Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

An Empirical Investigation into the Role of Technology Gap in the Trade Relations of the EU Member States



Objective: The objective of this article is an empirical analysis of the role of technology gap in explaining the intensity of trade relations of the EU28 Member States over the period 1995-2015.

Research Design & Methods: We construct a basic trade model in a gravity framework and further augment it by incorporating various measures of technology gap. We verified the robustness of the results by re-estimating the model into subgroups depicting the south-south, south-north & north-north trade.

Findings: We have found that the technology gap plays a substantial role in determining the intensity of present trade relations of the EU28 Member States. We tested the robustness of the results and have found that the impact of technology gap varies with respect to different groups of reporters and partners depending on their level of technological sophistication. The results are in line with the postulates of trade theory.

Implications & Recommendations: Technology gap plays an important role in determining the intensity of trade within the group of the EU28. The gradual convergence in incomes and TFP levels is likely to modify its role, with more effort directed at horizontal differentiation which in turn could lead to the intensification of the IIT.

Contribution & Value Added:  We tested various standard and non-orthodox measures of technological gap. The semi-mixed effects panel data model was estimated with the use of PPML – a new and superior approach.



technology gap, gravity model, panel data, semi-mixed effects, PPML,



  1. Acemoglu, D. (1998). Why do new technologies complement skills? Directed technical change and wage inequality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 1055-1089.
  2. Acemoglu, D., Gancia, G., & Zilibotti, F. (2012). Competing engines of growth: Innovation and standardization. Journal of Economic Theory, 147(2), 570-601.
  3. Aghion P., Howitt P.(1998). Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  4. Anderson, J. E. (2011). The gravity model. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 133-160.
  5. Anderson, J. E., & Van Wincoop, E. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170-192.
  6. Bergstrand, J. H. (1985). The gravity equation in international trade: some microeconomic foundations and empirical evidence. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 474-481.
  7. Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B., & Lawrence, R. Z. (1995). Exporters, jobs, and wages in US manufacturing: 1976-1987. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics, 67-119.
  8. Brodzicki, T., & Śledziewska, K. (2016). Rola luki technologicznej w wymianie handlowej Polski. Estymacja panelowa modelu grawitacyjnego. International Business and Global Economy, 325-341.
  9. Brodzicki, T. (2016). The role of technology gap in the trade of Poland. Panel estimation in the gravity framework, Collegium of Economic Analysis Annals, 41, 127-144.
  10. Comin, D. A., & Mestieri, M. (2013). Technology diffusion: Measurement, causes and consequences, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 19052.
  11. Cotsomitis, J., DeBresson, C., & Kwan, A. (1991). A re-examination of the technology gap theory of trade: some evidence from time series data for OECD countries. Review of World Economics, 127(4), 792-799.
  12. De Groot, H. L., Linders, G. J., Rietveld, P., & Subramanian, U. (2004). The institutional determinants of bilateral trade patterns. Kyklos, 57(1), 103-123.
  13. Desai, M., Fukuda-Parr, S., Johansson, C., & Sagasti, F. (2002). Measuring the technology achievement of nations and the capacity to participate in the network age. Journal of Human Development, 3(1), 95-122.
  14. Dosi, G., & Soete, L. (1983). Technology Gap and Cost-Based Adjustment: Some Explorations on the Determinants of International Competitiveness. Metroeconomica, 35(3), 197-222. 10.1111/j.1467-999X.1983.tb00781.x
  15. Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2002). Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica, 70(5), 1741-1779. 10.1111/1468-0262.00352
  16. Egger, P. (2000). A note on the proper econometric specification of the gravity equation. Economics Letters, 66(1), 25-31.
  17. European Commission (2015). Innovation Union Scoreboard. Brussels: European Commission.
  18. Filippini, C., & Molini, V. (2003). The determinants of East Asian trade flows: a gravity equation approach. Journal of Asian Economics, 14(5), 695-711.
  19. Feenstra, Robert C., Robert Inklaar and Marcel P. Timmer (2015), The Next Generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review, 105(10), 3150-3182, available for download at
  20. Freeman, C., Young, M. A., & Fuller, J. (1963). The plastics industry: a comparative study of research and innovation. National Institute Economic Review, 26, 22-62.
  21. Gancia, G. A., Müller, A., & Zilibotti, F. (2011). Structural Development Accounting. DP8254.
  22. Grossman, G., Helpman, E. M. (1991). Trade, Knowledge Spillovers, and Growth. European Economic Review, 35(2-3), 517-526.
  23. Grupp, H., & Mogee, M. E. (2004). Indicators for national science and technology policy: how robust are composite indicators?. Research Policy, 33(9), 1373-1384.
  24. Head K., Mayer T. (2014), Gravity Equations: Workhorse. Toolkit. and Cookbook, in: Gopinath G et al., The Handbook of International Economics, 2014, vol. 4., Elsevier, North-Holland.
  25. Hirsch S. (1974), Hypotheses Regarding Trade between Developing and Industrial Countries. In: Giersch H., (Ed)., The International Division of Labor, Mohr, Tubingen.
  26. Kepaptsoglou, K., Karlaftis, M. G., & Tsamboulas, D. (2010). The gravity model specification for modelling international trade flows and free trade agreement effects: a 10-year review of empirical studies. The open economics journal, 3(1).
  27. Kerr, W. R. (2017). Heterogeneous technology diffusion and Ricardian trade patterns. The World Bank Economic Review, 1-20.
  28. Krugman, P. (1979). A model of innovation, technology transfer, and the world distribution of income. Journal of Political Economy, 87(2), 253-266.
  29. Kubielas, S. (2011) Innowacje i luka technologiczna w gospodarce globalnej opartej na wiedzy. Strukturalne i makroekonomiczne uwarunkowania. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
  30. Kwiatkowski, J. (2015). Kanały i determinanty dyfuzji technologii. Współczesna Gospodarka, 6(3), 21-30.
  31. Lall, S. (1992). Technological capabilities and industrialization. World development, 20(2), 165-186.
  32. Martínez-Zarzoso, I., & Márquez-Ramos, L. (2005). Does technology foster trade? Empirical evidence for developed and developing countries. Atlantic Economic Journal, 33(1), 55-69.
  33. Posner, M. V. (1961). International trade and technical change. Oxford economic papers, 13(3), 323-341.
  34. Proença, I., Sperlich, S., & Savaşcı, D. (2015). Semi-mixed effects gravity models for bilateral trade. Empirical economics, 48(1), 361-387.
  35. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71-S102.
  36. Santos Silva, J., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641-658.
  37. Schwab, K. (2010). The global competitiveness report 2010-2011. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
  38. Soete, L. L. (1981). A general test of technological gap trade theory. Review of World Economics, 117(4), 638-660.
  39. Tinbergen, J. (1962). The World Economy. Suggestions for an International Economic Policy. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
  40. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The quarterly journal of economics, 80(2), 190-207.
  41. Wakelin, K. (1998). The role of innovation in bilateral OECD trade performance. Applied Economics, 30(10), 1335-1346.
  42. Wang, C., Wei, Y., & Liu, X. (2010). Determinants of bilateral trade flows in OECD countries: evidence from gravity panel data models. The World Economy, 33(7), 894-915.


Download data is not yet available.