South Asia and Southeast Asia (SASEA) have exhibited overwhelmingly low intra-regional trade compared with other major regional groups such as the EU, NAFTA and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The present article attempts to understand the extent of trade potential between the economies of the SASEA, and it measures the loss of trade potential due to behind-the-border inefficiencies. The potential to trade is analysed with the help of the stochastic frontier gravity model (SFGM). The analysis indicates that there are substantial inefficiencies in bilateral trade among the economies of the SASEA. Following the method of Battese and Coelli, the technical efficiencies of bilateral trade have also been calculated. The comparison results indicate that the bilateral technical efficiencies within the region have been falling over the last 30 years. The article further estimates the SFGM for relatively important factors determining the bilateral trade. Noteworthy findings indicate that population has a negative effect on bilateral trade. At the same time, common religion registers as one of the essential variables for higher trade performance, along with common culture and language. The trends in trade creation or diversion are studied by extending the analysis over the three decades. The gravity analysis indicates that the region registered patterns of trade creation in the 1990s and 2000s. However, during 2010s, a significant trend of trade diversion was identified. This article attempts to make a case for increasing commitment to multilateral reduction in trade barriers among the SASEA countries and the eventual creation of a highly integrated trading bloc.
AcemogluD., JohnsonS., & RobinsonJ. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401.
2.
AkhterN., & GhaniE. (2010). Regional integration in South Asia: An analysis of trade flows using the gravity model. The Pakistan Development Review, 49(2), 105–118.
3.
AndersonE. (2020). The impact of trade liberalisation on poverty and inequality: Evidence from CGE models. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(6), 1208–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2020.05.006
4.
AndersonJ. E. (1979). A theoretical foundation for the gravity equation. The American Economic Review, 69(1), 106–116.
5.
AndersonJ. E. (2011). The gravity model. Annual Review of Economics, 3(1), 133–160.
6.
AndersonJ. E., & Van WincoopE. (2003). Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review, 93(1), 170–192.
7.
AthukoralaP.-C. (2008). Production networks and trade patterns in East Asia: Regionalization or globalization? (ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration, No. 44). Asian Development Bank.
8.
BagchiA. K. (1982). The political economy of underdevelopment. Cambridge University Press.
9.
BaierS. L., & BergstrandJ. H. (2004). Economic determinants of free trade agreements. Journal of International Economics, 64(1), 29–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1996(03)00079-5
10.
BaldwinR. (2016). The great convergence: Information technology and the new globalization. Harvard University Press.
11.
BatteseG. E., & CoelliT. J. (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics, 20(2), 325–332.
12.
BergstrandJ. H. (1989). The generalized gravity equation, monopolistic competition, and the factor-proportions theory in international trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(1), 143–153.
13.
BhattacharyaS. K., & DasG. G. (2014). Can south–south trade agreements reduce development deficits? An exploration of SAARC during 1995–2008. Journal of South Asian Development, 9(3), 253–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973174114549129
DeP., & IyengarK. (2014). Developing economic corridors in South Asia. www.adb.org
16.
DeP., & KumarasamyD. (2024). Assessing the trade–connectivity linkages in South Asia in post-pandemic period: An empirical investigation. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 29(4), 1694–1708. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2024.2318937
17.
DemeM., & NdrianasyE. R. (2017). Trade-creation and trade-diversion effects of regional trade arrangements: Low-income countries. Applied Economics, 49(22), 2188–2202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1234700
EbaidallaE. M., & AliM. E. M. (2023). Assessing intra-Arab trade integration and potential: Evidence from the stochastic frontier gravity model. International Trade Journal, 37(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853908.2022.2029725
20.
EkanayakeE. M., MukherjeeA., & VeeramacheneniB. (2010). Trade blocks and the gravity model: A study of economic integration among Asian developing countries. Journal of Economic Integration, 25(4), 627–643.
21.
GinsburghV., & WeberS. (2020). The economics of language. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 348–404.
22.
GreeneW. (2005). Fixed and random effects in stochastic frontier models. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 23, 7–32.
23.
GrinF. (2003). Language planning and economics. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4(1), 1–66.
24.
HaV. H., & ParsonsC. R. (2023). Vietnam’s ascendancy in the electronics trade and the role of inward foreign direct investment. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 24(3), 181–203.
25.
International Monetary Fund. (2025, April). World Economic Outlook Database: April 2025 Edition.
26.
JosephR. K., & KumarD. (2022). India’s trade in pharmaceutical products: A method for the classification of pharmaceutical products and recent trends (ISID Working Paper 248). https://isid.org.in
27.
KalirajanK. (2007). Regional cooperation and bilateral trade flows: An empirical measurement of resistance. International Trade Journal, 21(2), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853900701266555
28.
KalirajanK., & SinghK. (2008). A comparative analysis of China’s and India’s recent export Performances. http://direct.mit.edu/asep/article-pdf/7/1/1/1682393/asep.2008.7.1.1.pdf
29.
KaremeraD., SmithW. I., OjahK., & ColeJ. A. (1999). A gravity model analysis of the benefits of economic integration in the Pacific Rim. Journal of Economic Integration, 14(3), 347–367.
30.
KhatirM., & SrivastavaA. (2025). Deeper trade integration among South Asian and Southeast Asian Regions. Economic and Political Weekly, 60(24), 45–52.
31.
LeitãoN. C. (2024). Gravity Model and International Trade: A Survey of the Literature. Administrative Sciences, 14(9), 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090219
32.
Nath BhattacharyayB. (2011). Benefits and challenges of integrating South and Southeast Asia (ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration No. 76). Asian Development Bank.
33.
NurogluE. (2010). The impact of population on bilateral trade flows in the case of OIC. In Conference: 2nd International Conference on Islamic Economic Integration (Vol. 2010).
34.
OliveroM. P., & YotovY. V. (2012). Dynamic gravity: Endogenous country size and asset accumulation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41485640?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
35.
RavishankarG., & StackM. M. (2014). The gravity model and trade efficiency: A stochastic frontier analysis of Eastern European countries’ potential trade. World Economy, 37(5), 690–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.12144
36.
SchmidtP., & LovellC. K. (1979). Estimating technical and allocative inefficiency relative to stochastic production and cost frontiers. Journal of Econometrics, 9(3), 343–366.
37.
SeraficaR. B. (2019). Performance of Philippine services trade: An update. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
38.
ShahzadK. (2015). An RCA analysis of textiles and clothing in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 20(1), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.35536/LJE.2015.V20.I1.A6
39.
SilvaJ. S., & TenreyroS. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658.
40.
StackM., & PentecostE. J. (2011). A gravity model approach to estimating prospective trade gains in the EU accession and associated countries. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228968321
41.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2024). World population prospects 2024: Summary of results [Report]. Retrieved, 23August2025, from https://population.un.org/wpp/
42.
WignarajaG., MorganP. J., PlummerM. G., & ZhaiF. (2016). Economic implications of deeper South Asian–Southeast Asian integration: A CGE approach. In BhattacharyayA. B. M. N. R., MorganP. J. & PlummerM. G. (Eds), Connecting Asia (pp. 186–212). Edward Elgar Publishing.
43.
World Trade Organization (WTO). (2024). World Trade Statistical Review 2024. World Trade Organization.
44.
YotovY. V. (2022). Gravity at sixty: The workhorse model of trade. www.RePEc.org
45.
YotovY. V., PiermartiniR., MonteiroJ.-A., & LarchM. (2016). An advanced guide to trade policy analysis: The structural gravity model. WTO iLibrary.
46.
ZamN., & YakobN. A. (2017). The comparative advantage of Malaysia manufactured exports. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.21276/sjbms
