A theory on the role of wholesalers in international trade based on economies of scope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper offers a theoretical foundation for the existence of wholesalers and other intermediaries in international trade and analyzes their role in an economy with heterogeneous manufacturing firms and fixed costs of exporting. Wholesalers are assumed to possess a technology such that they can buy manufacturing goods domestically and sell in foreign markets and they can, unlike manufacturers, export more than one good. A wholesaler therefore faces an additional fixed cost, which increases in the number of goods it handles. The presence of wholesale firms leads to productivity sorting. The most productive firms export on their own by paying a fixed cost, but a range of firms with intermediate productivity levels export through international wholesalers. A higher fixed cost of exporting to a destination means that wholesalers handle: (i) a higher share of total export volumes to this destination and (ii) a higher share of the exported product scope (i.e., the number of exported products) to this destination. A higher fixed cost of exporting gives wholesalers a larger role, since these can spread the fixed cost across more than one good. The wholesale technology therefore exhibits economies of scope. An empirical analysis using Swedish firm‐level data supports the main assumption and predictions of the model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".