This article bridges two important approaches in the study of global trade – social network analysis and the gravity model – and examines how countries’ structural locations in the global trade network influence bilateral trade from 1948 through 2000. The authors identify a cohesion effect of structural equivalence (the degree to which two nodes have similar ties with other nodes in the network) in global trade: two structurally equivalent countries develop more bilateral trade even after controlling for conventional dyadic factors. This is because common trading ties with other countries promote similar sociocultural values, information flows, and converging institutions, thereby boosting bilateral trade. The authors further demonstrate that the cohesion-generating role of structural equivalence has become more salient over time in the increasingly complex global trade network. Overall, this study shows that bilateral trade is embedded within the structural context of the overall global trade network, and this structural effect is historically contingent on the evolving nature of global economic activities.
AndersonJEVan WincoopE (2003) Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review93: 170–192.
2.
ArndtSWKierzkowskiH (2001) Fragmentation: New Production Patterns in the World Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BandeljN (2002) Embedded economies: Social relations as determinants of foreign direct investment in Central and Eastern Europe. Social Forces81(2): 411–444.
4.
BandeljN (2009) The global economy as instituted process: The case of Central and Eastern Europe. American Sociological Review74: 128–149.
5.
BarberB (1995) All economies are ‘embedded’: The career of a concept, and beyond. Social Research62: 387–413.
6.
BoormanSAWhiteHC (1976) Social structure from multiple networks II: Role structures. American Journal of Sociology81: 1384–446.
7.
BreigerRL (1981) Structures of economic interdependence among nations. In: BlauPMertonR (eds) Continuities in Structural Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 353–380.
8.
BurtRS (1987) Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology92: 1287–1335.
9.
BurtRS (1988) Some properties of structural equivalence measures derived from sociometric choice data. Social Networks10: 1–28.
10.
BurtRS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
ClarkRBeckfieldJ (2009) A new trichotomous measure of world-system position using the international trade network. International Journal of Comparative Sociology50: 5–38.
12.
CoeNMHessMYeungHW-C. (2004) ‘Globalizing’ regional development: A global production networks perspective. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers29: 468–484.
13.
ColemanJKatzEMenzelH (1957) The diffusion of an innovation among physicians. Sociometry20: 253–270.
14.
DekkerDFransesPHKrackhardtD (2003) An equilibrium-correction model for dynamic network data. Journal of Mathematical Sociology27: 193–215.
15.
DiMaggioP (1994) Culture and economy. In: SmelserNSwedbergR (eds) The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 27–57.
16.
EmirbayerMGoodwinJ (1994) Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology99: 1411–1454.
17.
FeenstraRC (1998) Integration of trade and disintegration of production in the global economy. Journal of Economic Perspective12: 31–50.
18.
FeenstraRCMarkusenJRRoseAK (2001) Using the gravity equation to differentiate among alternative theories of trade. Canadian Journal of Economics34: 430–447.
FligsteinN (2001) The Architecture of Market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
FrankelJA (1997) Regional Trading Blocs in the World Economic System. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
22.
FrankelJA (ed.) (1998) The Regionalization of the World Economy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
23.
FriedkinNE (1984) Structural cohesion and equivalence explanations of social homogeneity. Sociological Methods and Research12: 235–261.
24.
FriedkinNE (1998) A Structural Theory of Social Influence, Vol. 13. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
GereffiGKorzeniewiczM (eds) (1994) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism. Westport, CT: Praeger.
26.
GereffiGHumphreyJSturgeonT (2005) The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy12: 78–104.
27.
GranovetterM (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology91: 481–510.
28.
GuisoLSapienzaPZingalesL (2004) Cultural biases in economic exchange. Kellogg School of Management of Northwestern University Working Paper.
29.
GulatiR (1995) Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 619–652.
30.
GulatiRGargiuloM (1999) Where do interorganizational networks come from?American Journal of Sociology104: 1439–1493.
31.
HummelsD (2001) Time as a trade barrier. Purdue University Center for Global Trade Analysis Working Paper No. 1152.
32.
IngramPRobinsonJBuschML (2005) The intergovernmental network of world trade: IGO connectedness, governance, and embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology111: 824–858.
33.
KimSShinE-H (2002) A longitudinal analysis of globalization and regionalization in international trade: A social network approach. Social Forces81: 445–468.
34.
KimSSkvoretzJ (2010) Embedded trade: A third party effect. Social Science Quarterly91(4): 964–983.
35.
KrackhardtD (1988) Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks10: 359–381.
36.
KrugmanP (1995) Growing world trade: Causes and consequences. Brooking Papers on Economic Activity1: 327–362.
37.
LallSAlbaladejoMJinkangZ (2004) Mapping fragmentation: Electronics and automobiles in East Asia and Latin America. Oxford Development Studies32: 407–432.
38.
LorrainFWhiteHC (1971) Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology1: 49–80.
39.
MahutgaMC (2006) The persistence of structural inequality? A network analysis of international trade, 1965–2000. Social Forces84: 1863–1889.
40.
MansfieldEReinhardtE (2008) International institutions and the volatility of international trade. International Organization62: 621–652.
41.
MeyerJWRowanB (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83: 340–363.
42.
MizruchiMS (1990) Cohesion, structural equivalence, and similarity of behavior: An approach to the study of corporate political power. Sociological Theory8: 16–32.
43.
MizruchiMS (1993) Cohesion, equivalence, and similarity of behavior: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Social Networks15: 275–307.
44.
MizruchiMSStearnsLBMarquisC (2006) The conditional nature of embeddedness: A study of borrowing by large U.S. firms, 1973–1994. American Sociological Review71: 310–333.
45.
RoseAK (2004) Do we really know that the WTO increases trade?American Economic Review94: 98–114.
46.
SacksMAVentrescaMJUzziB (2001) Global institutions and networks: Contingent change in the structure of world trade advantage, 1965–1980. American Behavioral Scientist44: 1579–1601.
47.
SmithDAWhiteDR (1992) Structure and dynamics of the global economy: Network analysis of international trade 1965–1980. Social Forces70: 857–893.
48.
SnyderDKickEL (1979) Structural position in the world system and economic growth, 1955–1970: A multiple-network analysis of transnational interactions. American Journal of Sociology84: 1096–1126.
49.
SturgeonTJ (2002) Modular production networks: A new American model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporate Change11: 451–496.
50.
TumaNBHannanMT (1984) Social Dynamics. New York: Academic Press.
51.
UzziB (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review61: 674–698.
52.
UzziB (1999) Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review64: 481–505.
53.
WallersteinIM (1974) The Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press.
54.
WhiteHC (2002) Markets from Networks: Socioeconomic Models of Production. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
WhitfordJPotterC (2007) Regional economics, open networks and spatial fragmentation of production. Socio-Economic Review5: 497–526.
56.
YeatsAJ (1998) Just how big is global production sharing?World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 1871.
57.
ZelizerVA (1988) Beyond the polemics on the market: Establishing a theoretical and empirical agenda. Sociological Forum3: 614–634.
58.
ZelizerVA (2003) Enter culture. In: GuillenMCollinsREnglandPMeyerM (eds) The New Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 101–128.
59.
ZhouM (2010) Multidimensionality and gravity in global trade, 1950–2000. Social Forces88(4): 1619–1643.
60.
ZhouM (2011) Intensification of geo-cultural homophily in global trade: Evidence from the gravity model. Social Science Research40(1): 193–209.
