Differences between Croatia and EU Candidate Countries: the CAGE Distance Framework

Open access

Abstract

Background: Nowadays, international cooperation is unevenly divided among countries. The decisive criteria imply cultural, administrative, geographical, and economical closeness among countries. Therefore, understanding such factors can significantly facilitate the performance of the company on foreign market.

Objectives: The goal of this paper is to identify the fundamental differences between Croatia and the EU candidate countries through a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the determinants within the CAGE Distance Framework. This systematic analysis can significantly intensify Croatia’s international exchange and improve Croatia’s performance at important foreign markets.

Methods/Approach: Research comprises original datasets on distance factors within CAGE distance framework. With cultural, administrative, geographic and economic data of Croatia and EU candidate countries, empirical support about the impact of distinctions on international exchange has been given.

Results: Cultural and geographical similarities are particularly noticeable among Croatia and EU candidate countries, although there are also no significant differences in the administrative and the economic dimension. However, Turkey is the only country that somewhat differs in each segment.

Conclusions: Similarities have significant influence on cross-border trade. With all present similarities and differences, cooperation among Croatia and the EU candidate countries has a perspective for development, especially at a time when all candidate countries join the EU.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Balassa B. (2013) The Theory of Economic Integration Oxford Routledge.

  • 2. Cassey A. J. Holland D. W. Razack A. (2011) “Comparing the economic impact of an export shock in two modeling frameworks” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy Vol. 33 No. 4 pp. 623-638.

  • 3. Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2014) “Statistical Yearbook of the Croatia 2014 Export and import by partner countries” available at http://www.dzs.hr/Hrv_Eng/ljetopis/2014/sljh2014.pdf (20 February 2015)

  • 4. Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2015) “PC- Axis Databases Foreign trade in goods” available at http://www.dzs.hr/ (20 February 2015)

  • 5. European Commission (2015) “Check current status” available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/check-current-status/index_en.htm (15 February 2015)

  • 6. Geert H. H. (2001) Culture's consequences: Comparing values behaviors institutions and organizations across nations Thousand Oaks Sage.

  • 7. Ghemawat P. (2001) “Distance still matters” Harvard business review Vol. 79 No. 8 pp. 137-147.

  • 8. Ghemawat P. (2014) Arbitrage Strategies Unpublished Globalization Note Series University of Navarra IESE Business School in Barcelona Spain.

  • 9. Ghemawat P. (2015) “CAGE Comparator” available at http://www.ghemawat.com/cage/ (01 February 2015)

  • 10. Griffith D. A. Dimitrova B. V. (2014) “Business and Cultural Aspects of Psychic Distance and Complementarity of Capabilities in Export Relationships” Journal of International Marketing Vol. 22 No. 3 pp. 50-67.

  • 11. Hofstede G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations Software of the Mind London McGraw-Hill.

  • 12. Hutzschenreuter T. Voll J. C. Verbeke A. (2011) “The impact of added cultural distance and cultural diversity on international expansion patterns: A Penrosean perspective” Journal of Management Studies Vol. 48 No. 2 pp. 305-329.

  • 13. Koprić I. Musa A. Novak G. L. (2012) Europski upravni prostor (The European administrative area) Zagreb Institut za javnu upravu.

  • 14. Malhotra S. Sivakumar K. Zhu P. (2009) “Distance factors and target market selection: the moderating effect of market potential” International Marketing Review Vol. 26 No. 6 pp. 651-673.

  • 15. Mitra D. Golder P. (2002) „Whose culture matters? Near-market knowledge and its impact on foreign market entry timing“ Journal of Marketing Research Vol. 39 No. 3 pp. 350-65.

  • 16. Moser C. Nestmann T. Wedow M. (2008) „Political risk and export promotion: evidence from Germany“ The World Economy Vol. 31 No. 6 pp. 781-803.

  • 17. Ojala A. Tyrvainen P. (2007) “Market entry and priority of small and medium-sized enterprises in the software industry: an empirical analysis of cultural distance geographic distance and size” Journal of International Marketing Vol. 15 No. 3 pp. 123-149.

  • 18. Peng M. W. Wang D. Y. L. Jiang Y. (2008) “An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies” Journal of International Business Studies Vol. 39 No. 5 pp. 920–936.

  • 19. Poynter T. A. (2012) Multinational Enterprises and Government Intervention New York: St. Martin's Press Inc.

  • 20. Quer D. Claver E. Rienda L. (2012) “Political risk cultural distance and outward foreign direct investment: Empirical evidence from large Chinese firms.” Asia Pacific journal of management Vol. 29 No. 4 pp. 1089-1104.

  • 21. Sakarya S. Eckman M. Hyllegard K. (2007) “Market selection for international expansion; assessing opportunities in emerging markets International Marketing Review” Vol. 24 No. 2 pp. 208-238.

  • 22. Sousa C.M.P. Bradley F. (2006) “Cultural distance and psychic distance two peas in a pod?” Journal of International Marketing No. 14 pp. 49–70.

  • 23. The World Bank (2015) “GDP per capita (current US$)” available at http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (27 February 2015)

  • 24. Transparency International (2015) “Country” available at http://www.transparency.org/country (22 February 2015)

  • 25. United Nations Development Programme (2015) “Human Development Report” available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi-table (14 February 2015)

  • 26. Waugh M. (2010) “International trade and income differences” American Economic Review Vol. 100 No. 5 pp. 2093-2124.

  • 27. Weitzel U. Berns S. (2006) “Cross-border takeovers corruption and related aspects of governance” Journal of International Business Studies Vol. 37 No. 6 pp. 786-806.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.57

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.165
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.388

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 949 553 19
PDF Downloads 529 350 19