Cultural exports are essential for many Global South countries, yet access to major markets remains unequal. Using Chile as a case study, this research combines economics and machine learning to uncover what really drives cultural trade. The findings offer practical guidance for policymakers seeking fairer and more effective export strategies.
In many countries of the Global South, artists and cultural workers cannot rely solely on domestic audiences to sustain their livelihoods. Local demand is often too small, too unequal, or too fragile. For them, exporting cultural goods, books, crafts, audiovisual products, design, and visual arts, is not just an opportunity, but it is a necessity, as internal demands often are not enough to stabilize their socioeconomic situation.
Yet cultural trade is not a level playing field. A handful of countries in North America, Europe, and parts of Asia dominate global cultural markets (Deloumeaux, 2016). Latin America, for instance, represents only a small share of global creative revenues. This imbalance raises an important question:
What determines whether a country imports cultural goods from the Global South?
My research explores this question using Chile as a case study. Chile is a particularly interesting example. It is one of the leading exporters of cultural goods among Spanish-speaking countries in South America, together with Colombia, yet cultural exports still represent only a tiny fraction of its total exports (UNCTAD, 2025).
To investigate the previous question, I examined Chile’s cultural exports between 2005 and 2015 and combined trade data with information about potential importing countries: their economic size, distance from Chile, trade agreements, political stability, and even whether they share a common language. Instead of looking only at how much countries trade, I focused on something slightly different, the probability that a country imports Chilean cultural goods at all.
This may sound technical, but the logic is simple. Rather than asking:
“How much does France buy?”, the question becomes: “What makes a country more likely to buy Chilean cultural goods in the first place?”
From that question several clear patterns emerged. Firstly, the strongest predictor of whether a country imports Chilean cultural goods is its level of economic development. Countries with higher GDP and stronger capital stock are significantly more likely to trade with Chile (Bergstrand, 1985). It also supports findings that countries tend to trade more with partners that have similar GDP levels (Defever, Heid & Larch, 2015).
In practical terms, wealthier economies are better customers for cultural goods. They tend to have stronger institutions, more developed distribution networks, and higher purchasing power. Interestingly, countries with GDP levels similar to Chile’s or higher were much more likely to import. This aligns with what economists call the “gravity model” of trade, countries trade more with partners that are economically similar and large.
Secondly, geographical distance reduces the likelihood of trade, but its effect is relatively small compared to economic factors. This finding is consistent with the broader gravity literature, where distance proxies transport costs and informational frictions (Pöyhönen, 1963; Chaney, 2011). It also suggests that improvements in logistics, digital platforms, and online distribution can partially offset distance. Cultural goods, especially digital ones (design, audiovisual, publishing, etc.), are particularly suited to overcoming physical barriers.
Thirdly, sharing a common language significantly increases the probability of trade, operating as a proxy for cultural proximity (Frankel, Stein & Wei, 1997; Melitz, 2008). This may seem obvious, but its effect is substantial. Language acts as a bridge of cultural familiarity. It reduces transaction costs, facilitates marketing, and strengthens audience identification. For Chile, Spanish-speaking countries represent natural markets. Cultural policy strategies can therefore benefit from mapping linguistic and cultural proximity, together with the idea of promoting that language in countries where it is not native.
Finally, countries with higher levels of political stability and stronger institutions are more likely to import Chilean cultural goods. Stable governance reduces uncertainty and transaction costs (Anderson & Marcouiller, 2002; De Groot et al., 2004). Trust in financial and legal systems makes cultural exchange more feasible. This reinforces a broader message, cultural trade is not only about creativity, but also about institutional environments.
Beyond traditional statistical analysis, I also used machine learning tools to rank the most important predictors of trade. These models confirmed the central role of GDP, capital stock, distance, political stability, and trade agreements.
What does this mean for policymakers?
First, export promotion should prioritize economically strong and institutionally stable markets.
Second, strengthening comprehensive trade agreements can significantly improve cultural export opportunities.
Third, investing in digital distribution and logistics can mitigate geographical distance.
Fourth, regional collaboration among Latin American countries remains essential to negotiate better access to Global North markets (García Leiva, 2016).
Ultimately, improving cultural exports is not just about increasing trade volumes. It is about strengthening the livelihoods of artists, designers, writers, and creative workers. For many countries in the Global South, cultural trade is not a luxury, it is a pathway toward economic stability.
References
Anderson, J., & Marcouiller, D. (2002). Insecurity and the pattern of trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(2), 342–352.
Bergstrand, J. H. (1985). The gravity equation in international trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 474–481.
Chaney, T. (2011). The gravity equation in international trade: An explanation.
De Groot, H. L., Linders, G.-J., Rietveld, P., & Subramanian, U. (2004). The institutional determinants of bilateral trade patterns. Kyklos, 57(1), 103–123.
Defever, F., Heid, B., & Larch, M. (2015). Spatial exporters. Journal of International Economics, 95(1), 145–156.
Deloumeaux, L. (2016). The globalisation of cultural trade: International flows of cultural goods and services. UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Frankel, J. A., Stein, E., & Wei, S.-J. (1997). Regional trading blocs in the world economic system.
García Leiva, M. T. (2016). América Latina: Cooperación cultural y buenas prácticas en diversidad y sostenibilidad.
Melitz, J. (2008). Language and foreign trade. European Economic Review, 52(4), 667–699.
Pöyhönen, P. (1963). A tentative model for the volume of trade between countries.
(2025). Data Hub. [online]. Available at: https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/dataviewer/US.CreativeGoodsValue
About the article
Muñoz Hernández, M. A. (2025). The Trade Between Us: Barriers and Predictors for Exports of Cultural Goods from Chile. Latin American Journal of Trade Policy, 8(23), 151–198. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-9368.2025.80559
About the author
Matías Muñoz Hernández, PhD. Economic Data Expert. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
About the image
Licensed by the author
