# Construction of the Belt and Road Trade Cooperation Network from the Multi-Distances Perspective
## 3 Empirical Analysis
In the future, more models and data tests will be needed to determine the reason for this relationship. 4. Cultural Distance (CD) was negative and significant at the 1% level, in line with the theoretical expectation that cultural distance has a negative effect on trade flows, as also reported by [PERSON] [38] and [PERSON] [42]. 5. Institutional Distances (ID) was positive and significant at the 1% level, indicating that the greater the institutional distance between two economies, the greater the trade flows. This conclusion is counter to the findings of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [42], but is consistent with the conclusion of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [39]. This is mainly due to the asymmetric effect of the institutional distance on trade flows. On one hand, for a trading partner with institutional risk, when the institutional distance between the two countries is small, the institutional environments of the two countries are similar and the experience gained by both parties in their respective countries can help effectively reduce their trade costs. As such, trade can easily occur. On the other hand, for a trading partner without institutional risk, a greater institutional distance means that the institution in this country is more developed and the institutional environment is better, which can provide an institutional guarantee for trade and help increase trade flows. 6. In model 4, the GDP of the trade target country, geographic distance, factor endowment, and cultural and institutional distance elasticity were 2.1235, 1.0964, 0.0720, 0.2569, and 0.3241, respectively. If the GDP of the trading target country or institutional distance increased by 1%, trade flows would increase by 2.1235% and 0.3241% respectively, whereas if the geographic, factor endowment, or cultural distance increased by 1%, trade flow would decrease by 1.0964%, 0.0720%, and 0.2569%, correspondingly. Geographical distance is the main factor affecting trade flow of the four distance variables, followed by institutional distance, cultural distance, and factor endowment distance. In summary, the regression results verified that trade flows between two economies are greater when the geographic distance, the factor endowment distance, and the cultural distance are smaller and the institutional distance is greater. The regression results were still robust when using the Uncertainty Avoidance and Government Effectiveness as the proxy variable for cultural distance and institutional distance. We also ran robustness tests using the Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood (PPML) estimator and get the same conclusion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Model 1** & **Model 2** & **Model 3** & **Model 4** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{InYj} & 2.1588 *** & 2.1185 *** & 2.1032 *** & 2.1235 *** \\  & (0.0287) & (0.0326) & (0.0462) & (0.0488) \\  & \(-\)1.1530 *** & \(-\)1.1185 *** & \(-\)1.0938 *** & \(-\)1.0964 *** \\  & (0.0276) & (0.0326) & (0.0461) & (0.0480) \\ \multirow{3}{*}{InDKL} & \(-\)0.0492 *** & \(-\)0.0759 *** & \(-\)0.0720 *** \\  & & (0.0113) & (0.0118) & (0.0138) \\ \multirow{3}{*}{InCD} & & \(-\)0.1312 *** & \(-\)0.2569 *** \\  & & & (0.0284) & (0.0304) \\ \multirow{3}{*}{InID} & & & & 0.3241 *** \\  & & & & (0.0312) \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Constant} & \(-\)30.4275 *** & \(-\)29.5956 *** & \(-\)29.2343 *** & \(-\)29.1151 *** \\  & (0.6760) & (0.7569) & (1.0816) & (1.1395) \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Adj-\(R^{2}\)} & 0.9628 & 0.9614 & 0.9560 & 0.9607 \\  & 8000.130 *** & 5134.710 *** & 3366.641 *** & 3028.080 *** \\ \multirow{3}{*}{Sample} & 620 & 620 & 620 & 620 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: “***” stands for \(p<0.01\); the numbers in parentheses are standard errors.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Estimates of panel techniques with mixed effects.