Abstract
International trade theory provides explanations for the pattern of international trade and the distribution of the gains from trade. The theory convinces most economists of the benefits of liberal trade. But many non-economists oppose liberal trade. Opponents include some who may have encountered trade theory but nevertheless fall prey to fallacious reasoning. This article attempts to convey why trade theory is so persuasive to economists and also to deal with why many non-economists are not persuaded.
This chapter was originally published in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, 2008. Edited by Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume
Bibliography
Anderson, J., and E. van Wincoop. 2003. Gravity with gravitas: A solution to the border puzzle. American Economic Review 93: 170–192.
Anderson, J., and E. van Wincoop. 2004. Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature 42: 691–751.
Bernard, A., J. Eaton, B. Jenson, and S. Kortum. 2003. Plants and productivity in international trade. American Economic Review 93: 1268–1290.
Bernhofen, D., and J. Brown. 2004. A direct test of the theory of comparative advantage: The case of Japan. Journal of Political Economy 112: 48–67.
Davis, D., and D. Weinstein. 2002. An account of global factor trade. American Economic Review 91: 1423–1453.
Deardorff, A. 1984. The general validity of the law of comparative advantage. Journal of Political Economy 88: 941–957.
Dixit, A., and V. Norman. 1986. Gains from trade without lump-sum compensation. Journal of International Economics 21: 111–122.
Eaton, J., and S. Kortum. 2002. Technology, geography and trade. Econometrica 70: 1741–1779.
Ethier, W. 1982a. National and international returns to scale in the modern theory of international trade. American Economic Review 73: 389–405.
Ethier, W. 1982b. Decreasing costs in international trade and Frank Graham’s argument for protection. Econometrica 50: 1243–1268.
Feenstra, R. 2003. Advanced international trade: Theory and evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gresser, E. 2002. Toughest on the poor. Foreign Affairs 81(6): 9–14.
Guesnerie, R. 2001. Second best redistributive policies: The case of international trade. Journal of Public Economic Theory 3: 15–25.
Helpman, E., and P. Krugman. 1985. Market structure and foreign trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jones, R. 1987. Heckscher–Ohlin trade theory. In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Vol. 2, ed. J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman. London: Macmillan.
Kemp, M., and H. Wan. 1986. Gains from trade with and without lump-sum compensation. Journal of International Economics 21: 99–110.
Krugman, P. 1980. Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. American Economic Review 70: 950–959.
Melitz, M. 2003. The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71: 1695–1725.
Neary, J., and A. Schweinberger. 1986. Factor content functions and the theory of international trade. Review of Economic Studies 53: 421–432.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
The general statement of comparative advantage is that on average a country will import goods that are relatively expensive in autarky. Let m denote the vector of excess demands in equilibrium, positive for imports and negative for imports. Let p denote the vector of relative prices in autarky in the home country and let p * denote the vector of relative prices in autarky in the foreign country. Then the vector inner product (p − p*)'m ≥ 0.
The key requirement for the proposition is ‘as if’ optimization by consumers and producers, leading downward-sloping demand and upward-sloping supply in the generalized sense (the substitution effects matrix of real income-compensated excess demands, \( {m}_p^c \), is negative semi-definite). If the actual trade equilibrium involves trade distortions, the additional requirement is that trade not be on balance subsidized. Let t be the vector of trade taxes, positive for import taxes and negative for export taxes (and negative for import subsidies and positive for export subsidies). The requirement is t’m ≥ 0.
The ‘buy low, sell high’ logic implies that a surplus is captured by trade, so comparative advantage trade is closely linked to the gains from trade. ‘As if’ optimization means that consumers lower the expenditure required to support given real income by reallocating consumption in trade equilibrium as compared with autarky, while optimization by producers means that income is raised by reallocating production in trade equilibrium as compared with autarky.
Similar comparative advantage statements can be made concerning the factor content of trade; countries tend to import (embodied in goods) the factors that are relatively expensive in autarky (see Neary and Schweinberger 1986).
Copyright information
© 2008 The Author(s)
About this entry
Cite this entry
Anderson, J.E. (2008). International Trade Theory. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2280-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2280-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95121-5
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences