The Invisible Walls: how Freight Transport Costs shape European Internal Trade

Authors

  • Paolo Costa Ca' Foscari University of Venice image/svg+xml Author
  • Roberto Roson Ca' Foscari University of Venice image/svg+xml Author
  • Martina Sartori Universitas Mercatorum Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65455/vjtvke47

Keywords:

European Union, Internal Duties, Transport Margins, Logistics Costs, Non-Tariff Barriers, Intra-EU Trade, COMEXT, GTAP, CGE Modeling, Market Integration, Distribution Costs, Trade Policy

Abstract

This paper investigates the magnitude and macroeconomic relevance of internal trade frictions—specifically freight transport and logistics costs—within the European Union, framing them as sui generis internal duties or non-tariff barriers that create "invisible walls" across the Single Market. Due to the severe limitations and reliability issues inherent in official statistical databases regarding bilateral transit margins, we propose an alternative empirical strategy. By harmonizing Eurostat’s SITC Rev. 4 trade data with the multi-sectoral structural framework of the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) social accounting matrix, we estimate bilateral origin-destination distribution margins across all 27 EU member states for six transportable commodity sectors. Our empirical findings reveal an average intra-European distribution margin of 6%, driven heavily by a commodity's value-to-weight ratio and country-specific geographic features, such as peripheral isolation or infrastructure bottlenecks. To evaluate the systemic and general equilibrium impacts of these frictions, the estimated margins are integrated into a global Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) simulation model. We simulate a hypothetical 50% reduction in all intra-European logistics costs, uncovering profound macroeconomic implications. The optimization of internal distribution networks generates an aggregate welfare gain of approximately $161 billion annually for the European Union and stimulates intra-EU trade flows by 5.72%, while simultaneously inducing a strategic trade diversion that contracts imports from extra-EU partners like China. Furthermore, the general equilibrium effects manifest asymmetrically across member states. While the continent's largest economies secure the highest absolute welfare benefits (quantifiable at $33 billion for Germany and $19 billion for France), the most transformative expansions in gross production volume are concentrated within highly open, smaller economies, led by Lithuania (+0.54%), Hungary (+0.45%), and Slovakia (+0.43%). Ultimately, the study highlights that sustaining the long-term international competitiveness of the Single Market requires European trade policy to expand beyond legal harmonization and actively invest in dismantling physical network inefficiencies.

References

[1]ANDERSON J E, VAN WINCOOP E. Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature, 2004, 42(3): 691-751.

[2]NITSCH V. National borders and international trade: evidence from the European Union. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 2000, 33(4): 1091-1105.

[3]GANAPATI S, WONG W F. How far goods travel: global transport and supply chains from 1965–2020. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2023, 37(3): 3-30.

[4]GANAPATI S, WONG W F, ZIV O. Entrepot: Hubs, scale, and trade costs. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2024, 16(4): 239-278.

[5]HUMMELS D. Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2007, 21(3): 131-154.

[6]HUMMELS D. Time as a trade barrier. West Lafayette, IN: Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, 2001.

[7]DJANKOV S, FREUND C, PHAM C S. Trading on time. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2010, 92(1): 166-173.

[8]NITSCH V, WOLF N. Tear down this wall: On the persistence of borders in trade. VoxEU.org, 2009.

[9]REDDING S J, STURM D M. The costs of remoteness: Evidence from German division and reunification. American Economic Review, 2008, 98(5): 1766-1797.

[10]LIMAO N, VENABLES A J. Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs, and trade. The World Bank Economic Review, 2001, 15(3): 451-479.

[11]ARIU A, HAKKALA K N, JENSEN J B, et al. Service imports, workforce composition, and firm performance: Evidence from Finnish microdata. Journal of International Economics, 2020, 125: 103342.

[12]HAGEMEJER J, MATUSZCZAK Ł. Single market enlargement and technical barriers to trade: Revisiting the evidence. Central European Economic Journal, 2024, 11(58): 79-96.

[13]REMOND-TIEDREZ I, RUEDA-CANTUCHE J M (Eds.). EU inter-country supply, use and input-output tables: Full international and global accounts for research in input-output analysis (FIGARO). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019.

[14]AGUIAR A, CHEPELIEV M, CORONG E, et al. The Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) database: Version 12. Journal of Global Economic Analysis, 2023, 8(1).

[15]HERTEL T W, TSIGAS M E. Structure of GTAP. Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and Applications, 1997, 13-73.

[16]HERTEL T, HUMMELS D, IVANIC M, et al. How confident can we be of CGE-based assessments of Free Trade Agreements? Economic Modelling, 2007, 24(4): 611-635.

[17]BURFISHER M E, ROBINSON S, THIERFELDER K. The impact of NAFTA on the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2001, 15(1): 125-144.

[18]BALDWIN R E, FRANCOIS J F, PORTES R. The costs and benefits of eastern enlargement: the impact on the EU and central Europe. Economic Policy, 1997, 12(24): 125-176.

[19]BEKKERS E, SCHROETER S. An economic analysis of the US-China trade conflict. Geneva: World Trade Organization (WTO), 2020.

[20]CORONG E L, HERTEL T W, MCDOUGALL R, et al. The standard GTAP model, version 7. Journal of Global Economic Analysis, 2017, 2(1): 1-119.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-25

Data Availability Statement

Readers may access upon request.

How to Cite

The Invisible Walls: how Freight Transport Costs shape European Internal Trade. (2026). Economics and Data Science, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.65455/vjtvke47