing the impact of infrastructure on bilateral trade among 150 developed and emerging economies. Lee (2018) and Kim and Mariano (2020), too, chose the same approach studying respectively the impact of an increase in infrastructure on China’s trade with Central Asian countries, and the impact of infrastructure quality on bilateral trade relations in the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) region. Herrero and Xu (2017) focused on the impact of infrastructure investment on trade in countries involved in the BRI, following the model specification proposed by Baier and Bergstrand (2009) and the same methodology was adopted by Hussain et al. (2019) in their analysis of the relationship between exports and infrastructural indicators in 46 Asian countries. In this paper, we propose a solution to the MTR issue relying on a trade intensity index. Unlike traditional specifications of the gravity equation, in fact, our dependent variable is not the value of trade flows between each pair of countries. Instead, we use the revealed trade preference (RTP) index proposed by Iapadre (2006). As we will better explain in the next paragraph, this index allows to evaluate the intensity of trade between pairs of countries, comparing the actual value of their bilateral trade flows with the hypothetical value they would have if each country traded with the other in proportion to their world trade shares. This ‘geographic neutrality’ benchmark reflects an abstract frictionless world in which trade costs, although influencing the total value of trade flows, do not affect their J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52 4 of 15 geographic distribution (Kunimoto 1977). The usefulness of RTP indices for solving the MTR issue stems from the fact that they show the degree of reciprocal preference between two trading partners in relative terms: the intensity of trade between a pair of countries depends not only on their reciprocal trade flows, but also on the entire network of trade linkages with and among all their partners (Iapadre and Tironi (2009); Iapadre and Tajoli (2014) ). Thus, any reduction in bilateral resistances or increase in multilateral resistances determines an increase in bilateral revealed trade preferences, relative to the rest of the world. By using RTP indices as the dependent variable in the gravity equation, we do not need to introduce multilateral resistance terms, since they are already reflected in the index. In other words, RTP indices may be seen as an inverse measure of bilateral relative to multilateral trade costs, following an approach similar to the trade cost measure proposed by Novy (2013). Moreover, relying on RTP indices allows us to exclude from our gravity equation the independent variables connected with country size, as they are already included in the RTP index formula, which allows to focus the estimates exclusively on distance and other trade cost variables. Indeed, as already argued, the RTP index reveals to what extent two countries’ actual bilateral trade differs from the hypothetical value that it would reach, if it were proportional to their total trade with the rest of the world (neutrality benchmark), which depends on both their economic size and their degree of international openness. Accordingly, by adopting the RTP index, we are able to overcome another problem of traditional specifications of the gravity model, that is related to the well-known inverse relationship between the trade-to-GDP ratio and country size (Frankel 1997;Anderson 2011). The use of GDP as a “size” variable among the regressors of traditional gravity equations implicitly assumes a proportional relationship between a country’s total trade and GDP, which is at odds with the fact that the relative importance of international trade is higher in small economies than in large ones. The usefulness of trade intensity indices in the analysis of bilateral trade flows was already recognized in the literature, for instance by Leamer and Stern (1970), Drysdale and Garnaut (1982), Anderson and Norheim (1993), and Frankel (1997). Moreover, these indices have already been adopted in gravity models, as for example by Gaulier et al. (2004) and by Zhang and Van Witteloostuijn (2004). In the first paper, the authors analyze the regionalization of international trade by assessing the impact of regional integration arrangements on trade flows. They replicate the traditional gravity estimation based on bilateral trade flows also adopting an index of bilateral trade intensity as the dependent variable of the equation. The authors recognize that a model based on trade intensity index is useful to focus the estimation on bilateral distance factors (geographic, cultural, etc.). Zhang and Van Witteloostuijn (2004) study China’s trade linkages and use export and import intensities to examine changes in the geographic distribution of Chinese trade in the period 1993–1999. They argue that the use of an intensity index is preferable to the value of trade flows, since this indicator is not influenced by changes in country-specific factors (e.g., the countries’ international openness, exchange rate, and price level). The latter equally impact all bilateral trade flows of the country with its trade partners and affect the total volume of trade but not necessarily its geographic distribution. Our gravity equation will relate RTP indices to a set of ‘dyadic’ (country-pair-specific) variables, such as distance, that are traditionally considered as important determinants of bilateral trade costs. We will use only dyadic regressors, so as to obtain an estimate of what would be the geographic distribution of bilateral RTPs if they depended only on bilateral trade costs, excluding any country specific variable. The following step will be based on the resulting estimation residuals, which we consider as a measure of ‘gravity-adjusted’ RTPs, in which the underlying benchmark is no longer the abstract frictionless world of the geographic neutrality threshold, but a gravity-adjusted world in which, given the total trade size of all countries, the geography of bilateral trade (relative to multilateral trade) is affected only by differences in relative bilateral trade costs, as measured by dyadic trade cost variables and not by non-dyadic country-specific variables. Hence, a positive (negative) estimation residual will measure the J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52 5 of 15 extent to which actual RTPs go beyond (lie below) what predicted by our gravity equation, revealing the possible influence of country-specific variables. We will then use these estimation residuals as the dependent variable of a second equation, in order to explore the role of each country’s infrastructure endowment in explaining ‘gravity-adjusted’ RTPs, and better understand the expected impact of BRI on the network of international trade flows. 3. Revealed Trade Preference Indices As anticipated, our analysis focuses on the intensity of bilateral trade between countries. Specifically, for each pair of countries, iand j, we measure a revealed total trade (exports plus imports) preference index (RTPij)following Iapadre and Tajoli (2014). More in detail: RTPij =HIij −HEij/HIij +HEij, (1) HI ij is the “homogeneous” bilateral trade intensity index, measured as the ratio between a partner country’s share of the reporting country’s total trade (S ij ) and the former’s share of total trade from the rest of the world (Vij): HIij =Sij/Vij =Tij/Tiw/Toj/Tow, (2) where Tis total trade, wdenotes the world, and orefers to the ‘rest of the world’, i.e., the entire set of country i’s trade partners except for partner j. HE ij is complementary to HI ij and it is the homogeneous extra-bilateral trade intensity index, calculated as follows: HEij =1−Sij/1−Vij. (3) The RTP index ranges between minus one and one. An indicator equal to one signals an absolute preference from ito j, meaning that the former trades exclusively with the latter; on the contrary, the index takes value minus one if idoes not trade with j. Finally, the indicator is equal to zero when trade between the two countries is equal to the geographic neutrality benchmark. Moreover, since it is based on total trade, RTPij is equal to RTPji. The formula used to calculate revealed trade preferences is more complex than traditional indicators of trade intensity, modelled on Balassa’s specialization indexes. Such increased complexity, however, allows solving some statistical problems typical of traditional indicators (Iapadre 2006). Furthermore, as already underlined, this index fits well in the multilateral logic of gravity models, since trade intensity between two countries does not depend exclusively on their reciprocal exchanges but also on the whole international trade network. RTP indices can also be interpreted as providing a preliminary rough estimate of unexploited bilateral trade potential. In fact, any deviation from zero reflects the impact of distance and other factors likely to affect (positively or negatively) trade between two countries. For instance, if country iwere to record a negative RTP indicator with country j, that would imply that total trade (exports plus imports) of the former towards the latter is lower than the one that would be recorded in a geographic neutrality scenario. The gap between the RTP indicator and zero would represent unexploited bilateral trade potential between iand j. However, the neutrality benchmark of a frictionless world is too abstract, since it assumes the irrelevance of distance and any other source of trade cost. Substantially significant untapped trade potentials can only be detected by adjusting the benchmark for the possible role of bilateral trade costs (relative to MTR). Then, in Section 5, we will estimate a ‘gravity-adjusted’ benchmark, which takes into account not only the trade size of all countries (as in the unadjusted neutrality benchmark), but also distance and other dyadic variables that can affect bilateral trade costs, relative to MTR. The differences between actual and ‘gravity-adjusted’ RTP indices, i.e., the estimated residuals of our gravity equation, will be considered as a more meaningful measure of untapped trade potential, which could be affected by the quality of infrastructure and other country-specific (non-dyadic) variables. This is the hypothesis which we will test with our second estimation. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52 6 of 15 4. Data and Descriptive Analysis Since the area covered by the BRI is not precisely defined, this paper focuses on those countries directly located along the geographical “corridors” encompassed by the initiative, following De Soyres et al. (2018). Table 1provides a list of the 71 countries considered. Table 1. Economies located along the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) corridors. Region BRI Economies Total East Asia and the Pacific Brunei, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Lao, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan (China), Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam 15 Europe and Central Asia Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan. 30 South Asia Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. 8 Middle East and North Africa Bahrein, Egypt, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, West Bank and Gaza, Yemen. 16 Sub-Saharan Africa Kenya, Tanzania 2 Note: countries are grouped based on the regions identified by the World Bank. Source: De Soyres et al. (2018). We use trade data from the IMF-DOTS database complemented with those from WITSComtrade. Having a set of 71 countries, we should be able to identify 2485 bilateral trade flows; nevertheless, due to missing data, we are able to measure bilateral trade preference indexes for 1816 pairs of countries. The year considered is 2016 (three years after the official launch of the BRI), which was selected as it minimizes the number of missing data. The RTP has an average value of − 0.298, signaling that, in general, BRI countries do not reveal reciprocal trade preferences (Table 2). In fact, the average trade value measured between country pairs is lower than the one that would be recorded in the benchmark scenario of geographic neutrality. However, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation values indicate a high heterogeneity in trade intensity across country pairs. The RTP ranges from − 0.999 to 0.995; the pair with the lowest value is that of Iraq and Nepal, while the pair of countries with the highest indicator is Bhutan and India. Table 2. The revealed trade preference (RTP) index: summary statistics. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Obs RTP −0.298 0.605 −0.999 0.995 1816 More in detail, we present the bilateral preferential trade links (RTPs) for the six corridors encompassed by the BRI. Looking at the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC) (Table 3), the intensity of bilateral trade between China and Mongolia is high, and Russa and Mongolia, too, show a strong trade preference. It is also interesting to note that the value of the index between China and Russia is not as high as expected, given that the two countries share a long border. Table 3. RTP index for countries in the China–Mongolia–Russia Economic Corridor (CMREC). RTP China Mongolia Russia China - - - Mongolia 0.84 - - Russia 0.13 0.79 - Revealed trade preferences are strong also between some of the countries located along the New Eurasian Land Bridge (NELB) (Table 4). In particular, intensity of bilateral trade is very high between Russia and Belarus and Russia and Kazakhstan. The China–Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor (CICPEC) connects China and the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). As expected, the RTP J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52 7 of 15 indicator reveals a preference between almost all the countries (RTP index is negative only between Myanmar and Cambodia) (Table 5), which is not only due to their geographical proximity. In fact, in 1992 the ASEAN countries signed an initial agreement aimed at establishing a free trade area and, despite slow progresses, intra-ASEAN tariffs have been significantly reduced in the following decades 2 . Moreover, in 2004, China and the ASEAN countries signed an agreement to promote an easier movement of goods, later extended also to services in 2007. This process led to the creation of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA), active since 1 January 2010. Table 4. RTP index for countries in the New Eurasian Land Bridge (NELB). RTP Belarus China Kazakhstan Poland Russia Belarus - China −0.48 - Kazakhstan 0.64 0.21 - Poland 0.57 −0.49 0.03 - Russia 0.97 0.13 0.90 0.44 - Table 5. RTP index for countries in the China–Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor (CICPEC). RTP Cambodia China Laos Malaysia Myanmar Singapore Thailand Vietnam Cambodia - China 0.26 - Laos 0.49 0.38 - Malaysia 0.06 0.27 0.61 - Myanmar −0.72 0.64 0.95 0.45 - Singapore 0.42 0.12 0.56 0.82 0.69 - Thailand 0.84 0.23 0.98 0.63 0.88 0.43 - Vietnam 0.77 0.41 0.75 0.36 0.16 0.15 0.47 - In the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the RTP index between the two countries is 0.43; being higher than the one that would be recorded in a geographic neutrality scenario, the indicator signals a trade preference between the pair of countries. In the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIMEC) (Table 6) the RTP index is negative only between Myanmar and Bangladesh; given the geographical proximity between the two countries, this negative value may be due to other types of trade barriers, such as the poor quality of infrastructure. The RTP index between India and China is equal to 0, i.e., their total trade (exports plus imports) is equal to the one that would be expected in a geographic neutrality scenario. Table 6. RTP index for countries in the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIMEC). RTP Bangladesh China India Myanmar Bangladesh - China 0.23 - India 0.65 0 - Myanmar −0.14 0.64 0.60 - The China–Central Asia–West Asia Economic Corridor (CCWAEC) is the widest corridor of the BRI and links China to the Arabian Peninsula (Table 7). Countries having a central geographical position in the corridor (for instance, Saudi Arabia and Yemen) present positive revealed trade preferences with almost all their trading partners. The more peripheral countries, instead, present negative values of the index (for example trade preferences are negative between Greece and 12 out of its 16 trading partners) and this is certainly influenced by their geographical position; however, a large perceived distance between countries, due for instance to political factors, can also play an important role. 2https://asean.org/asean-economic-community/asean-free-trade-area-afta-council/. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52 8 of 15 Table 7. RTP index for countries in the China–Central Asia–West Asia Economic Corridor (CCWAEC). RTP China Djibouti Egypt Greece India Indonesia Israel Kenya Malaysia Maldives Pakistan Saudi Arabia Sri Lanka Tanzania Thailand Turkey Yemen China - Djibouti 0.28 - Egypt −0.15 0.53 - Greece −0.37 −0.64 0.70 - India 0 0.13 0.22 −0.53 - Indonesia 0.24 0.04 −0.03 −0.50 0.46 - Israel −0.18 −0.52 −0.51 0.38 0.32 −0.71 - Kenya 0.33 0.69 0.73 −0.61 0.72 0.22 −0.18 - Malaysia 0.27 −0.32 −0.34 −0.76 0.25 0.52 −0.43 −0.26 - Maldives 0.12 na. −0.18 −0.77 0.71 0.37 −0.94 na. 0.64 - Pakistan 0.43 0.60 −0.04 −0.40 0.21 0.56 −0.98 0.86 0.16 0.44 - Saudi Arabia 0.12 0.82 0.67 0.33 0.63 0.15 na. 0.68 −0.13 −0.80 0.59 - Sri Lanka 0.18 −0.68 −0.14 −0.68 0.81 0.16 0.18 −0.11 0.30 .98 0.69 0.03 - Tanzania 0.30 0.36 −0.08 −0.55 0.82 0.01 −0.47 0.96 0.31 −0.94 0.42 0.42 −0.34 - Thailand 0.23 −0.56 −0.26 −0.69 0.01 0.61 −0.22 −0.31 0.63 0.68 0.08 0.27 0.16 −0.30 - Turkey −0.27 −0.03 0.59 0.59 −0.03 −0.34 0.52 −0.21 −0.32 0.27 −0.15 0.20 −0.24 −0.26 −0.49 - Yemen 0.19 0.88 0.49 −0.62 0.45 0.45 na. 0.73 0.17 na. 0.66 0.78 −0.32 −0.69 0.25 0.75 - J. Risk Financial Manag. 2021,14, 52 15 of 15 Pöyhönen, Pentti. 1963. A Tentative Model for the Volume of Trade between Countries. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 90: 93–100. Ramasamy, Bala, and Matthew C.H. Yeung. 2019. China’s One Belt One Road Initiative: The Impact of Trade Facilitation versus Physical Infrastructure on Exports. World Economy 42: 1673–94. [CrossRef] Redding, Stephen J., and Matthew A. Turner. 2015. Transportation Costs and the Spatial Organization of Economic Activity. In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Edited by Duranton Gilles, Henderson Vernon and Strange William. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1339–98. Shaoshi, Xu. 2015. Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road. Beijing: China’s National Development and Reform Commission. Tinbergen, Jan. 1962. Shaping the World Economy: Suggestions for an International Economic Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund. Yang, Gaoju, Xianhai Huang, Jiahui Huang, and Hangyu Chen. 2020. Assessment of the Effects of Infrastructure Investment under the Belt and Road Initiative. China Economic Review 60: 101418. [CrossRef] Yotov, Yoto V., Roberta Piermartini, José-Antonio Monteiro, and Mario Larch. 2016. An Advanced Guide to Trade Policy Analysis: The Structural Gravity Model. Geneva: World Trade Organization. [CrossRef] Yu, Chunjiao, Ren Zhang, Lian An, and Zhixing Yu. 2020. Has China’s Belt and Road Initiative Intensified Bilateral Trade Links between China and the Involved Countries? Sustainability 12: 6747. [CrossRef] Yu, Hong. 2017. Motivation behind China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ Initiatives and Establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Journal of Contemporary China 26: 353–68. [CrossRef] Zhang, Jianhong, and Arjen Van Witteloostuijn. 2004. Economic Openness and Trade Linkages of China: An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Chinese Trade Intensities from 1993 to 1999. Review of World Economics 140: 254–81. [CrossRef]