time only, the results presented in this section feature two main differences. First, because trade barriers are not only composed of the time element but also the actual logistical costs and tariffs which we assumed to be unaffected by the BRI, the decrease in trade costs are lower than the decrease in shipping time. Second, while results presented in Section 3 were inherently symmetric across country‐pairs, the reductions in trade costs are _not_ symmetric. This is due to the differences in the basket of goods traded within country pairs. If, for example, country A exports mostly time sensitive goods to country B, but imports only time insensitive goods, then a reduction in shipping times will induce a larger decrease in export costs than in import costs for country A and vice versa for country B.

Table 11 gives a first overview of our results for both our lower bound and upper bound scenarios. The decrease in trade costs associated with the BRI features a lot of geographical and sectoral heterogeneity. On average, the decline in trade costs associated to BRI projects ranges between 1.05 and 2.19 percent. For some country‐pairs this decline is zero, while the maximum change ranges between 61.52 and 65.16 percent.

_Table 11: Percentage decrease in trade costs due to the BRI_

||**Min**|**Max**|**Mean**|**Std Dev**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|||**Wo**|**rld**||
|**% decrease in trade cost – Lower Bound**|0.0%|61.52%|1.05%|2.43%|
|**% decrease in trade cost – Upper Bound**|0.0%|65.16%|2.19%|3.40%|
|||**BRI Co**|**untries**||
|**% decrease in trade cost – Lower Bound**|0.0%|61.52%|1.50%|3.07%|
|**% decrease in trade cost – Upper Bound**|0.0%|65.16%|2.81%|4.18%|

_Note: Summary statistics across all country‐pairs and sectors in the world._ Table 12 presents the non‐symmetric matrix of trade cost changes by region‐pair. The results display a similar pattern to the one previously discussed for the shipping time: East Asia and Pacific has the largest gains, followed by South Asia. Some pairs of regions experience no or small changes in trade costs, but all regions have significant gains with at least one of their trading partners. The systemic nature of the Belt and Road Initiative is apparent from the results. First, gains are not limited to the BRI economies or to country‐pairs involving at least one BRI economy. For example, averaging across sectors, the decrease in trade costs between Australia and Kirghizstan amounts to 11.1 percent, among the top 2 percent of all country‐pair gains. Trade costs between these two countries are expected to decrease from the BRI especially from the new railways and ports in Pakistan.

Second, the largest decrease in trade costs are not captured by the countries with the largest amount of transport projects. With more than 2,500km of new rail and more than 1,000km or upgraded rail, Mongolia is among the countries with the highest investment. When computing the proportional decrease in trade costs with all its partners weighted by import flows (which could be interpreted as the average decrease in import costs for the country), Mongolia experiences a decrease of only 3.22 percent. The same computation for Kenya reveals a decrease in import cost of more than 4.65 percent even though the country is expected to build 1,800km of new rail and a new port.

24