Evidence-based interpretation and implications of the bibliometric findings
| Bibliometric findings from the present study | Theoretical interpretation | Implications for logistics and trade policy | Possible empirical operationalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gravity models remain the main methodological foundation of the field (Figures 4–6; Table 4) | Structural gravity provides a theoretically consistent framework for explaining bilateral trade through economic size, bilateral trade costs, market access and multilateral resistance. It is therefore suitable for evaluating the trade-creation, trade-diversion and general-equilibrium effects of FTAs (Baier and Bergstrand, 2007, 2009; Yotov et al., 2016; Anderson et al., 2018; Egger et al., 2022) | Conventional FTA evaluation should be extended beyond average trade-flow effects to examine whether preferential relationships remain stable during disruptions and recover more rapidly afterward (WTO, 2021) | Estimate a structural gravity model that interacts FTA membership with an externally identified shock while controlling for exporter-time, importer-time and country-pair fixed effects |
| Supply-chain management occupies a bridging position between the trade-policy core and resilience-related themes (Figure 5; Table 4) | Supply-chain resilience extends trade analysis by introducing exposure, shock transmission, resistance, adaptation and recovery. Production-network studies demonstrate that disruptions propagate upstream and downstream through direct and indirect buyer–supplier relationships (Carvalho et al., 2021; Baldwin and Freeman, 2022) | FTA analysis should incorporate customs efficiency, transport reliability, shipment visibility, supplier substitutability, alternative corridors and port connectivity as mechanisms that influence trade continuity (Arvis et al., 2023; OECD, 2025) | Use customs-clearance time, port dwell time, transport-time variability, route diversity, supplier-switching probability, trade losses during shocks and recovery duration |
| Risk, sustainability and supply-chain resilience remain comparatively specialized themes (Figure 6) | Gravity models mainly identify bilateral trade allocation, whereas network and risk approaches reveal indirect dependencies, bottlenecks, critical nodes and systemic shock-propagation channels. The two approaches are complementary but not yet fully integrated (Carvalho et al., 2021; Ren et al., 2024) | Bilateral trade-policy evaluation should be combined with production-network and logistics-risk analysis to identify vulnerabilities that aggregate trade values alone may not reveal | Combine structural gravity estimates with input–output linkages, network centrality, supplier concentration, upstreamness, bottleneck dependence and simulated node-removal measures |
| Trade agreements, free trade and trade liberalization constitute highly central themes (Figure 6) | FTAs influence not only market access but also firms’ participation in global value chains and the geographical organization of sourcing and production. These effects vary according to agreement depth, sector, trade margin and the distinction between intermediate and final goods (Baier et al., 2014, 2018; Cardozo et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2024) | FTA assessment should consider tariff preferences together with customs cooperation, rules of origin, regulatory compatibility, mutual recognition, digital-trade provisions, transit arrangements and crisis-coordination mechanisms | Introduce agreement-depth indices and provision-specific variables covering customs, digital trade, regulatory cooperation, standards, transit, information sharing and emergency consultation |
| The effect of trade integration on resilience is theoretically ambiguous | FTAs may strengthen resilience by lowering trade costs, enlarging the range of accessible suppliers and facilitating substitution. However, they may also increase vulnerability when integration generates excessive dependence on specific partners, products, inputs or transport corridors (Baldwin and Freeman, 2022; WTO, 2021; Xiao et al., 2026) | Policymakers should assess both the diversification benefits created by an agreement and any new forms of concentration or dependency. Resilience should not automatically be equated with deeper integration, reshoring or shorter supply chains (OECD, 2025) | Measure import-source concentration, export-market concentration, supplier numbers, critical-input dependence, trade volatility, shock-related trade losses, partner substitution and recovery time |
| Logistics-related themes are less central than conventional trade outcomes (Figures 4 and 6) | Geographical distance is an incomplete proxy for operational trade costs. Effective logistics performance also depends on customs efficiency, infrastructure, international shipment arrangements, logistics-service quality, tracking and tracing, connectivity, timeliness and reliability (Arvis et al., 2023) | Future gravity applications should complement geographical distance with time-varying indicators of border delays, port congestion, shipping connectivity, service frequency, transport reliability, digitalization and alternative-route availability | Incorporate Logistics Performance Index components, liner-shipping connectivity, border-crossing time, port dwell time, maritime-service frequency, transport-time variability and digital-documentation indicators |
| Sustainability and disruption-related topics form specialized but increasingly relevant research streams (Figures 5 and 6) | Trade efficiency, environmental sustainability and resilience may be complementary in some supply-chain configurations but may involve trade-offs in others. FTA utilization can alter production costs, carbon emissions, network design and adaptation strategies during disruptions (Nagao et al., 2022; Kinoshita et al., 2023) | Trade and logistics policies should be assessed jointly in terms of economic cost, environmental performance, continuity of supply and adaptive capacity | Jointly evaluate trade costs, carbon emissions, supplier diversification, inventory requirements, route reconfiguration, trade continuity and post-shock recovery performance |
| Bibliometric findings from the present study | Theoretical interpretation | Implications for logistics and trade policy | Possible empirical operationalization |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gravity models remain the main methodological foundation of the field ( | Structural gravity provides a theoretically consistent framework for explaining bilateral trade through economic size, bilateral trade costs, market access and multilateral resistance. It is therefore suitable for evaluating the trade-creation, trade-diversion and general-equilibrium effects of FTAs ( | Conventional FTA evaluation should be extended beyond average trade-flow effects to examine whether preferential relationships remain stable during disruptions and recover more rapidly afterward ( | Estimate a structural gravity model that interacts FTA membership with an externally identified shock while controlling for exporter-time, importer-time and country-pair fixed effects |
| Supply-chain management occupies a bridging position between the trade-policy core and resilience-related themes ( | Supply-chain resilience extends trade analysis by introducing exposure, shock transmission, resistance, adaptation and recovery. Production-network studies demonstrate that disruptions propagate upstream and downstream through direct and indirect buyer–supplier relationships ( | FTA analysis should incorporate customs efficiency, transport reliability, shipment visibility, supplier substitutability, alternative corridors and port connectivity as mechanisms that influence trade continuity ( | Use customs-clearance time, port dwell time, transport-time variability, route diversity, supplier-switching probability, trade losses during shocks and recovery duration |
| Risk, sustainability and supply-chain resilience remain comparatively specialized themes ( | Gravity models mainly identify bilateral trade allocation, whereas network and risk approaches reveal indirect dependencies, bottlenecks, critical nodes and systemic shock-propagation channels. The two approaches are complementary but not yet fully integrated ( | Bilateral trade-policy evaluation should be combined with production-network and logistics-risk analysis to identify vulnerabilities that aggregate trade values alone may not reveal | Combine structural gravity estimates with input–output linkages, network centrality, supplier concentration, upstreamness, bottleneck dependence and simulated node-removal measures |
| Trade agreements, free trade and trade liberalization constitute highly central themes ( | FTAs influence not only market access but also firms’ participation in global value chains and the geographical organization of sourcing and production. These effects vary according to agreement depth, sector, trade margin and the distinction between intermediate and final goods ( | FTA assessment should consider tariff preferences together with customs cooperation, rules of origin, regulatory compatibility, mutual recognition, digital-trade provisions, transit arrangements and crisis-coordination mechanisms | Introduce agreement-depth indices and provision-specific variables covering customs, digital trade, regulatory cooperation, standards, transit, information sharing and emergency consultation |
| The effect of trade integration on resilience is theoretically ambiguous | FTAs may strengthen resilience by lowering trade costs, enlarging the range of accessible suppliers and facilitating substitution. However, they may also increase vulnerability when integration generates excessive dependence on specific partners, products, inputs or transport corridors ( | Policymakers should assess both the diversification benefits created by an agreement and any new forms of concentration or dependency. Resilience should not automatically be equated with deeper integration, reshoring or shorter supply chains ( | Measure import-source concentration, export-market concentration, supplier numbers, critical-input dependence, trade volatility, shock-related trade losses, partner substitution and recovery time |
| Logistics-related themes are less central than conventional trade outcomes ( | Geographical distance is an incomplete proxy for operational trade costs. Effective logistics performance also depends on customs efficiency, infrastructure, international shipment arrangements, logistics-service quality, tracking and tracing, connectivity, timeliness and reliability ( | Future gravity applications should complement geographical distance with time-varying indicators of border delays, port congestion, shipping connectivity, service frequency, transport reliability, digitalization and alternative-route availability | Incorporate Logistics Performance Index components, liner-shipping connectivity, border-crossing time, port dwell time, maritime-service frequency, transport-time variability and digital-documentation indicators |
| Sustainability and disruption-related topics form specialized but increasingly relevant research streams ( | Trade efficiency, environmental sustainability and resilience may be complementary in some supply-chain configurations but may involve trade-offs in others. FTA utilization can alter production costs, carbon emissions, network design and adaptation strategies during disruptions ( | Trade and logistics policies should be assessed jointly in terms of economic cost, environmental performance, continuity of supply and adaptive capacity | Jointly evaluate trade costs, carbon emissions, supplier diversification, inventory requirements, route reconfiguration, trade continuity and post-shock recovery performance |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.