Trade Barriers and Trade Flows with Product Heterogeneity:
An Application to US Motion Picture Exports
Gordon Hanson, UC San Diego and NBER
Chong Xiang, Purdue University and NBER
October 2010
Abstract
We extend Melitz (2003) to allow for both global and bilateral fixed export costs. If
global (bilateral) export costs dominate, the average sales ratio (import sales per productvariety/domestic sales per variety), decreases (increases) in variable (fixed) trade barriers,
due to adjustment along the intensive (extensive) margin of trade. Using novel data on
bilateral US movie exports we find that (i) variation in box-office revenues per movie ismuch larger than in the number of movies exported, and (ii) the average sales ratio
decreases in geographic and linguistic distance. These findings suggest that global fixedexport costs dominate.

_____________
Hanson: gohanson@ucsd.edu; Xiang: cxiang@purdue.edu. We thank David Hummels, Marc Melitz,
Phillip McCalman, Nina Pavcnik, Stephen Redding, and seminar participants at UCSD, the NBER, thePrinceton University IES Workshop and the 2008 EIIT Meetings for helpful comments; Adina Ardelean,
Sirsha Chatterjee, Anca Cristea, Michael Ewens, and Jeffrey Lin for excellent research assistance; and the
National Science Foundation for financial support.

I Introduction
Fixed trade costs have become a common feature of international trade models.
To explain why most manufacturing plants do not export any output and why those that
do are relatively large and productive (Bernard and Jensen, 1999 and 2004), Melitz(2003), in widely cited work, develops a model with firm heterogeneity and fixed export
costs. Because of fixed trade charges, only more productive plants find it profitable tosell goods abroad.1
Fixed trade costs imply that adjustment in trade volumes may occur along boththe intensive margin (value of trade per product) and extensive margin (number of
products traded). In the standard monopolistic competition model, consumer love ofvariety leads all products to be exported, meaning trade varies at the intensive margin
only (Helpman and Krugman, 1985). A fall in transport costs causes exports of all
products to increase, consistent with the robust negative coefficient on distance in thegravity model of trade (Anderson and van Wincoop, 2004). With fixed export costs andfirm heterogeneity, a fall in transport costs may cause trade volumes to increase boththrough existing exporters exporting more and new firms beginning to export. Bernard,
Jensen, Redding, and Schott (2007) find that most variation in US merchandise exports is
at the extensive margin, with smaller countries importing fewer US products.
Despite abundant indirect evidence that fixed trade costs exist, we know little
about their nature. While we can measure variable trade barriers in the form of tariffs ortransport fees, no similar data exist for expenses that are fixed. If fixed export costs arebilateral, such that firms incur a charge to enter each new foreign market, small countries
will be disadvantaged in global trade. However, if fixed export costs are largely global innature, such that once firms establish an international distribution network they face only
variable charges in adding new markets, small countries are not at a disadvantage and it is
only less productive firms that fail to participate in trade.
In this paper, we develop a version of the Melitz (2003) model with both global
and bilateral fixed export costs. For countries where global fixed export costs are large
relative to bilateral costs, import sales per product variety (relative to domestic sales pervariety) are decreasing in variable trade barriers, as adjustment occurs along the intensive
margin of trade. For countries where bilateral fixed export costs are relatively large,
imports per product variety are increasing in fixed trade barriers, due to adjustment
occurring along the extensive margin. When global fixed export costs are sufficiently
large, they dominate for all countries, such that bilateral fixed export costs have nosignificant effects on export decisions. In contrast, when global export costs are
sufficiently small, bilateral fixed export costs dominate for all countries. Whether or notglobal fixed export costs dominate, and for which countries they dominate, depend on themagnitudes of fixed export charges and are therefore empirical questions. In US
manufacturing, most adjustment to trade barriers is at the extensive margin, suggestingthat bilateral fixed export costs dominate. This conclusion, however, is impressionistic, as
the literature lacks formal analysis of the relative importance of global versus bilateral
fixed export costs or whether results for manufacturing generalize to other sectors.
We apply our framework to data on exports of US motion pictures. An advantage
1

When applied to aggregate data, this framework yields a gravity specification that can account for why
many country pairs do not trade (Helpman, Melitz, Rubinstein, 2007; Baldwin and Harrigan, 2007).

1

of our approach is that we need not take a stand on which trade barriers represent fixed
impediments and which variable ones. The empirical literature offers little guidance on
the issue. Standard gravity variables – distance, language, colonial history – are likely
correlated with variable and fixed barriers. We exploit the divergent predictions of thetwo regimes for whether imports per variety have positive or negative correlation withtrade barriers, making our approach applicable in a wide variety of settings.
The characteristics of the film industry are consistent with the assumptions of theMelitz framework. Fixed costs are important in movie production and studios
differentiate their film product (De Vany, 2004). There is heterogeneity in movie
performance, with box-office revenues for US films exhibiting heavy right tails (De Vany
and Walls, 1997, 2004). Not all US movies are exported, with the typical country
importing half of the movies the US produces in a given year. Given the absence of
published data on bilateral trade in motion pictures,2 we construct a new data set using
information from ScreenDigest.com, an entertainment industry consultancy, which
includes box-office revenues for domestic and US movies in 46 countries over 19952006. We also make use of data on trade barriers in motion pictures from other sources.
A broader motivation for studying motion pictures is that the vast majority of
empirical work on trade is for manufacturing, with relatively little work on services.
Exports of services such as motion pictures are distinct from exports of manufactures inthat variable production costs (e.g., exhibiting movies to consumers) are incurred in the
country of consumption, rather than the country of production, and the physical cost oftransporting goods abroad (e.g., shipping master film prints) is close to nil. For motion
pictures and other cultural goods, cross-country differences in language, social mores, or
religion may be the significant barriers to trade (Rauch and Trindade, 2009). Movies are
representative of other information services, including music, publishing, software,
television, and video games, which are responsible for a growing share of US trade.
These “copyright” industries tend to have large fixed production costs (associated withcreating an initial film print, music recording, or software program) and small marginal
production costs (associated with producing additional copies). In 2007, copyrightindustries accounted for 7% of US GDP; US movies, TV, and videos had foreign sales
plus exports of $20 billion, just below that for US pharmaceuticals.
Our main finding is that a model in which global fixed export costs dominate forall countries in the sample best explains US exports of motion pictures. Imports per
product variety are decreasing in geographic distance, linguistic distance, and othermeasures of trade barriers, in a manner consistent with adjustment to these barriers
occurring along the intensive rather than the extensive margin. There is relatively little
variation in the number of US movies that countries import but wide variation in the boxoffice revenues per movie, with countries more distant from the US spending less on the
US movies that they see. Argentina, for instance, imports roughly the same number of
US movies each year as Germany, though the box office revenues per US film there are
far lower. These results hold across groups of importers separated by size or distancefrom the United States, suggesting that in our sample, bilateral fixed export costs
dominate for few, if any, countries. Whereas the gravity-equation literature consistently2

For exports of US movies, McCalman (2005) has foreign release dates but not foreign revenues. The US
government does not publish trade flows for movies. UN Comtrade lists motion pictures as a commodity;
its trade data understate foreign box-office revenue by several orders of magnitude (see note 21).

2

finds a negative correlation between log sales and geographic and linguistic distance, our
specification is based on a double difference in the form of log sales per product among
imports minus log sales per product among domestic goods. Our finding is, therefore, nota corollary of results in the gravity literature. We are unaware of previous literature thatuses such a specification in testing trade models.
In section II, we present the model and estimation strategy. In section III, we
discuss data and preliminary data analysis. In section IV, we present empirical results andin section V, we conclude.

II Theory
In this section, we extend the Melitz model and allow fixed export costs to haveboth bilateral and global components. The bilateral components are incurred each time a
producer enters a new export market; the global components are incurred once, when aproducer starts exporting. The model predicts that the correlation between trade costs
and revenues per movie depends on whether the global components of fixed export costs
dominate the bilateral ones or vice-versa.

IIA Model Setup
There are many sectors, over which consumers have Cobb-Douglas preferences,
and T + 1 countries, where u indexes the exporter and k = 1…T indexes the importers.
We focus on the movie industry and leave other sectors in the background.
Movies are subject to cultural discount (Waterman, 2005). For a consumer incountry k, a movie from country u (the US) reduces utility by δuk as compared with adomestic movie, where 0 < uk < 1. Similar to a pure iceberg trade cost, δuk is the portionof a movie’s value that is not “lost in translation” in moving from one country to another.
We expect δuk to be higher the more similar are two countries’ culture and language.
Movies are also subject to fixed and variable trade costs. Variable ad valorem
trade fees, defined as tuk > 1, include tariffs and surcharges on foreign movie revenues(Marvasti and Canterbery, 2005), transaction costs in negotiating contracts between US
movie distributors and foreign movie exhibitors (Gil and LaFontaine, 2009),3 advertisingexpenses (which depend on the length of time a movie spends in theatres), and film
printing expenses (which depend on the number of times a movie is shown and thenumber of theatres in which it appears). Fixed export costs are associated with allocating
the right to distribute a movie in different countries, creating an international marketing
campaign, editing movies for foreign audiences, and adding subtitles or dubbing movie
dialogue. Fixed costs may be market specific (if each country requires its own marketing
campaign) or global in nature (if one marketing campaign serves multiple countries).
Fixed and variable trade charges may have common underlying determinants, with
distance, language, and the costs of enforcing contracts possibly affecting both.

3

Gil and LaFontaine (2007) find that in the Spanish movie industry distributors sign an initial contract forsharing revenues with movie exhibitors, which may be renegotiated multiple times, as a movie reveals itself
to be more or less popular than expected. Contracting costs are thus a function of the level of revenues andnot simply the discrete outcome of whether or not a movie is shown.

3

The subutility for movies for the representative consumer in country k is CES,4
uk = { j  j ckj

 1  u  k  j  j [ uk cuj 1 
]  } 1 ,(1)

where σ > 1 is the substitution elasticity. A demand shifter, θj, captures heterogeneity inmovies. A movie with a high θj is popular (E.T., Titanic); one with a low θj is unpopular(Ishtar, Gigli). In line with previous literature on firm heterogeneity, we assume thepopularity of a movie does not depend on the country in which it is shown and that θj isdrawn from a common distribution, G(θ). Consistent with this assumption, top grossing
movies tend to be the same across countries. For individual US-made movies in 2000,
the correlation between domestic and foreign box-office revenues is 0.81 (Scott, 2004).
Heterogeneity in demand is isomorphic to heterogeneity in marginal costs (Melitz, 2003).
We introduce heterogeneity on the demand side as it compresses variation in admission
prices for movies within a country, consistent with the data (De Vany, 2004).
From (1), box-office revenues (total sales) of a country-u movie in country k areY1 1
(2)
sukj   j 1 uk 1tuk
pukj Ak ,Ak  1k ,Pkwhere j indexes the movie, Yk and Pk are income and the CES price index in country k, α
is the expenditure share for the movie industry, and pukj is the price of movie j (notincluding the policy trade barrier). In equation (2), both the cultural discount and thepolicy trade barrier appear as variable trade costs and have similar effects on the sale ofmovie j. Box-office sales of domestically produced movie h in country k equal,skkh =  h 1 p1kkh(3)
Ak .
We assume movie production occurs in five steps. (i) A producer in country u
hires fE units of country-u labor to produce a master film print, which is a sunk labor
input. (ii) The producer draws a θ from the distribution G(θ). (iii) The producer incurs afixed production cost of b units of country-u labor. (iv) The producer uses a variable
labor input to exhibit the movie to an audience, with input costs incurred in the country
where the audience is located. For each unit of the movie shown in country k, theproducer hires one unit of country-k labor. And (v) the producer collects profits.
In our model, each firm produces a single variety, as in Melitz (2003). However,
our setting also has a multi-product-firm interpretation, consistent with Bernard, Redding
and Schott (2006). Most movies are distributed by large studios, which may be involvedin production as well.5 Even though there are a large number of studios worldwide, a half
dozen distribute most high-grossing films (Columbia/MGM, Paramount, Disney, Warner
Brothers, 20th Century Fox, and Universal Pictures). One can think of a studio as a multiproduct firm. Within a year, a studio will release many movies, where each is a product4

We specify consumer preferences using the discrete choice framework in Hanson and Xiang (2008) andobtain similar results to those reported here.
5
Making a movie involves development (securing rights, screen writing, casting, financing), production(filming, special effects, music, editing), distribution (marketing, negotiating with theatres), and exhibition.
While studios are usually involved in distribution, they have varying roles in earlier stages, sometimes
handling a movie from start to finish (Paramount and Mission: Impossible II) and sometimes buying
distribution rights to an already finished movie (20th Century Fox and Little Miss Sunshine). US antitrust
rulings prevent movie studios from owning theatres, keeping studios out of exhibition.

4

variety. The short lived nature of movies allows studios to differentiate movies in time,6avoiding the simultaneous release of two or more films. In this setting, for each productvariety we can still apply assumptions (i)-(v) and proceed with the analysis.7
Following Melitz (2003), we assume the movie industry is monopolisticallycompetitive.8 By assumption (iii), for a movie created in country u its showings areprovided using labor in the country where consumers watch the movie. Since price is aconstant markup over marginal cost, the price of a movie shown in country k is the samefor all movies, regardless of where they are produced:

w for all u, k, j,pkkj = pukj =(4)
 1 kwhere wk is the wage in country k. Because the cultural discount is a source of home bias
in demand, it does not affect prices (Anderson and van Wincoop, 2004). Similarly, θjaffects the quantity demanded but not prices. Equation (4) implies that in any market k,
the prices of domestic and foreign movies are the same.

IIB Decision for Exports
In this sub-section we consider the export decisions by the producers of country-u
movies. We show how the pattern of exports depends on bilateral and global fixed export
costs, and derive the expressions for the number of exported movies and their total sales
abroad. We allow the producers to observe their type before making the export decision,consistent with the movie industry where producers release films on the domestic market
first, and then, if they are successful, abroad.9 The export decision for a given country-u
movie j involves the comparison between its variable profits abroad and fixed export
costs. Equations (2) and (4) imply that the variable profits for movie j in country k equal(  1) 1
 1
1 1
 ukj   j DQk , D , Qk   uk 1tuk(5)
wk Ak ,


where Ak is defined in equation (2) and D is a constant. Intuitively, the Q-index, Qk,
represents access to country-k market from country u. Market access is relatively strong
6

By the end of three weeks, the average movie has earned 66% of its total box-office revenues (De Vany
and Walls, 1999).
7
Multi-product firms bring two additional elements into consideration. First, the popularity of a movie may
depend on the “ability” of its studio. Following Bernard, Redding and Schott (2006), we assume the
distribution of studio abilities is independent of θ and that the ability of a given studio is common for all
products. With each studio randomly drawing its ability when it enters the market, studio abilities are given
for each individual movie. Second, the entry decisions and numbers of studios in the market may dependon studio-level sunk entry costs and per period studio-level fixed costs, as well as studio-level ability. Since
we lack data on the distribution of movies by studio, we leave studios in the background of the analysis.
Some portion of our product-level sunk entry cost fE might be indistinguishable from the studio-level fixed
cost, but fE also remains in the background.
8
While the number of major movie studios is small, the number of top talents involved in a movie (e.g.,
actors, directors, screenwriters, technicians, and producers) is large. Competition between the top talents isimportant for the competition between movies. To secure the star power of these talents, studios bid fortheir services (Waterman, 2005), driving expected profits toward zero. Alternatively, suppose the movie
producers have more market power than in the monopolistic competition setting. This implies a higher
markup in equation (4), but otherwise does not affect our results qualitatively.
9
McCalman (2005) shows that movies released simultaneously in the US and a few foreign markets are
released in other foreign markets with a lag.

5

for high Q-index countries, which have a relatively large GDP, Yk, and/or relatively low
variable trade costs, δuk and tuk.
Fixed export costs for movie j consist of the global component of fG units ofcountry-u labor, and the bilateral components of fuk units of country-k labor.10 This meansthat the total fixed export cost to show movie j in countries k = 1…K equals wufG +K k 1 wk fuk . Consider the bilateral components first. Conditional on showing movie jabroad, showing it in an additional country, k, requires the additional fixed export cost
wkfuk, and brings in the additional variable profit πukj. Therefore, conditional on showing
movie j abroad, it is shown in country k if and only if πukj - wkfuk ≥ 0, or
1

1  1    1
 fuk  uk
tuk wkθj ≥ uk  
(6)
 .
DAk


Equation (6) is the export constraint imposed by the bilateral fixed export costs, and theexpression for uk does not depend on the global fixed export costs, fG. Rank the uk ’s
for all the T importing countries from low to high and re-label the countries according to
the rank order of the uk ’s; i.e., u1 < u 2 < … uT . This ranking of the uk ’s isillustrated in Figure 1. Country 1 is the most accessible destination market for country-u
movies (e.g., the U.K.) and country T is the least accessible destination market for
country-u movies (e.g., Latvia).
To determine which movies are exported and which are not, start from the movies
with the lowest θ’s. First, the movies with θj ≤ u1 (i.e., those to the left of u1 in Figure1) do not satisfy equation (6) for any importer and so they are not exported. Intuitively,
the variable profits for these movies from the most accessible destination market, country
1, are insufficient to pay for the fixed export cost specific to that country, w1fu1, let alone
the additional global fixed export cost, wufG. Next, the movies with θj  ( u1 , u 2 ] do notsatisfy equation (6) for the importers 2…T and so they are not exported to thosecountries. However, these movies satisfy equation (6) for country 1, and they will beshown in country 1 if they satisfy the additional condition that(7)
 u1 j  w1 f u1  wu f G .

Equation (7) says that the variable profits from country 1 can cover both the bilateral andglobal components of fixed export costs. Since fG > 0, the movie with u1 does not satisfy
equation (7). Suppose equation (7) holds for some movie with θ0  ( u1 , u 2 ] . Thenequation (7) also holds for all the movies with θj ≥ θ0, because these movies bring in
more variable profits than the one with θ0 but face the same fixed export costs. Therefore,
for these movies with θj ≥ θ0 the pattern of exports is the same as in the standard Melitz
model, with bilateral fixed export costs only. That is, the movies with θj  [θ0, u 2 ) areexported to country 1, those with θj  [ u 2 , u 3 ) are exported to countries 1 and 2, etc.
10

We make this assumption to keep our exposition concise. If, instead, both global and bilateral fixedexport costs are in units of country-u labor, the only noticeable change to our results is that equation (16)will have the additional term, wk. This suggests augmenting our main estimation equation, (17), with
importer characteristics. We experimented with these additional controls in Hanson and Xiang (2008); they
were statistically insignificant and had little effect on our results.

6

Now suppose equation (7) does not hold for any θj  ( u1 , u 2 ] . Then we can
examine whether some movie in the range ( u 2 , u 3 ] satisfies the condition

 (
2

k 1

ukj

 wk fuk )  wu fG . If it does, then we can pin down the pattern of exports as

discussed above. If it does not, then we examine whether some movie in the range ( u 3 ,u 4 ] satisfies the condition  k 1 ( ukj  wk fuk )  wu fG , etc.
3

Summarizing this algorithm, for movie j to be exported,Kθj ≥ G = min j { k 1 ( ukj  wk f uk )  wu fG } ,where K is such that uk < G for all k ≤ K and  u , K 1 > G .

(8)Equation (8) is the export constraint imposed by the global fixed export costs. It says thatthe variable profits from the inframarginal importers 1…K, net of the bilateral fixedexport costs specific to these countries, remain sufficient to cover the global fixed export
cost. A country-u movie is exported if and only if it satisfies both equations (6) and (8).
Figure 1a illustrates the pattern of exports. The value of uk lies between uK and  u , K 1 .
None of the movies with θj < G gets exported since they do not satisfy equation (8). All
the movies with θj ≥ G are exported to at least the inframarginal K countries 1…K since
they also satisfy equation (6) for these countries. In addition, the movies with θj  [ G ,u , K 1 ) are exported to the inframarginal importers 1…K, those with θj  ( u , K 1 , u , K  2 ]are exported to importers 1…K+1, etc.
This pattern of exports suggests the following partition of importers. Let G (forGlobal) denote the set of inframarginal importers k = 1…K, for which uk < G . These
countries have high Q-indices (i.e., large market size and/or low variable trade costs withcountry u) and are the most accessible destination markets for country-u movies. For
these countries, the global fixed export cost dominates the bilateral ones, and the global
export constraint of equation (8) is more binding. Let B (for bilateral) denote the set ofimporters k = K+1, …,T, for which uk > G . These countries have low Q-indices (i.e.,
small market size and/or high variable trade costs) and are the least accessible markets forcountry u. For them, bilateral fixed export costs dominate global ones, and the bilateralexport constraint of equation (6) is more binding.
The relative size of the sets G and B depends on the size of the global fixed export
costs relative to bilateral fixed export costs.11 As the global fixed export cost, fG,
increases, G increases by equation (8) but uk remains unchanged by equation (6). Thisimplies that the set G expands to encompass more countries, ceteris paribus. We
illustrate these changes using Figure 1b. The increase in fG increases G from a value inthe range ( uK ,  u , K 1 ) to a higher value in the range ( uL ,  u , L 1 ), where L > K.12 As the11

The analytical solution for G is difficult to obtain, since G depends on the levels and distributions of

fuk and Qk.
12This also shows that the increase in fG has a discrete effect on the composition of the set G, whichchanges only if G rises above u , K 1 .

7

line corresponding to G shifts to the right, the set G expands to incorporate theadditional countries {K+1,…,L}, and the set B contracts accordingly. In addition, if theincrease in fG is sufficiently large, the line G could shift to the right of uT , in whichcase the set B is empty and all importers are in the set G. In this case, the global fixedexport cost dominates for every importer and the bilateral fixed export costs play no rolein the decision for exports. The other polar case is when global fixed export cost is verysmall so that the set G is empty.13 Then, bilateral fixed export costs dominate for every
importer, as if the global fixed export cost did not exist.
We now derive (a) the number of country-u movies exported to country k, and (b)total sales of country-u movies in country k,, for the G and B sets of importers. Following
the literature on the Melitz model we assume that the distribution function G(·) is Pareto
with G(θ) = 1 – aς/θς, where a, ς > 0 and θ  [a,  ). A large ς means thin tails forG(θ). We assume that ς > σ-1, such that total movie sales are finite. Let Nu denote thenumber of country-u movies that draw from the distribution G(θ).14
First, by equation (8) and Figure 1, the G set of importers share the common
export cut-off of G . Using the value of G we have:(a) nuk = N u  dG ( uj ) = N u a ( G )  , k  G,
G

 1

D G, k  G, (9)(b) Suk  N u  sukj dG (uj ) = Cu nuk  uk tuk Ak w , Cu G  (  1)
To see the intuition behind (9), consider the total sales of country-u movies in country k,
Suk. Equation (9b) is a gravity-like prediction in which Suk responds to country-k
characteristics, such as income, and variable trade costs between u and k. This variationconsists of an extensive margin – the number of country-u movies exported to k – and an
intensive margin – the average sale per country-u movie. In (9a), the extensive margin isexporting-country specific and does not vary with importing-country characteristics. As
a result, all variation in Suk occurs along the intensive margin. The fixed export cost does
not affect the intensive margin because it does not vary across the G set of importers.
Next, for the B set of importers, we can use the values of uk to derive 1 11k(a) nuk = N u  dG (uj ) = N u a ( uk )  , k  B, uk(b) Suk  N u  sukj dG (uj ) = uk= nuk fuk wk

B a
1
Nu uk 1tuk
Ak w1k ( uk )  1  (  1)
, k  B,  (  1)

(10)

In contrast to (9), (10) says that variation in Suk across the B set of importers k occurs
primarily along the extensive margin, nuk, and that the intensive margin, Suk/nuk, does not

13

Theoretically, this case obtains when equation (7) holds for some movie with θ0  ( u1 , u 2 ] .

14

As in Melitz (2003), Nu is pinned down by the sunk entry cost, fE. In Hanson and Xiang (2008) we derive
Nu assuming T+1 identical countries and each country having one sector, as in Melitz (2003). Nu and its
counterparts in other countries are jointly determined.

8depend on variable trade costs, δuk and tuk, or expenditure on movies by k.15 To see thebasis for this result, compare importing country l, which has low variable trade costs with
exporting country u, to importing country m, which has high variable trade costs with u.
Higher variable trade costs in m mean that total sales of country-u movies in m are lower
than in l. They also imply a higher cut-off level of θ for country-u movies shown in m,such that m imports a smaller number of movies from u. Given the assumption that the
distribution of movie types is Pareto,16 these two effects exactly offset each other, leaving
sales per movie unaffected by variable trade costs.17

IIC Decisions for Domestic Production
We now consider domestic movie production in the importers k = 1…T. The
decision for domestic production involves the comparison between the variable profits
from the domestic market and the fixed production cost parameter, b. To minimize
notation, we assume that b is invariant across importers.
Since the distribution of θ has support [a, +  ), the lowest variable profit acountry-k movie can reap in the domestic market is a 1 Ak Dw1k by equations (3) and(4), where D is a constant defined in equation (5). If this lower bound for variable profit
exceeds the fixed production cost, bwk, then the number of country-k movies produced,
nkk, equals the number of country-k movies that draw from G(θ), Nk. Intuitively, the fixed
production cost is relatively small and so does not affect the decision for domestic
production. However, if the lower bound for variable profit is less than bwk, then of the
Nk domestic movies that could be made, only those that can at least break even in thedomestic market are actually made; i.e., nkk < Nk. The intuition is that the fixed
production cost b is relatively large and so it affects which movies are produced
domestically. Summarizing
nkk < Nk if b > bk , bk = a 1 Ak Dwk ; otherwise nkk = Nk.
(11)
Equation (11) is the constraint for domestic production imposed by the fixed production
cost. In the importers with a large domestic market, Ak, domestic movies collect highvariable profits; as a result, bk is large and the constraint for domestic production is less15

An importing country with a large GDP, Yk, may also have a large number of domestic movies and so a
low CES price index, Pk. This tends to reduce the demand for foreign movies and may dampen the effectof Yk. In a stylized model, Helpman, Melitz and Yeaple (2004) show that the competition effect of Pk maycompletely offset the country-size effect of Yk in general equilibrium such that nuk is the same across allimporting countries k. This result is derived under factor-price equalization and identical trade costs forevery country pair, assumptions we do not impose.
16
In Hanson and Xiang (2008) we show that our results are robust to alternative assumptions. In particular,
we show that under a two-segment Pareto distribution equations (14) and (16), our main estimating
equations, need to be augmented by 2nd-order terms of importer characteristics, such as GDP and
population. We then estimate the augmented regressions and find that these 2nd-order terms are jointly
insignificant.
17
Suppose that there is convex market access cost as in Arkolakis (2007). To derive analytical solutions for
Suk we consider the Arkolakis setting with his parameters α, β and γ set to 0. Then the only noticeablechanges to our results are (a) the expression for sukj is multiplied by the fraction of consumers that the
producer of movie j reaches in country k, (b) equation (10b) becomes Suk = nukfuk(wk – 1)c1, where c1 is aconstant, and (c) wk enters into equation (16). These changes do not affect our results qualitatively, as we
discuss in note 10.

9likely to be binding. Rank the importers in descending order in terms of their bk ’s so thatb1 > b2 > … bT . For ease of exposition suppose that bM > b > bM 1 . Then we canpartition the importers into two sets. Let GD denote the set of importers k = 1…M, forwhich bk > b. These countries have large domestic markets and so for them the constraint
for domestic production is not binding. Let BD denote the set of importers k = M+1…T,for which bk < b. These countries have small domestic markets and so for them theconstraint for domestic production is binding. Figure 2 illustrates the sets GD and BD.
We now derive (a) the number of country-k movies actually made, and (b) the
total sales of domestic movies. For the GD set of importers,(a) nkk = N k .
(b) Skk  N k  skkh dG ( kh ) = C0 nkk w1k Ak , C0  [
a



]1
.
a (  1)  (  1)

(12)

For the BD set of importers, a given domestic movie h is made if and only if the variable
profits from the domestic market exceeds the fixed production cost; i.e.,  h 1 Ak Bw1k ≥1

 bwk   1
bwk. This is equivalent to θh ≥  kk  
 . Using the value of  kk we have
 BAk 1

 bwk   1(a) nkk = N k  dG ( kh ) = N k a ( kk ) ,  kk   kk
 BAk B aN k Ak w1k ( kk )  1(b) Skk  N k  skkh dG ( kh )  kk  (  1)
= nkk bwk.
  (  1)

(13)

IID Main Estimating Equations
We now have two ways of partitioning the importers, first using the global andbilateral fixed export costs and then using the fixed production cost. In general, these two
approaches produce different partitions. However, country size determines both theranking of uk and the ranking of bk (e.g., Japan is a large country for U.S. movies andalso a large country for Japanese movies), and so the ranking of uk and the ranking of
bk could be highly correlated. For ease of exposition we assume that18
Assumption 1 G = GD and B = BD.
Assumption 1 implies that for the G set of importers where the global fixed export
cost dominates, the constraint for domestic production is not binding. Equations (9) and(12) imply that
18

Without Assumption 1, we need to derive the estimating equations for the countries in both G and BD,
and for those in both B and GD. We derive these additional equations in Hanson and Xiang (2008), andshow that they have little impact on the estimation results, suggesting that the data are consistent with
Assumption 1, at least for the countries in our sample.

10

 1

S /n
t
B u.
(14)ln( uk uk )  (1   ) ln( uk )  ln Cu , Cu   (  1)
 uk
S kk / nkk
In equation (14), Suk/nuk and Skk/nkk are the average sales in country k of movies producedin country u and of movies produced domestically. On the left of (14) are average sales
in relative terms, which we refer to as the average sales ratio. By expressing averagesales as a log double difference, the competitiveness of market k, Mk, and domestic
expenditure on movies, αYk, drop out. With global fixed export costs and pure sunkcosts, the average sales ratio is negatively correlated with variable trade barriers between
an importer and an exporter.
A result similar to equation (14) holds for the standard monopolistic competition
model, with no firm heterogeneity or fixed export costs, where the average sales ratio is,
sukj
S /n
t
ln( uk uk )  ln()  (1   ) ln( uk ) .
(15)
 uk
Skk / nkk
skkj

In the monopolistic competition model, the variation of Suk occurs along the intensive
margin, as in (14). However, the standard monopolistic competition model also predicts
all movies are exported, contrary to Melitz-type models.
Assumption 1 also implies that for the B set of importers where the bilateral fixedexport costs dominate, the constraint for domestic production is binding. Equations (10)and (13) imply that
S /n
f
(16)
ln( uk uk )  ln( uk ) .
S kk / nkkbEquation (16) says that the average sales ratio is positively correlated with fixed trade
costs, and it is similar to the predictions under the original setting of Melitz (2003).

IIE Empirical Specifications
We use equations (14) and (16) for our empirical specifications. Let country u be
the US, Sukt and nukt be total box-office revenue for US films and the total number of US
films shown in country k in year t, and Skkt and nkkt be the total box office revenue andtotal number of domestically produced films shown in k in year t. Both equations (14)and (16) predict that the average sales ratio is correlated with trade barriers. Equation(14) predicts a negative correlation between the average sales ratio and variable tradebarriers for the G set of importers, whereas (16) predicts a positive correlation between
the average sales ratio and fixed trade costs for the B set of importers. Our theory also
predicts that the G (B) set of importers tend to have high (low) Q indices; i.e., large
market sizes and/or low variable trade costs with respect to the U.S.
We thus carry out our estimation in two steps. Let Xuk be a vector of covariates for
trade barriers between the US and country k. We first pool across all importers in ourdata and estimate, 19

19

Recent work examines the correlation between the normalized number of firms exporting to a country
and the size of the importing country (e.g., Eaton, Kortum and Kramarz, 2004; Arkolakis, 2007). In Hanson
and Xiang (2008) we show this correlation does not help us distinguish global versus bilateral fixed cost.

11 S /n 
ln  ukt ukt   αu + αt + βXuk + εukt,(17) Skkt / nkkt where αt represents year fixed effects and αu is a constant (the U.S. is the only exporting
country in our data). The first step reveals whether global or bilateral fixed export costs
are the salient feature of our data. If most importers in our data are in the G set, then byequation (14) we have that β ≤ 0; if most of our importers are in the B set, then byequation (16) β ≥ 0. To identify which importers are in the G and B sets, we partition theimporters in our data into two sub-samples, those with high apparent Q-indices (i.e., large
market sizes and/or low variable trade costs with respect to the U.S.) and those with low
Q-indices. According to our theory, the high (low) Q-index sub-sample should
correspond to the G (B) set. We then estimate regression (17) separately for the two subsamples. If global (bilateral) fixed export costs dominate for the large majority ofimporters in the sample and the set B (G) is empty (or consists of only a handful ofcountries), then β ≤ 0 (β ≥ 0) for both sub-samples. If global fixed export cost dominates
for some importers but bilateral ones dominate for the others, then β ≤ 0 for the high Qindex sub-sample but β ≥ 0 for the low Q-index sub-sample.
In practice, Xuk will include proxies rather than direct measures of bilateral tradebarriers (distance, common language, etc.). We do not know whether these factors areassociated with fixed or variable impediments. An advantage of the specification in (17)is that we need not resolve the fixed-versus-variable-trade-barrier dilemma. Since global
and bilateral fixed export costs give opposite sign predictions for the correlation between
the average sales ratio and trade barriers, testing one against the other simply involves
seeing whether the parameter vector β is positive or negative. Also, the double
differencing implicit in the average sales ratio in (17) sweeps out of the estimation market
competitiveness, the consumption share of movies, and number of movies that could bemade for country k, all of which are hard to measure. Finally, although the gravity
literature consistently shows a negative correlation between ln(Sukt) and Xuk, ln(Sukt) is but
one of the four terms entering into the average sales ratio. Thus, the findings of thegravity literature do not necessarily imply the sign of β ex ante.

III Data
IIIA Exports of US Motion Pictures
We evaluate the demand for US films and domestically made films using data on
box-office revenues by country and year.20 Box-office revenues are equivalent to thec.i.f. (customs, insurance, freight) value of motion-picture services consumed in cinemas,
plus retail markups. These revenues include import duties, transport costs, and othertrade costs incurred in delivering the service to the consumer, as well as sales taxes andexhibition fees collected by cinemas.
20

Individuals consume services of new movie releases through cinemas and previous movie releases
through TV and video rentals or purchases. During our sample period, distributors tend to release movies
to cinemas first, then to the pay per view, home video, cable TV, and broadcast TV markets in sequence(e.g., for the typical movie there is a 150-200 day lag between the date of release in theatres on the US
market and the date of release on the home video market) (Waterman, 2005). Data on film revenues byorigin country from non-cinema sources are unavailable.

12

Data on box-office revenues for 46 countries over the period 1995-2006 areavailable from ScreenDigest.com.21 In each country, ScreenDigest reports the number offilms screened, total film attendance, and total box-office revenues for films imported
from the US and films produced domestically.22 Data cover first-run theatrical releases,
which exclude older films, pornographic films, and movies shown only on TV or throughthe home video market. For Europe, coverage begins in 1995, while for other regions it
begins later. Data are compiled from government agencies, national film bodies, film
exhibitor and distributor associations, and company spokespeople.23
One concern about the ScreenDigest data is it may represent a sample ofcountries selected for having large film markets. ScreenDigest selects countries forinclusion in the data based on the markets in which it perceives its clients to have aninterest (because of actual or potential movie revenues). Were the company to avoid
countries that import few foreign films, our results on the extensive and intensive margins
of trade would not be globally representative. The ScreenDigest data include all ofEurope and North America, and most of Asia and South America (see Table 1).24
Missing are Africa, the Caribbean and Central America, Central Asia, most Islamic
republics, and Pacific island nations, which are regions dominated by small developing
countries. To determine whether film imports in these economies differ from the
ScreenDigest sample, we examined film listings in major newspapers and internet sites
covering 25 countries in the missing regions during 2008 and early 2009.25 In thesecountries 1.8 new US movies are released on average each week, equivalent to 93.2 US
movies a year, a level of imports slightly higher than those of the Baltic countries, which
are among the smaller markets in the ScreenDigest sample. Although we do not haveinformation on box office revenues in these countries, they are importing large numbersof US films, suggesting the markets excluded from ScreenDigest are not ones with
21

The only public data on global film trade is UN Comtrade, which lists motion pictures as a commodity,
Cinematographic Film Exposed or Developed (SITC 883), capturing the reported value of physicalshipments of film prints across borders. Physical film shipments vastly understate film revenues.
Comtrade reports 2000 US film exports of $0.5 million to France, $0.5 million to Germany, and $6.5
million to the UK, while ScreenDigest reports 2000 box-office revenues for US films of $513 million in
France, $615 million in Germany, and $429 million in the UK (Hancock and Jones, 2003).
22
Most box-office revenues are earned shortly after a film is released (De Vany and Walls, 1999),
suggesting that revenues reported in a given year match the movies released in that year. Some revenue
data are available for films imported from countries other than the US, but the countries covered varyacross destinations (e.g., while the UK is a major importer of movies from India, other countries are not).
23
ScreenDigest defines the origin country for a film by the location of the company that produces the film.
Filming may occur in multiple locations. Titanic (1997), for instance, was shot in Canada, Mexico and theUnited States, with most other production activities occurring in Los Angeles. ScreenDigest considers themovie to be US in origin because the production companies, 20th Century Fox and Paramount, are US
based. Despite Titanic’s filming locations, it is clearly a US movie. The dialogue is in English, it was firstreleased in the US market, and its cultural themes were targeted to a US audience. The cultural discountinvolved in exporting Titanic to, say, Italy would logically have the US as the reference point.
24
ScreenDigest has box office revenues for nine additional countries (Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Egypt,
Iceland, India, Israel, the UAE, and Venezuela), but is missing data on the number of movies exhibited for
US films, domestic films, or both, which precludes including these countries in the analysis.
25
These countries are the Dominican Republic and Jamaica in the Caribbean; Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama in Central America; Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Uruguay in the Andesand Southern Cone; Malaysia and Vietnam in Southeast Asia; Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and Sri
Lanka in Central and South Asia; Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates in the Middle
East; and Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda in Sub-Saharan Africa.

13minimal US movie imports.

IIIB Trade Barriers in Motion Picture Trade
The method for testing the Melitz model that we develop in section II calls for all
relevant trade barriers to be included in the estimation. We include measures ofgeographic distance, cultural distance, levies on film imports, quantitative restrictions onfilm imports, and the protection of intellectual property rights.
For cultural trade barriers between the United States and its trading partners, we
use indicators of linguistic dissimilarity between countries. Following Fearon (2003) andWacziarg and Spolare (2006), we calculate linguistic distance as 1 minus the expectedvalue of a linguistic similarity factor between a person randomly drawn from the UnitedStates and one randomly drawn from country k:
LDuk = 1 −  l  o plu pok Glo /15 ,(18)
where l indexes the ethnic groups that speak different languages in the US, o indexes
those in country k and plu and pok are the population shares of language groups l and o in
the US and country k. The linguistic similarity factor is Glo /15 , where Glo is the numberof branches of the language tree that groups l and o share and 15 is the maximum numberof branches. We make linguistic similarity concave with respect to Glo because early
divergence in the language tree (e.g., Indo-European vs. Japanese language families) is
likely to signify greater cultural difference than later divergence (e.g., Romance vs.
Germanic languages). In section IV, we compare linguistic distance to other language
variables. As another measure of culture dissimilarity, we use a related metric ofreligious distance. Data on the global language tree is from Fearon (2003) and on the
global religion tree is from Fearon and Mecham (2007). For additional measures ofcultural distance, we use three indices of national values from Hofstede (2001): anindividualism index (intensity of perception that social ties between individuals areloose), a masculinity index (strength of belief that men should have assertive roles insociety), and a power distance index (willingness to accept an unequal distribution of
power).26
In unreported results, we utilize trade barriers facing US movie exports measured
using annual reports by the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) to the US
Trade Representative. The MPAA report covers over 100 countries, listing for each thepolicies its members claim adversely affect their business. We include measures ofpolicies for levies and tariffs (whether a country applies tariffs on film imports or taxes
on royalties for foreign films), quantitative restrictions (whether a country applies importquotas on foreign films or sets minimum screen time for domestic films), the extent ofpiracy of film-related intellectual property (whether estimated revenues from pirated
films exceed 70% of box office revenues in the country), and restrictions on language(whether a country mandates that foreign-language movies be dubbed locally). We also
26

These indices are based on surveys IBM conducted of its global employees in 70 countries in the 1960s
and 1970s. US values (country averages) are 91 (44) for the individualism index, 62 (51) for the maledominance index, and 40 (59) for the power distance. Relative to other countries, US respondents tend to
be more likely to perceive social ties as being weak, to have stronger beliefs that men should have assertiveroles in society, and to be more willing to accept an unequal distribution of power.

14

utilize data on the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs). McCalman (2005)
finds that whereas moderate IPR protection encourages the spread of US movies, either
very weak or very strong IPR protections decrease the speed with which US movies are
released abroad.27 The measures of IPR protection we use are the Ginarte-Park (1997)
index of patent protection in 2000, the Global Competitiveness Report measure of thestrength of IPR protection, averaged over 2003 and 2004, an indicator for whether the US
Trade Representative has placed a country on the Priority Watch List for inadequate
protection of intellectual property rights in a given year, and ) an indicator for whether acountry has entered into force the World Copyright Treaty of the World Intellectual
Property Organization.

IIIC Distribution and Fixed Export Costs in Motion Pictures
Estimates of the fixed costs of exporting motion pictures are difficult to obtain.
Case studies of how US movies are distributed are informative about the nature andmagnitude of these costs. In movie production, the major studios discussed in section II
dominate, accounting for 83% of US box office revenues in 2003. Foreign movie
distribution is similarly concentrated. The major studios operate five foreign distribution
companies, which distribute nearly all US movies abroad (Epstein, 2006). Distribution
companies handle not just movies produced by their own studios but movies from otherstudios, as well. For instance, United International Pictures, a joint venture of Universal
and Paramount, has distribution facilities in over 35 countries, handling films produced
by its principals, other major studies, and independent studios (Scott, 2004). McCalman(2004, 2005) provides contractual details on foreign movie distribution.
The Motion Picture Association (2003) reports that for the average US movie in2003 65% of total costs were due to film production and 35% were due to marketing,which includes making film prints; advertising on radio, TV, newspapers and othermedia; and promotional activities. These costs encompass just domestic marketing.
Foreign marketing brings additional expenses, which average 60% of domestic marketingcosts. Key components of a marketing campaign include the trailer, used to advertise intheatres, on television, and via the internet, and the “hook,” a phrase or image thatsummarizes the marketing pitch (e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger declaring, “Hasta la vista,baby,” in Terminator 2) (Epstein, 2006). Developing the trailer and the hook, to which
studios devote considerable resources, are fixed distribution costs. Promotional materials
can be used across national markets by translating phrases and bits of dialogue. In the
United States, marketing includes intensive television and radio advertising leading up toa film’s release. Abroad, studios tend to eschew such saturation ads and use other formsof publicity instead, such as pre-release appearances by a film’s stars at international
venues (Seagrave, 1997). These appearances, often stipulated in actors’ contracts,
generate significant global press coverage.
The trailer, the hook, actor appearances, and other promotional devices represent
global distribution costs. Other distribution expenses are specific to individual markets.
These include negotiating with local theatre chains over the number of cinemas in which27

In related work, McCalman (2004) finds that while Hollywood studios are more likely to use licensing
arrangements in countries with moderate IPR protection, they tend to use more integrated governancestructures in countries with either high or low IPR protection.

15

a film will appear, how long a film will run, and how film revenues will be shared
between the exhibitor and the distributor (Gil and Lafontaine, 2009); coordinating release
dates across regions; producing foreign language subtitles or dubbing movie dialogue;
and custom editing films for specific countries (Scott, 2004).
The literature thus contains evidence of both global and bilateral fixed export
costs. We leave it to our empirical approach to determine the relative importance of thesein determining how trade flows adjust to trade barriers.

IIID Preliminary Data Analysis
For the countries in our sample, the US is the largest source for movie imports.
Figure 3 shows that US movies account for over 60 percent of total box office revenues(domestic plus foreign movie sales) in all countries except China, France, the Philippines,
and Korea.28 In all but six countries, the US accounts for over 40 percent of the numberof movies exhibited. China is clearly an outlier. Its government permits no more than 20
foreign films to be released in the country each year.29 Other countries also place limits
on film imports, but they tend to be much less restrictive. Between 2001 and 2006, 12
countries set minimum requirements for the amount of screen time devoted to domestic
films. In only four countries are time limits in excess of 30% and even in these cases
theatres can often circumvent limits by showing domestic features in the afternoon, on
weekdays, or other times when demand is slack (Chung and Song, 2008). An alternative
strategy is to take on a passive domestic partner for the distribution of a movie, which
often allows a film to qualify for domestic treatment (Waterman, 2005).
Table 2 gives summary statistics for the key variables used in the analysis.
During this period, 327 new domestically produced movies were shown on average in the
US each year. Consistent with the presence of fixed exports costs of some kind, thetypical country in our sample imports less than half of US movies produced annually,
with the mean number of US movies exhibited equal to 142. Most countries are clusteredaround this mean, with the country at the 20th percentile (Hungary) importing 106 US
movies annually and the country at the 80th percentile (Singapore) importing 162 movies.
In contrast, box-office revenues per movie show wide variation. Mean revenues per
movie are $1.24 million (in 2007 US dollars), with the country occupying the 20th
percentile (Slovenia) at $0.10 million and the country occupying the 80th percentile(Italy) at $2.37 million. The ratio of the 80th to the 20th percentile for the number of US
movies imported is 1.5, compared to 23.7 for box office revenues per US film. Though
the data reveal variation at both the intensive margin (revenues per film) and extensive
margin (number of films) of trade, it is clear the former dwarfs the latter. The wider
variation in the intensive over the extensive margin is also seen in Figure 4, which plots
log revenues per US movie against log number of US movies (each expressed as thedeviation from sample means), averaged by country over 2001-2006. The standard
deviation for revenues per movie is 1.39 compared to 0.38 for the number of movies.
Figure 4 gives evidence consistent with global fixed export costs mattering morethan bilateral fixed export costs. More direct evidence comes from how intensive and28

In the figures, we report data for 2001-2006, the years for which we have complete data for mostcountries. For the estimation results reported in the next section, we use the full sample period.
29
All regression results in section IV are robust to excluding China from the estimation sample.

16

extensive margins of trade vary with importing-country characteristics. When global
fixed export costs dominate, the number of US movies imported should be uncorrelatedwith importer characteristics. Figures 5a and 5b plot the number of US movies imported
and box-office revenues per US movie (relative to cross-country means) against
importing-country GDP and linguistic distance from the US. Whereas revenues per US
film have a positive correlation with importer GDP and a negative correlation with
importer linguistic distance (Figure 5b), the correlation between the number of US films
imported and these characteristics is weak and statistically insignificant (Figure 5a).
Similar results hold for geographic distance. Importer characteristics appear to be
associated with trade through the intensive rather than extensive margin.
To examine the intensive and extensive margins more formally, we follow Eaton,
Kortum and Kramarz (2004) and use the identity, Nuit   Ruit Nuit    Ruit Rit   Rit ,where Ruit is box office revenues for US movies in country i at time t, Nuit is the numberof US movies shown in i at t, and Rit is aggregate box office revenues in i at t. We thenestimate the following two regressions (with robust t statistics in parentheses):ln N uit  0.32 ln  Ruit Rit   0.12 ln Rit  it1.74 12.60 
ln Ruit / Nuit  0.68 ln  Ruit Rit   0.88 ln Rit  it 3.67  95.06 
where we express variables as deviations from the mean to eliminate the constant. By the
logic of least squares, across the two regressions the constant and error terms sum to zeroand the coefficients on each variable sum to one. The relative magnitude of thecoefficients describes how the number of movies (the extensive margin) and revenues per
movie (the intensive margin) vary across countries according to market size. A 10%
increase in US market share in a country is associated with an increase in revenue per US
movie of 6.8% and an increase in the number of movies of 3.2%; a 10% increase in total
market size in a country is associated with an increase in revenues per US movie of 8.8%
and an increase in the number of movies of only 1.2%. This is further evidence mostadjustment in US movie exports occurs at the intensive margin.
The theoretical results presented in section II suggest a simple way to identify thenature of fixed trade costs is to examine the sign of the correlation between trade barriers
and the average sales ratio (average revenue per US movie/average revenue per
domestically made movie). Figures 6a and 6b plot the average sales ratio against
geographic distance to the US and linguistic dissimilarity with the US. Geographic andlinguistic distance each has a negative correlation with the average sales ratio, which isconsistent with global fixed export costs being dominant (equation 14) and inconsistent
with bilateral fixed export costs being dominant (equation 16).
We do not know whether geographic and linguistic distance affect variable orfixed trade barriers. Yet, from our theoretical predictions, it appears distance affects
bilateral trade along the intensive margin, such that in motion pictures the relevance ofdistance for trade is in how it affects variable trade barriers. There is some variation at
the extensive margin, which, strictly speaking, is inconsistent with equation (14), but it isquite small by comparison to the intensive margin.

17

IV Estimation Results
IVA Basic Results
Table 3 presents estimation results for equation (17). The dependent variable isthe log average sales ratio (average box office revenue per US movie relative to averagebox office revenue per domestic movie). Standard gravity trade barriers appear as
regressors. The sample consists of 46 countries for the years 1995-2006, with data forsome countries not beginning until after 2000.
We first examine the role of linguistic distance. In column 1, the log linguistic
dissimilarity index (from equation (21)), is negative and precisely estimated,30 indicatingthat the more linguistically different a country is from the United States the less it spends
per US movie it imports, relative to domestic movies. Simply by adding linguistic
distance to a regression with year dummies, the explained variation rises from 5% to27%. The coefficient estimates imply that a country with linguistic dissimilarity one
standard deviation below the mean (Switzerland) would have sales per US movie that are
66 log points higher than a country at one standard deviation above the mean (Estonia).
To see whether this result is driven by use of English, column 2 includes a dummy
variable that equals 1 if a country has English as its primary language. The English
dummy is positive and statistically significant at the 10% level, suggesting that Englishspeaking countries spend more per US movie than non-English speaking countries. In
column 3, which includes both language variables, the English dummy loses significancewhile linguistic dissimilarity remains precisely estimated. It appears linguistic distancecaptures more than whether two countries speak the same language, also picking up otheraspects of cultural dissimilarity and divergent national experience. In subsequent
specifications, we use linguistic dissimilarity to measure linguistic distance.
Columns 4-6 of Table 3 examine the role of geographic distance. Coefficients on
linguistic dissimilarity become smaller in magnitude with the inclusion of geographic
distance but remain highly significant. The first geographic distance variable is a dummythat equals 1 if a country is an island (and so is likely to have a history of trade with
culturally distinct nations); its coefficient is positive and statistically significant in all
specifications.31 We then consider two sets of variables, log great circle distance to the
US and the absolute values of longitudinal and latitudinal differences with the US. For
both sets of variables, the coefficients are negative and precisely estimated, meaning
countries farther away from the US spend less per US movie. In column 6, which
includes both sets of distance variables together, great circle distance loses significancewhile longitude and latitude remain statistically significant. The coefficient on distancein latitude is about twice as large as that on distance in longitude, suggesting barriers totrade in US movies are greater in going from the northern to southern hemisphere (i.e.,
going from temperate latitudes to the tropics) than in crossing a major ocean (i.e., staying
within temperate latitudes). Demand for US movies thus appears to be stronger incountries that are climatically more similar to the US. One interpretation of this result isthat movie exports are larger to regions that are on the same seasonal cycle as the UnitedStates. For instance, US studios tend to release blockbuster action films in the early US
30

Results are similar when we measure the index in levels rather than logs.
See Feyrer and Sacerdote (2009) on how the exposure of islands to international shipping affects theirinvolvement in commerce and Rose (2005) on how being an island promotes international trade.

31

18

summer (to attract youth and families on summer vacation), which may align with
consumer patterns elsewhere in the northern hemisphere. In subsequent specifications,
we use longitude and latitude to measure geographic distance.
It may be surprising that the average sales ratio for US movie exports isnegatively correlated with geographic distance. After all, the physical cost of shipping
films across borders is limited to the cost of transporting a few master film prints,suggesting much less role for distance in trade than for commodities or manufactured
goods. Yet, our results are consistent with Blum and Goldfarb (2006), who find that
trade in internet services is also negatively correlated with distance. Even in services
with apparently low physical transport costs, geographic distance depresses trade. This
may reflect the importance of transaction costs in negotiating contracts between US
movie distributors and foreign movie exhibitors, as noted by Gil and LaFontaine (2009).

IVB Global versus Bilateral Fixed Export Costs
In accordance with Figure 6, the regression results in Table 3 show that the
average sales ratio is negatively correlated with common measures of trade barriers.
Countries more distant from the US – in terms of geography or language – have lower
sales per US movie (relative to sales of domestic movies). This suggests geographic andlinguistic distance matter for trade through variable trade barriers, rather than throughfixed trade costs. These results confirm that adjustment in motion picture trade primarily
occurs along the intensive margin. With respect to the theoretical model in presented in
section II, the data suggest that global fixed export costs dominate for most countries inour data. However, these results do not rule out the possibility that bilateral fixed export
costs dominate for a sub-sample of countries. It could be that, on average, adjustment totrade costs occurs along the intensive margin, but that for a subset of countries bilateral
fixed export costs dominate and adjustment occurs along the extensive margin.
To examine this possibility, we partition our sample into a high Q-index subsample and a low Q-index sub-sample. Our theory suggests that the countries with arelatively low Q index are ones for which bilateral fixed export costs are mostly likely todominate. These are countries that have relatively small markets and/or relatively highvariable trade costs vis-à-vis the United States. To aide in constructing the partition,
Figure 7 plots log GDP, an obvious measure of market size, against either log linguistic
distance from the United States (panel a) or log geographic distance from the UnitedStates (panel b). Points in the graphs indicated by a one are those that have either arelatively small GDP (defined as a value below the 20th percentile for the sample), or a
combination of high distance (defined as above the 80th percentile for the sample) andmoderately low GDP (defined as below the 40th percentile for the sample). The sets ofobservations defined by these cutoffs represent clear breaks in the bivariate distributionof size and distance, and they form our low Q-index sub-sample.32 The other observations
are our high Q-index sub-sample. In unreported results, we examined alternative data

32

Based on linguistic distance (as in Figure 5a), the low Q-index sub-sample includes Estonia, Finland,Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Thailand and Turkey. The low Q-index sub-sample based on geographic distance (as in Figure5b) is the same set of countries minus Finland, Hungary and Turkey, and plus New Zealand.

19partitions and found very similar results to those reported below.33
Table 4 reports the regression from column (4) of Table 3 for five samples ofcountries: the full sample (column 1); countries with a low or high Q index based on
linguistic distance, as seen in Figure 7a (columns 2a, 2b); and countries with a low orhigh Q index based on geographic distance, as seen in Figure 7b (columns 3a, 3b). In allcolumns, the average sales ratio is negatively correlated with trade barriers. For countries
with a high Q index (columns 2a, 3a), all coefficients are precisely estimated; forcountries with a low Q index (columns 2b, 3b), some coefficients are imprecisely
estimated but the sample sizes for these groups are much smaller, producing larger
standard errors for the coefficient estimates. There is no evidence that the sign of thecorrelation between distance and the average sales ratio differs between countries
according to their size and distance from the United States. In fact, the negative
quantitative impact of linguistic distance on the average sales ratio is larger for countries
with a lower Q index, the opposite of what equations (14) and (16) predict. These results
suggest that global fixed export costs dominate for even the smaller and more distantcountries in our data, and that bilateral fixed export costs do not have significant effects
on export decisions.34
In unreported results, we examined the relationship between the average sales
ratio and other trade barriers. We found no relationship between the average sales ratio
and indicators of the protection of intellectual property rights (the Ginarte-Park patent
protection index, the Global Competitiveness Report measure of the strength of IPR
protection, an indicator for whether a country is on the US Priority Watch List, or anindicator for whether a country has signed the World Copyright treaty) or indicatorvariables based on MPAA reports for whether a country imposes barriers on film imports(has levies or tariffs on movies, imposes quantitative restrictions on foreign films, issubject to high levels of piracy in movie related intellectual property, or imposes
language restrictions on the dubbing of foreign films). We did find evidence that box
office revenues for US movies are stronger in countries in which beliefs favor men
having assertive roles in society, based on measures from Hofstede (2001).35

V Discussion
Fixed export costs figure prominently in recent theoretical trade models.
Although current empirical research using manufacturing data suggests that these costs
exist, it has little to say about their nature. In services, which are undergoing rapid
growth in trade, we know little about the impediments to global commerce.
We extend the Melitz (2003) model to allow for both global and bilateral fixedexport costs. Data on US film exports support global fixed export costs over bilateral33

In this approach we select the two sub-samples ex ante. In unreported results we also estimate aswitching regression model (Kiefer 1978, Hartley 1978), where the partition of the sub-samples is
estimated by the estimation procedure. The results are similar to Table 4.
34
These results are consistent with either (a) the set B is empty, or (b) the set B has one or a handful ofsmall and distant countries. Since case (b) provides only a handful of data points it is hard to empiricallydistinguish from case (a).
35
Action films with dominant male characters (e.g., Dirty Harry, Rambo, The Terminator, Gladiator) havelong been a staple of US movie studios, consistent with this finding.

20

fixed export costs. Trade in movies adjusts primarily along the intensive margin. Evensmall countries import large numbers of US films, leaving only modest variation in theextensive margin of trade. Along the intensive margin, average revenues per US film
vary widely across countries and are negatively correlated with geographic distance,
linguistic distance, and other measures of trade barriers.
Our results depart from findings in the literature for trade in manufacturing, inwhich adjustment in trade occurs primarily at the extensive margin. One explanation forthe difference in results between sectors is that fixed trade barriers for information
services (as characterized by motion pictures) are dissimilar to those for manufacturing.
For information services, products are delivered through devices consumers already own(TVs, radios, computers, cell phones) or an existing infrastructure that can be shared byproducers (theatres, telephone lines, satellite networks), with products requiring little in
the way of post-sale service. Fixed barriers to trading information services include
developing a marketing strategy to attract consumers and negotiating contracts over thedelivery of intellectual property. Once a marketing strategy and standard contract havebeen developed for one market, they may be easy to replicate in other markets, making
the fixed costs of delivering information services primarily global in nature.

21

References
Anderson, James E. and van Wincoop, Eric. 2004. “Trade Costs,” Journal of Economic
Literature, 42(3): 691-751.
Arkolakis, Costas. 2007. “Market Penetration Costs and the New Consumers Margin inInternational Trade.” Mimeo, Yale University.
Baldwin, Richard E., and James Harrigan. 2007. “Zeroes, Quality, and Space: Trade
Theory and Trade Evidence.” NBER Working Paper No. 11471.
Bernard, Andrew B. and J. Bradford Jensen. 1999. “Exceptional Exporter Performance:
Cause, Effect, or Both.” Journal of International Economics 47: 1-25.
Bernard, Andrew B. and J. Bradford Jensen. 2004. Why Some Firms Export.” Review
of Economics and Statistics 86: 561-569.
Bernard, Andrew B., Stephen Redding, and Peter K. Schott. 2006. “Multiproduct Firms
and Trade Liberalization.” Mimeo, Yale University.
Bernard, Andrew B., J. Bradford Jensen, Stephen Redding, and Peter K. Schott. 2007.
“Firms in International Trade.” NBER Working Paper No. 13054.
Blum, Bernardo, and Avi Goldfarb. 2006. “Does the Internet Defy the Law of Gravity?”
Journal of International Economics, 70: 384-405.
Chaney, Thomas. 2006. “Distorted Gravity: Heterogeneous Firms, Market Structure
and the Geography of International Trade,” mimeo, University of Chicago.
Chung, Chul, and Minjae Song. 2008. “Preference for Cultural Goods: Demand andWelfare in the Korean Film Market.” Mimeo, KIEP.
De Vany, Arthur. 2004. Hollywood Economics. London: Routledge.
De Vany, Arthur and David W. Walls, 1997. “The Market for Motion Pictures: Rank,
Revenue, and Survival”. Economic Inquiry. October 1997, 35(4): 783-97.
De Vany, Arthur, and W. David Walls. 2004. “Motion Picture Profit, the Stable Paretian
Hypothesis, and the Curse of the Superstar,” Journal of Economic Dynamics andControl, 28(6): 1035-57.
Eaton, Jonathan, Samuel Kortum, and Francis Kramarz. 2004. “Dissecting Trade:
Firms, Industries, and Export Destinations,” NBER Working Paper No. 10344.
Elberse, Anita and Jehoshua Eliashberg, 2003. “Demand and Supply Dynamics for
Sequentially Released Products in International Markets: The Case of Motion
Pictures”. Marketing Science. Summer 2003, 22(3): 329-54.
Epstein, Edward Jay. 2006. The Big Picture: Money and Power in Hollywood. New
York: Random House.
Fearon, James D. 2003. “Ethnic and Cultural Diversity by Country,” Journal of
Economic Growth, 8(2): 195-222.
Feyrer, James, and Bruce Sacerdote. 2009. "Colonialism and Modern Income: Islands as
Natural Experiments." Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(2): 245-262.
Gil, Ricard, and Francine LaFontaine. 2009. “Using Revenue Sharing to Implement
Flexible Pricing: Evidence from Movie Exhibition Contracts.” Mimeo, UC Santa
Cruz.
Ginarte, Juan C. and Walter G. Park. 1997. “Determinants of Patent Rights: A CrossNational Study.” Research Policy 26: 283-301.
Girma, Sourafel, Holger Gorg, and Eric Strobl. 2004. “Exports, International
Investment, and Plant Performance,” Economics Letters 83: 317-324.
Hancock, David, and Charlotte Jones, 2003. Cinema Distribution and Exhibition in22

Europe, 2nd Edition. London: ScreenDigest.
Hanson, Gordon H. and Chong Xiang. 2008. “Testing the Melitz Model of Trade: An
Application to US Motion Picture Exports.” NBER Working Paper 14461.
Hanson, Gordon H., and Chong Xiang. 2009. “International Trade in Motion Picture
Services.” In Marshall Reinsdorf and Matthew Slaughter, eds., Flows of Invisibles,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press,203-222.
Hartley, Michael J., 1978. “Estimating Mixtures of Normal Distributions and Switching
Regressions: Comment.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 73: 738–41.
Helpman, Elhanan and Krugman, Paul. 1985. Market Structure and Foreign Trade.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Helpman, Elhanan, Marc J. Melitz, and Yona Rubinstein. 2007. “Estimating Trade
Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes,” NBER Working Paper No. 12927.
Helpman, Elhanan, Marc J. Melitz, and Stephen R. Yeaple. 2004. “Export versus FDI
with Heterogeneous Firms,” American Economic Review 94: 300-316.
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture's Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Kiefer, Nicholas M. 1978. "Discrete Parameter Variation: Efficient Estimation of a
Switching Regression Model." Econometrica, 46: 427-434.
Marvasti, Akbar, and E. Ray Canterbery. 2005. “Cultural and Other Barriers to Motion
Pictures Trade,” Economic Inquiry 43(1): 39-54.
Motion Picture Association. 2003. “US Entertainment Industry: 2003 Market
Statistics.” Mimeo, MPA.
McCalman, Philip. 2004. “Foreign Direct Investment and Intellectual Property Rights:
Evidence from Hollywood's Global Distribution of Movies and Videos,” Journal ofInternational Economics, 62(1): 107-23.
McCalman, Phillip, 2005. “International Diffusion and Intellectual Property Rights: An
Empirical Analysis”. Journal of International Economics.
Motion Picture Association of America. 2002. “Trade Barriers to Exports of US Filmed
Entertainment.” Report to the US Trade Representative.
Melitz, Jacques. 2002. “Language and Foreign Trade.” CEPR Paper No. 3590.
Melitz, Marc J. 2003. “The Impact of Trade on Intra-industry Reallocations andAggregate Industry Productivity,” Econometrica, 71(6): 1695-1725.
Rauch, James E., and Trindade, Vitor. 2009. “Neckties in the Tropics: A Model ofInternational Trade and Cultural Diversity.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 42:809-843.
Rose, Andrew. 2005. “Which International Institutions Promote International Trade?”
Review of International Economics, 13(4): 682-698.
Seagrave, Kerry. 1997. American Films Abroad: Hollywood’s Domination of theWorld’s Movie Screens. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Scott, Allen J. 2004. “Hollywood and the World: The Geography of Motion-Picture
Distribution and Marketing.” Rev of International Political Economy, 11(1): 33-61.
Waterman, David. 2005. Hollywood’s Road to Riches. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

23

Table 1: Data CoverageCountry
No. of domestic films No. of US films Rev. per domestic film
Lithuania
4
134
0.04
Latvia2
92
0.04
Estonia885
0.08
Romania
9114
0.05
Slovak Republic
4
99
0.02
Iceland5
128
0.18
Malaysia
12
159
0.45
Slovenia
7114
0.04
Czech Republic
19
101
0.38
Philippines
103
186
0.39
Singapore
6
162
0.51
Hungary22
106
0.19
Finland14
106
0.79
Argentina
53
152
0.17
Thailand
26
137
1.06
Belgium
44
232
0.10
Turkey15
125
1.21
New Zealand
5
152
0.84
Portugal
15
125
0.18
Indonesia
11
114
1.80
Poland22
122
0.78
Ireland4
102
0.33
Norway15
118
1.20
Denmark
24
112
1.34
Austria22
124
0.14
Sweden27
115
1.22
Netherlands
31
132
0.67
Switzerland
47
122
0.20
Brazil42
143
0.80
Russia
59
143
0.84
Spain
120
223
1.02
Italy
106
168
1.39
South Korea
77
124
5.17
Mexico22
163
1.70
Australia
24
179
0.99
Canada
77
193
0.36
China
90
20
1.73
France223
162
2.25
Germany
127
153
1.52
UK
89
169
3.65
USA
327
327
27.83
Revenue is in millions of 2007 US dollars.

24

Rev. per US film
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.26
0.26
0.33
0.38
0.39
0.41
0.41
0.42
0.43
0.49
0.50
0.52
0.64
0.65
0.67
0.73
0.75
0.97
1.00
1.03
1.39
1.50
2.35
2.37
2.49
2.65
2.88
3.38
3.50
3.88
5.22
6.30
27.83

Table 2: Summary Statistics
Variable
Number of US films
Number of domestic films
Revenue per US film
Revenue per domestic film
Log average sales ratio

N
284
284
284
284
284

Mean St. Dev.
141.366 41.483
46.345 52.865
1.293
1.506
0.859
0.965
0.386
0.958

Linguistic dissimilarity index
Log linguistic dissimilarity index
English official language

284
284
284

0.751
-0.304
0.095

0.143
0.185
0.294

IslandLatitude difference with US
Longitude difference with US
Log distance to US
Log GDPLog population

284
284
284
284
284
284

0.074
16.609104.237-0.06826.14616.7670.262
16.714
47.48
0.414
1.328
1.215

Ginarte-Park index
Intellectual property protection index
Super 301 action
Ever sign WCT

271
284
284
284

0.723
0.695
0.141
0.345

0.156
0.161
0.348
0.476

Has levy or tariff on foreign films
Has quantitative restrictions on foreign films
Has high level of film piracy
Imposes restrictions on language dubbing

284
284
284
284

0.095
0.282
0.116
0.092

0.294
0.451
0.332
0.289

Individualism index
Masculinity index
Power distance index

273
273
273

0.592
0.498
0.516

0.208
0.234
0.217

Sample is 284 observations on 46 countries over period 1995-2006.

25

Table 3: Average sales ratio and gravity trade barriers

linguistic dissimilarity(1)-2.448**(0.540)English official language

(2)

0.543
(0.279)Islandlatitude diff. with US
longitude diff. with US
log distance to US

R2
N

0.269
284

0.073
284

(3)
(4)
(5)
**
**
-2.725 -1.922 -1.831**(0.666) (0.545) (0.518)-0.341(0.409)1.524** 0.654*(0.306) (0.269)-0.015**(0.004)-0.008**(0.002)-0.788**(0.150)
0.276
284

0.381
284

0.340
284

(6)
-1.879**(0.555)

1.468**(0.300)-0.014**(0.005)-0.007**(0.002)-0.179(0.229)0.383
284

The specification is that in equation (17). The dependent variable is log sales per US
movie minus log sales per domestic movie. Coefficient estimates for year dummies are
not shown. Standard errors (clustered by importing country) are in parentheses. * (**)
indicates statistical significance at the 5% (1%) level.

26

Table 4: Results partitioning countries by market size and distance to US

linguistic dissimilarity
Islandlatitude diff. with US
longitude diff. withUS

R-squaredN(1)-1.922**(0.545)
1.524**(0.306)-0.015**(0.004)

Q index
High
Low
(2a)
(2b)
-1.884*-2.920(0.816)(1.895)2.111**
1.160**(0.498)(0.251)-0.018**-0.013(0.007)(0.019)Q index
High
Low
(3a)
(3b)
-1.670*-2.587*(0.625)(1.079)2.162**
1.073**(0.519)(0.327)-0.016**-0.022(0.005)(0.017)-0.008**(0.002)-0.009**(0.002)-0.010(0.006)-0.009**(0.002)-0.006(0.006)

0.381
284

0.263
213

0.576
71

0.288
238

0.703
46

The dependent variable is log sales per US movie minus log sales per domestic movie.
Column 1 shows results from the full sample (identical to column 4 of Table 3); column
2a (2b) shows results for countries with a high (low) Q index based on the partition ofcountries according to size and distance in Figure 7a; and column 3a (3b) shows results
for countries with a high (low) Q index based on the partition of countries according tosize and distance in Figure 7b. Standard errors (clustered by importing country) are inparentheses. * (**) indicates statistical significance at the 5% (1%) level.

27

Figure 1a: Pattern of Exports

Exported to K+1
countries
…

G

u1

u 2 ….

u , K 1uK

u , K  2 …

Domestic movies
Exported to K
countries
Figure 1b: Increase in Global Fixed Export Cost

G'
G’ = {1,…,L}

u1 …

uK

u , K 1 u , K  2 …

B’ = {L+1,…,T}uL

u , L 1 …

uT

B = {K+1,…,T}

G = {1,…,K}

G

28

Figure 2 Constraint for Domestic Productionb… bK  2

bK 1

constraint binding

bK

… b2

b1

constraint notbinding29

1

Figure 3: Share of US films in national movie expenditure, 2001-2006.6.8

Rom ania
Slovenia
Aus traliaRuss ia Mexico
IcelandLithuania
Argentina
Hungary
BrazilLatviaSlovak R epublicSingapore
UK anyGerm
PortugalEs toniaTurkey
Aus
tria
C
zech
Republic
Netherlands
NorwayIndonesia
IrelandFinlandSpain
DenmPolandark
SwedenSwitzerland
Malays ia
ThailandBelgium
Italy.4FrancePhilippines
South Korea

.2

China

0

Share of US in Box Office Revenues

N ew Zealand
Canada

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

Share of US in No. of Films Exhibited

20

Belgium
Spain
CanadaPhilippines
Aus
traliaUK
Italy
Singapore
FranceMalays ia
Germ any
Argentina
New ZealandBrazilR
uss
iaMexico
ThailandLithuaniaIceland
Netherlands
Portugal
Aus
tria
South
Korea
TurkeyPolandSwitzerlandNorway
SwedenRom
ania
Slovenia
Indonesia
Denm ark
HFinlandungaryIrelandC
zech
Republic
SlovakRepublic
LatviaEs tonia-2

C hina-4

Log number of US films imported

4

Figure 4: Intensive versus extensive margin of movie imports, 2001-2006

-4

-2

0

2

4

Log box-office revenues per US film

30

Figure 5: Movie imports and importing-country characteristics, 2001-2006

20Belgium Spain
CanadaPhilippines
AusMexico
traliaItaly
U KGerm any
Singapore
FranceMalaysia Argentina
New
Zealand
BrazilKorea
R us
s iaSouth
ThailandLithuaniaN
etherlands
Iceland SloveniaR om ania Portugal
Aus
tria
TurkeyPolandSwitzerland
NorwaySwedenIndonesia
Denm ark
Finland
Hungary
IrelandC
zech
Republic
SlovakR
epublic
LatviaEs tonia

-2

China

-4

Log number of US films imported

4(a) Number of US movies imported

-4

-2

0

2

4

Log GDP
Fitted values

20

UK Australia

Belgium
Spain
CanadaItaly
FranceMexico
GermanyNew
Zealand Argentina
BrazilRussiaNetherlands
PortugalLithuania
AustriaSwitzerland
PolandNorwaySwedenRomania
Slovenia
Denmark
IrelandCzech
Republic
SlovakRepublic
LatviaPhilippines
Singapore
Malaysia
ThailandSouth Korea
TurkeyIndonesia
Finland
Hungary
Estonia

-2

China

-4

Log number of US films imported

4

Actual values

-.4

-.2

0

.2

.4

Log linguistic dissimilarity with US
Actual values

Fitted values

31

0

2

UK
Germ any
FranceCanada China
AusMexico
traliaSouth
SpainKorea
Italy
R us s ia Brazil
Switzerland
N etherlands
SwedenAus tria
Denmark
NorwayIreland
PolandIndones ia
Portugal
New ZealandTurkeyBelgium
Thailand
Argentina
Finland
Hungary
Singapore
Philippines
C zechRepublic-2

Malays ia
Iceland Slovenia
ania
Es tonia
Slovak R om
epublic
LatviaLithuania-4

Log box-office revenues per US film

4(b) Box-office revenues per US movie

-4

-2

0

2

4

Log GDP
Fitted values

2

UK
Australia

Germany
CanadaFranceMexicoChina
South Korea

Spain
Italy

0

RussiaBrazilSwitzerland
Netherlands
SwedenAustria
Denmark Ireland
NorwayPolandPortugal
New ZealandBelgium
Argentina

Indonesia
TurkeyThailandFinland
Hungary
Singapore
Philippines

Czech Republic-2

Slovenia

Malaysia

Slovak Romania
Republic
LatviaLithuania

Estonia-4

Log box-office revenues per US film

4

Actual values

-.4

-.2

0

.2

.4

Log linguistic dissimilarity with US
Actual values

Fitted values

32

1

Switzerland
Aus tria
Belgium
Portugal Slovak R epublic
Germ any
Slovenia
Rus s Argentinaia
Spain
Hungary
C hinaIreland
UK
France Italy Brazil
Netherlands
LatviaR om ania

0

MexicoLithuania
Poland
Es
tonia
Czech
R epublic
SwedenN orwayDenmark
Finland

Iceland-1

TurkeyAus tralia

Singapore
Philippines
N ew ZealandSouth Korea
ThailandIndones ia
Malays ia-2

Log relative box office revenue per film

2

Figure 6: Relative average revenue per US movie and trade barriers, 2001-2006(a) Distance to the US

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

Log distance to US(mean) lsd

Fitted values

2

CanadaAus triaSwitzerland
Belgium
Slovak R epublic
Portugal
Germ any

1

Aus tralia

0

UK

Slovenia
R us s ia
Argentina
Spain
Ireland
BrazilFranceMexico
Italy
Netherlands
RLatvia
om ania
Lithuania
PolandC
zech
Republic
Sweden-1

New Zealand Norway
Denm ark

H ungary
China

Es tonia
Singapore
Philippines
Finland
South Korea
ThailandTurkeyIndones ia
Malays ia-2

Log relative box office revenue per film(b) Linguistic dissimilarity with the US

-.4

-.2

0

.2

.4

Log linguistic dissimilarity with US(mean) lsd

Fitted values

33

30

Figure 7a: Country size and linguistic distance from the US

0
0
0

28

0
0
0
0
0

log GDP
26

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

24

1
1
1

0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0

0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

22

1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

-.8

-.6

-.4
log linguistic dissimilarity

-.2

0

30

Figure 7b: Country size and geographic distance from the US

0

28

0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
00
0
0 0
0
0 00
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0 0 0
0
00
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1 1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
11
1
1

22

24

log GDP
26

0
0

-1

-.5

0
log geographic distance.5134