Discussion on Coordination Mechanism of Digital Trade Barriers Formed by Data Governance Differences from the Perspective of Gravity Model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/7hpfbs80Keywords:
Gravity model, Data governance, Digital trade barriers, Institutional distance, Coordination mechanismAbstract
A gravity model can be used to examine how digital trade barriers form at the level of theory. This paper applies the above framework to explore how different data governance models in various countries lead to trade restriction effects via institutional distance. The three governance models in the United States, the European Union and China are a market-oriented system, a rights-based system and a security-oriented system, respectively, and differ in terms of values and regulatory paths. The institution has added new forms of trade barriers, such as higher cross-border compliance costs and greater regulatory uncertainty. The OECD Digital Services Trade Restrictiveness Index (Digital STRI) covers 91 economies as of 2024, spanning the period 2014–2024. The data show that global digital services trade barriers rose by 25% cumulatively between 2014 and 2023. By early 2023, 40 countries had introduced around 100 data localisation measures, and China ranked 71st out of 85 economies. Breakdown of these barriers requires the establishment of a hierarchical and progressive coordination mechanism at the three levels of bilateral mutual recognition, regional cooperation and multilateral systems, and the data governance rules can gradually shift from a fragmented state to one of compatibility and mutual recognition, thereby reducing the inhibiting effect of institutional distance on digital trade.
Downloads
References
[1] Yotov, Y. V., Piermartini, R., & Larch, M. (2016). An advanced guide to trade policy analysis: The structural gravity model. WTO iLibrary.
[2] Ferracane, M., & Marel, E. V. D. (2019). Do data policy restrictions inhibit trade in services? Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS, 29.
[3] Dai, L. H., Zhou, L. L., & Lu, J. W. (2024). The impacts of cross‑border data flow rules on digital service trade under the framework of RTAs. Intertrade, (3), 72–85.
[4] Potluri, S. R., Sridhar, V., & Rao, S. (2020). Effects of data localization on digital trade: An agent‑based modeling approach. Telecommunications Policy, 44(9), 102022.
[5] Van Bergeijk, P. A., & Brakman, S. (Eds.). (2010). The gravity model in international trade: Advances and applications.
[6] González, J. L., Casalini, F., & Porras, J. (2022). A preliminary mapping of data localisation measures.
[7] Frey, C. B., & Presidente, G. (2024). Privacy regulation and firm performance: Estimating the GDPR effect globally. Economic Inquiry, 62(3), 1074–1089.
[8] Ferracane, M. F., González Ugarte, S., & van der Marel, E. (2025). The Brussels effect in Africa: Is it beneficial for intra‑regional trade in digital services? Journal of International Economic Law, 28(1), 1–22.
[9] Del Giovane, C., Ferencz, J., & González, J. L. (2023). The nature, evolution and potential implications of data localisation measures. OECD Trade Policy Papers.
[10] Bauer, M., Lee‑Makiyama, H., Van der Marel, E., & Verschelde, B. (2014). The costs of data localisation: Friendly fire on economic recovery (No. 3/2014). ECIPE occasional paper.
[11] Zhu, X. (2025). Conflict and coordination between data sovereignty and digital trade liberalisation: An analysis of cross‑border data flow policies in China and the EU. Studies in Law and Justice, 4(5), 56–65.
[12] Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2014). Gravity equations: Workhorse, toolkit, and cookbook. In Handbook of international economics (Vol. 4, pp. 131–195). Elsevier.
[13] Zhai, D. (2025). RCEP rules on cross‑border data flows: Asian characteristics and implications for developing countries. Asia Pacific Law Review, 33(1), 24–45.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
