资源简介

(共35张PPT)
CHAPTER 3 NEOCLASSICAL TRADE THEORY
Gains from Trade in Neoclassical Trade Theory
Reciprocal Demand Theory
Factor Endowment Theory
The Leontief Paradox
Increasing opportunity costs on the PPF
The shape is concave to the origin or bowed out.
Y
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
0 X1 X2 X3 X4 X
X1X2= X2X3= X3X4
Y1Y2< Y2Y3< Y3Y4
Y
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
0 X1 X2 X3X4 X
Y1Y2=Y2Y3=Y3Y4
X3X4Figure 3-1(b) Increasing opportunity costs on the PPF
§1 Gains from Trade in Neoclassical Trade Theory
Figure 3-1(a) Increasing opportunity costs on the PPF
X
0
Country I
Figure 3-2(a) Country I’s PPF
X
0
Country II
Y
Figure 3-2(b) Country II’s PPF
The PPF of Country I shows a technology that is relatively more efficient in the production of X.
The PPF of Country II shows a technology that is relatively more efficient in the production of Y.
Y
2. General equilibrium and gains in autarky
·
A′
·
P’X/Y
0 X′1
CIC′
Y
Y'1
Figure 3-3(b) The equilibrium point in autarky for Country II is at point A′ when PX/PY =PA’
A
·
PX/Y
X
0 X1
CIC1
Y1
·
Figure 3-3(a) The equilibrium point in autarky for Country I is at point A when PX/PY =PA
Country I
(Gains: OX1,OY1)
Country II
(Gains: OX’1,OY’1)
Y
x
·
A
3. General equilibrium and gains after the
introduction of international trade
As (PX/PY)I<(PX/PY)II, Country I has a comparative advantage in good X while Country II has a comparative advantage in good Y.
Country I should specialize in and export good X；
Country II should specialize in and export good Y。
PX/Y< PW flatter than the autarky price line in Country II
steeper than the autarky price line in Country I.
A
·
PX/Y
X
0
CIC1
CIC2
E

B
x1 x2
Y
·
Figure 3-4(a) Equilibrium points and gains in autarky and with trade for Country I when opportunity costs of production are increasing.
PW
At point E Country I gains X1X2 more of good X and Y1Y2 more of product Y.
At point E’ Country II gains X’1X’2 more of good X and Y’1Y’2 more of product Y.

Y2
Y1



A’
X’1 X’2
X
B′
P’X/Y
E′
0
Y’2
CIC’2
CIC’1
A
Y
Y’1
Figure 3-4(b) Equilibrium points and gains in autarky and with trade for Country II when opportunity costs of production are increasing.
PW



CIC1
CIC2
Y
X
PW
PW
·
· E
B ·
0
Figure 3-5 Two parts of gains from trade: gains from consumption and gains from specialization
CIC3
·
A
·T
CIC1
CIC2
CIC3
.
A
E .
.B
T .
PW
PW
X
Y
§2 Reciprocal Demand Theory
A country’s offer curve 提供曲线
It indicates the quantity of imports and exports the country is willing to buy and sell on world markets at all possible relative prices.
It shows the country’s willingness to trade at various possible terms of trade.
A combination of the demand for imports and the supply of exports.
First verbalized by John Stuart Mill, and then put into graphic form by Alfred Marshall and F.Y. Edgworth.
Y
A
Y1
Y2
X1
X2
(PX/Y)1
C
CIC1
X
B
·
0
·
Figure 3-6(a) Trade triangle at a possible terms of trade of (PX/Y)1
A′
X
X4
X3
Y
Y3
Y4
C′
B′
(PX/Y)2
CIC’1
0
Figure 3-6(b) Trade triangle at a possible terms of trade of (PX/Y)2
·
·
Qx1
Qy1
Qx2
Qy2
(PX/Y)1
(PX/Y)3
(PX/Y)2
(PX/Y)4
Exports of good X
OCI
Figure 3-7 Alternative terms of trade and export-import combination on the offer curve of Country I
Imports of
good Y
0
●
●
●
●
E1 E2
M1
M2
2. Trading Equilibrium
OCII
OCI
(PX/Y)E or TOTE
(PX/Y)1 or TOT1
B
A
0 E1 Ee
E2
M1
M2
Me
I’s exports of X
II’s imports of X
Figure 3-8 Trading equilibrium between Country I and Country II
E
I’s imports of Y
II’s exports of Y



3. Measurement of terms of trade
TOT： The price of exports divided by the price of imports.
Price terms of trade, net barter terms of trade
In previous example, Country I’s TOT: PX/Y
Country II’s TOT: PY/X
Economic interpretation of the TOT:
As the price of exports rises relative to the price of imports,
each unit of a country’s exports is able to purchase a larger
quantity of imports.
Since a country exports and imports many goods, a price index
for a given year must therefore be calculated.
Thus the terms of trade of a particular country in a given year
are the ratio of the country's export price index to its import
price index in the given year (usually multiplied by 100).
If the TOT in a given year > 100, then the TOT is improved.
If the TOT in a given year < 100, then the TOT is deteriorated.
Example (China):
In 1994: PX = 100, PM = 100, TOT1994 = 100
In 2002: PX = 89, PM = 141, TOT2002 = (PX/PM)×100 = 63.12
The figure 63.12 means that each unit of China’s exports in 2002 exchanged for 36.88 percent fewer units of imports than in the base year.
(Raul) Prebisch/Singer findings
劳尔·普雷維什 / 汉斯 辛格
Concern about deterioration of TOT in developing countries
Studies published in 1950 by the Argentine economist
Raul Prebisch and the British economist Hans Singer
suggested that there is a tendency for the prices of
agricultural products to fall relative to the prices of
manufactured goods; turning the TOT against the
developing countries.
Suggest: nurture their own “infant industries” and so reduce their need to export agricultural products.
Hans Singer
(1910 –2006)
Raul Prebisch
（1901-1986）
Factor proportions theory or Heckscher-Ohlin theorem
Raised capital to the same level of importance as labor.?
Swedish economist Eli Heckscher (1879-1952)
The Effect of Foreign Trade on the Distribution of Income
His former graduate student Bertil Ohlin (1899-1979)
Interregional and International Trade
In 1979 Ohlin was awarded a Nobel prize jointly with
James Meade for his work in international trade theory.
(2008, Paul Krugman nobel prize winner)
§3 Factor Endowment Theory
Factor intensity in production
X is relatively labor intensive, and Y is relatively capital intensive.
(L/K)X > (L/K)Y
0 1 2 3 4 Labor (units)
Product X
(4 labors,
1 capital)
Figure 3-9 Description of Good X and Good Y by their factor proportions
Capital
(units)
2
1
Product Y
(4 labors,
2 capitals)
2. Factor endowments, factor prices, and comparative advantage
What determines cost differences if technology is the same across
countries
Answer: Different factor endowments.
“Different factor endowments refers to different relative factor
endowments, not different absolute amounts”.
Relative factor endowment (abundance) may be defined in two ways:
Physical definition explains factor abundance in terms of the
physical units of two factors available in each of the two countries.
Country I would be the capital abundant country if (K/L)I＞(K/L)II .
Price definition relies on the relative prices of capital and labor to
determine the type of factor abundance characterizing the two
countries. Country I would be the capital abundant country as long
as (r/w)I＜(r/w)II;
Comparative advantage is derived from the relative abundance of its factors of production.
TECHNOLOGY
Different
factor
endowments
Different
factor
prices
Different
product
costs
3. Assumptions of the factor proportions theory
Two countries, two products, and two factors of production (initial levels are fixed)
The two products have different factor intensities, and the respective commodity factor intensities are the same for all factor price ratios.?
Technology is identical in both countries.
Perfect competition prevails in both product and factor markets.
Factors are perfectly mobile within each country but are immobile between countries.
No transportation costs.
No restrictions on movement of the goods.
Constant returns to scale for both commodities in both countries.
4. The Heckscher-Ohlin theorem
A country will export the commodity that uses relatively intensively its relatively abundant factor of production, and will import the good that uses relatively intensively its relatively scarce factor of production.
To put it simply, a capital abundant country will export capital intensive good, while a labor abundant country will export labor intensive good.
Requirements of labor and capital in the production of steel and cloth
Steel Cloth
Labor 1 2
Capital 4 0.02
Note: STEEL is relatively capital intensive and CLOTH is relatively labor intensive
Different prices of labor and capital in Japan and China
Japan China
Labor $10 $4
Capital $ 5 $7
Note: Japan is relatively capital abundant and China is relatively labor abundant.
Different prices of steel and cloth in Japan and China
Japan China
Steel $10×1+$5×4 = $30 $ 4×1+$7×4 = $32
Cloth $10×2+ $5×0.02 = $20.1 $ 4×2+$7×0.02 = $8.14
Note: Steel is cheaper in Japan than in China while cloth is cheaper in China than in
Japan.
5. An example to illustrate the H-O theorem
6. The factor price equalization theorem
The convergence (趋同) of product prices takes place as the price of the product using the relatively abundant factor increases and the price of the product using the scarce factor prices falls.
This change in final product prices has implications for the price of factors in both of the participating countries.
Table 3-2 Change of prices of factors in Japan
(capital abundant country ) after trade
Output of steel Output of cloth
Demand for capital Demand for labor
Price of capital Price of cloth
Price of steel
Price of labor
Prior to trade, (w/r)Japan > (w/r)China .
With trade, (w/r)Japan falls while (w/r)China rises.
Trade will expand until both countries face the same set of relative factor prices. (known as factor price equalization theorem)
In the real world, however, differences in factor prices do exist.
Reasons: Different technologies, markets not perfectly competitive, transportation costs, trade barriers, etc.
7. The Stolper-Samuelson theorem
（斯托尔珀－萨缪尔森定理）
Developed by Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson in 1941.
Explains the H-O model regarding the income distribution effects of trade.
With full employment before and after trade takes place, the increase in the price of abundant factor and the fall in the price of the scarce factor because of trade imply that the owners of the abundant factor will find their real incomes rising and the owners of the scarce factor will find their real income falling.
Thus, owners of the relatively abundant resources tend to be “free trader” while owners of relatively scarce resources tend to favor trade restrictions.
§4 The Leontief Paradox — An Empirical Test of the
Factor Proportions Theory
1．The Leontief paradox
Input-output analysis： A technique of decomposing a
product into the values and quantities of the labor,
capital, and other potential factors employed in the
product's manufacture.
Leontief then used this methodology to analyze
the labor and capital content of all U.S.
merchandise imports and exports.
Hypothesis: U.S. exports should be relatively capital intensive
(use more units of capital relative to labor) than U.S. imports.
But Leontief’s results were surprising.
Table 3-3 Leading net export and net import industries and capital/labor ratios, 1947?
Net exporters K/L Net importers K/L
1. Wholesale trade $7,638 Agriculture and fisheries $29,689
2. Motor vehicles 10,447 Paper and paper board mills 11,123
3. Grain mill products 20,752 Rubber 17,848
4.Textile mill products,
spinning, weaving, and dyeing 10,738 Pulp mills 12,180
5. Railroad transportation 21,022 Food products: canning, preserving, and
freezing 15,635
6. Ocean transportation 15,945 Other nonferrous mining (i.e., not copper,
lead, zinc, bauxite) 16,205
7. Steelworks and rolling mills 15,273 Crude petroleum and natural gas 29,508
8. Coal mining 8,491 Furs (hunting and trapping) 14,259
9. Special industrial machinery 10,439 Primary copper 20,080
10. Petroleum products 27,139 Other primary metals (i.e., not lead, zinc,
copper, aluminum) 16,344
Seven of the ten net import industries have larger K/L ratios than their corresponding net export industries.
Also, the average K/L ratio of the 10 net importers is $18,287 per worker, while the average K/L ratio for the net exporters is $14,788 per worker.
The doubt cast on the widely accepted H-O theorem by this study became known as the Leontief Paradox.
2．Suggested explanations for the Leontief Paradox and
related theories
Different skill levels of labor (Donald Keesing, 1966)
Eight different categories.
Category I (scientists and engineers) : the most skilled labor
Category II (technicians and draftsmen): the second most skilled.
……
Category VIII (unskilled and semiskilled workers).
U.S. exports: A higher proportion of Category I workers and a lower proportion of Category VIII workers than the exports of other countries.
Imports used the smallest fraction of category I workers and the
largest fraction of category VIII workers.
The USA: skilled labor abundant (as well as capital abundant).
If so, the U.S. trade pattern conformed to H-O.
Different tastes and preferences
Demand patterns different
Example:
Demand in Japan (capital-abundant) is so oriented toward steel (capital-intensive) that the relative pre-trade price of steel is greater than in China.
Consequently: (PC/PS)Japan<(PC/PS)China, Japan exports cloth.
(2) Demand reversal
(3) Factor-intensity reversal
A good is produced in one country by relatively capital-intensive methods but is produced in another country by relatively labor-intensive methods.
In the context of the Leontief Paradox
U.S. import goods (toys): labor-intensive overseas
capital-intensive in the U.S.A.
The trading partners were conforming to H-O when they exported the goods.
The validity of this explanation is also an empirical questions.
(4) U.S. tariff structure
In the U.S., labor more protectionist (Stopler-Samuelson theorem).
U.S. trade barriers tend to hit hardest the imports of relatively labor-intensive goods.
In a 1971 study, estimated K/L ratio of U.S. imports would be about 5% lower if this effect was incorporated.
(5) The role of natural resources
Two-factor test is too restrictive.
Many of the “capital intensive” were really “natural
resource-intensive”.
Petroleum products, coal products, iron and steel.
James Hartigan confirmed: A paradox existed in
general, but not when natural resource-intensive
industries were deleted.
Robert Baldwin found: only reduced the paradox,
but not eliminate it.
Therefore, there is uncertainty.

展开更多......

收起↑