Review of World Economics

, Volume 151, Issue 4, pp 609–633 | Cite as

Pass-through of trade costs to U.S. import prices

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper measures the pass-through of trade costs into U.S. import prices by using actual data on duties/tariffs and freight-related costs. The key innovation is to decompose the indirect effects of trade costs (on prices) into the effects on markups, quality and productivity while measuring/interpreting the pass-through of trade costs into welfare. Robust to the consideration of variable versus constant markups, there is evidence for incomplete pass-through, mostly due to the negative indirect effects of trade costs on marginal costs, suggesting that lower trade costs are associated with imports that have higher marginal costs; markups are affected relatively less. When the effects of trade costs on marginal costs are further decomposed into their components, the positive contribution of quality dominates in all cases, followed by the negative effects of productivity, suggesting that lower trade costs are associated with higher-quality imports that have been produced with lower productivity.

Keywords

Pass-through Trade costs Variable markups Quality Productivity 

JEL Classification

F12 F13 F14 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Harmen Lehment, Sylvia Kuenne, an anonymous referee, Robert C. Feenstra, and the participants of 2013 International Trade Workshop at Florida International University for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Amiti, M., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2013). Import competition and quality upgrading. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(2), 476–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiti, M., & Konings, J. (2007). Trade liberalization, intermediate inputs, and productivity: Evidence from Indonesia. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1611–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arkolakis, C., Costinot, A., Donaldson, D., & Rodriguez-Clare, A. (2012). The elusive pro-competitive effects of trade. Working paper, Yale University.Google Scholar
  4. Badinger, H. (2007). Has the EU’s single market programme fostered competition? Testing for a decrease in markup ratios in EU industries. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(4), 497–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrens, K., & Murata, Y. (2007). General equilibrium models of monopolistic competition: A new approach. Journal of Economic Theory, 13(1), 776–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bottasso, A., & Sembenelli, A. (2001). Market power, productivity and the EU single market program: Evidence from a panel of Italian firms. European Economic Review, 45(1), 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crozet, M., Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2012). Quality sorting and trade: Firm-level evidence for French wine. Review of Economic Studies, 79(2), 609–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Loecker, J., & Warzynski, F. (2012). Markups and firm-level export status. American Economic Review, 102(6), 2437–2471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Loecker, J., Goldberg, P. K., Khandelwal, A. K., & Pavcnik, N. (2012). Prices, markups and trade reform. (NBER Working Paper 17925). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  10. Feenstra, R. C. (1989). Symmetric pass-through of tariffs and exchange rates under imperfect competition: An empirical test. Journal of International Economics, 27(1–2), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feenstra, R. C. (1994). New product varieties and the measurement of international prices. American Economic Review, 84(1), 157–177.Google Scholar
  12. Harrison, A. E. (1994). Productivity, imperfect competition and trade reform: Theory and evidence. Journal of International Economics, 36(1/2), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hart, O. D. (1983). The market mechanism as an incentive scheme. Bell Journal of Economics, 14(2), 366–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khandelwal, A. (2010). The long and short (of) quality ladders. Review of Economic Studies, 77(4), 1450–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, E. (2000). Trade liberalization and productivity growth in Korean manufacturing industries: Price protection, market power, and scale efficiency. Journal of Development Economics, 62(1), 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krishna, P., & Mitra, D. (1998). Trade liberalization, market discipline and productivity growth: New evidence from India. Journal of International Economics, 56(2), 447–462.Google Scholar
  17. Konings, J., Van Cayseele, P., & Warzynski, F. (2005). The effects of privatization and competitive pressure on firms’ price-cost margins: Micro evidence from emerging economies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levinsohn, J. (1993). Testing the imports-as-market-discipline hypothesis. Journal of International Economics, 35(1/2), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mandel, B. (2013). Chinese exports and US import prices. Staff Reports 591, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Google Scholar
  20. Marchand, B. U. (2012). Tariff pass-through and the distributional effects of trade liberalization. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nakamura, E., & Steinsson, J. (2012). Lost in transit: Product replacement bias and pricing to market. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3277–3316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicita, A. (2009). The price effect of tariff liberalization: Measuring the impact on household welfare. Journal of Development Economics, 89(1), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pavcnik, N. (2002). Trade liberalization, exit, and productivity improvements: Evidence from Chilean plants. Review of Economic Studies, 69(1), 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porto, G. G. (2006). Using survey data to assess the distributional effects of trade policy. Journal of International Economics, 70(1), 140–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Romalis, J. (2007). Market access, openness and growth.’ (NBER Working Paper 13048). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  26. Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Allen Unwin.Google Scholar
  27. Topalova, P., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2011). Trade liberalization and firm productivity: The case of India. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 995–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yilmazkuday, H. (2013). Constant versus variable markups: Implications for the Law of one price. Working paper, Florida International University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations