ArticlePloS one2024
Trade shocks and trade diversion due to epidemic diseases: Evidence from 110 countries.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating mathematical modelling and artificial intelligence to combat emerging viral syndemics: A systematic review.New microbes and new infections · 2026Review
- Climate change, geography and trade agreements: A perspective of Asian bilateral trade.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 has been a massive trade shock that has disrupted global trade, making the last few years a special phase. Even during normal times, epidemic diseases have acted as trade shocks in specific countries, albeit not to the same extent as COVID-19. For some trade shocks, the situation normalizes after the disease transmission is over; for some, it does not. Thus, specific countries can sometimes lose their original trade ratio due to trade diversion; that is, an epidemic disease could lead to unexpected industry restructuring. To examine this, based on data on 110 WHO members from 1996 to 2018, we use a fixed-effect panel model supported by the Hausman Test to empirically identify whether epidemic diseases can cause trade shocks and trade diversion. We find: First, epidemic disease can lead to negative shocks to a country's trade growth and its ratio of worldwide trade. Second, with a longer epidemic, the probability of the trade diversion effect increases. Our results hold even after considering country heterogeneity. This presents a considerable concern about the shock of COVID-19 lasting further. Many countries are not just facing the problem of temporary trade shocks, but also the challenge of trade diversions. In particular, the probability of trade diversions is increasing rapidly, especially for late-developed countries due to their lack of epidemic containment and vaccine-producing capabilities. Even middle and high income countries cannot ignore global industry chain restructuring. Forward-looking policies should be implemented in advance; it may be too late when long-term trade damage is shown.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.