Bilateral Trade under Environmental Pressure: Balanced Growth

Abstract

Based on the advance-retreat course (ARC) model - a growth model under environmental pressure, this paper builds a bilateral import and export trade growth model under environmental pressure. By using the model, the paper analyzes the impacts of innovation on import and export growth, presents a method for computing the optimal levels of imports and exports, derives the limit values of imports and exports, and obtains the limit equilibrium between exports and imports. Finally, a strategy for promoting import and export growth and achieving a bilateral trade balance according to the limit equilibrium is designed. The findings are the following: (i) innovation growth will gradually reduce goods import and export, and services import and export will increase, (ii) the U.S. import–export structure is more reasonable than that of China, and (iii) there is big room for services import and export growth for China.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Data source: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/statis_e.htm.

  2. 2.

    Data source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.

  3. 3.

    Data source: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/statis_e.htm.

References

  1. Anderson JE, Marcouiller D (2005) Anarchy and autarky: endogenous predation as a barrier to trade. Int Econ Rev 46:189–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson JA, Van Wincoop E (2003) Gravity with gravitas: a solution to the border puzzle. Am Econ Rev 93:170–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Appleyard D, Field A (2001) International economics, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc

  4. Barro RJ (2008) Macroeconomics: a modern approach. Thomson South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning.

  5. Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin X (1995) Economic growth. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beladi H, Oladi R (2011) An elementary proposition on technical progress and non-traded goods. J Math Econ 47:68–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cipollina M, Salvatici L (2010) The trade impact of European Union agricultural preferences. J Econ Policy Reform 13:87–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dai F, Liang L, Wu S (2013) Money supply and economic growth under environmental pressure: the strategy for Re-growth. Int J Monet Econ Financ 6(1):55–80. doi:10.1504/IJMEF.2013.055717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dai F, Wu S, Liang L (2014) Capital and innovation aggregation with environmental pressure: an optimal evolution. Cogent Econ Financ 2:988401. doi:10.1080/23322039.2014.988401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dai F, Li P, Liang L (2015) Long-term economic growth under environmental pressure: an optimal path. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. doi:10.1016/j.qref.2015.03.008

  11. Deardorff AV (1994) The possibility of factor price equalization, revisited. J Int Econ 36:167–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deardorff AV (2007) The Ricardian model. University of Michigan in its series Working Papers with number 564, http://ideas.repec.org/p/mie/wpaper/564.html.

  13. Debaere P (2005) Monopolistic competition and trade, revisited: testing the model without testing for gravity. J Int Econ 66:249–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dutt P, Mitra D, Ranjan P (2009) International trade and unemployment: theory and cross-national evidence. J Int Econ 78:32–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Francois J, Wooton I (2010) Market structure and market access. World Econ 33:873–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Harrigan J (2010) Airplanes and comparative advantage. J Int Econ 82:181–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jones RW (1965) The structure of simple general equilibrium models. J Polit Econ 73:557–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones R (1971) A three-factor model in theory, trade and history. In J. Bhagwati et al., eds. Trade, balance of payments, and growth. Amsterdam: North-holland, 3–21

  19. Kraay A, Ventura J (2002) Trade integration and risk sharing. Eur Econ Rev 46:1023–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leung HM (1998) On wage-inequalities in the North and in the South. J Int Trade Econ Dev 7:299–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsuyama K (2000) A ricardian model with a continuum of goods under nonhomothetic preferences: demand complementarities, income distribution, and north–south trade. J Polit Econ 108:1093–1120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Melvin J, Waschik R (2001) The neoclassical ambiguity in the specific factor model. J Int Trade Econ Dev 10:321–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Opp MM (2010) Tariff wars in the Ricardian Model with a continuum of goods. J Int Econ 80:212–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pelletiere D, Reinert KA (2004) Used automobile protection and trade: gravity and ordered probit analysis. Empir Econ 29:737–751

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reed W (2001) The Pareto Zpif and other Power law. Econ Lett 74:15–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roldos JE (1991) Tariffs, investment and the current account. Int Econ Rev 32:175–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Samuelson P (1971) Ohlin was right. Swed J Econ 73:365–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sanchez JR, Gonzalez-Estevez J, Lopez-Ruiz R, Cosenza MG (2007) A model of coupled maps with Pareto behavior. http://arxiv.org in its series Quantitative Finance Papers with number nlin/0701016.

  29. Schoenberg FP, Peng R, Woods J (2003) On the distribution of wildfire sizes. Environmetrics 14:583–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simon JE, Wolfgang K (2002) On theories explaining the success of the gravity equation. J Polit Econ 110:281–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70:65–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39:312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stack M, Pentecost E (2011) Regional integration and trade: a panel cointegration approach to estimating the gravity model. J Int Trade Econ Dev 20:53–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Syropoulos C (2002) On tariff preferences and delegation decisions in customs unions: a heckscher-ohlin approach. Econ J 112:625–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Thompson H, Francis J (2009) Tariff elimination and the wage Gap in an industrial specific factors model. Rev Int Econ 17:447–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tinbergen J (1962) Shaping the world economy: suggestions for an international economic policy. The Twentieth Century Fund, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge PhD Raj Chetty (Department of Economics, Harvard University) for his appreciation and encouragement for the work in the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Dai.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Without loss of generality, let 1 < θ < 3 and θ = θ 0 + x (θ 0 = 2, −1 < x < 1), where θ is the policy index; and let Δ = 0.1, θ Δ i = θ 0 + i · Δ (i = −9, · · ·, −1, 0, 1, · · ·, 9), then an algorithm is designed as follows:

  1. (i).

    Do the regression calculation based on θ Δ i , we will obtain the coefficient of determination R 2 i (i = −9, · · ·,-1, 0, 1, · · ·, 9);

  2. (ii).

    Denote \( {R}_{i_0}^2=\underset{i}{ \max}\left\{{R}_i^2\right\} \), correspondingly, θ 1 = \( {\theta}_{i_0}^{\varDelta } \).

    Afterwards, let

    $$ {\varDelta}_1=0.01,\;{\theta}_i^{\varDelta }={\theta}_1+i\bullet {\varDelta}_1\left(i=-9,\cdots, -1,\;0,\;1,\cdots,\;9\;\right) $$

    And

    $$ {\varDelta}_2=0.001,\;{\theta}_i^{\varDelta }={\theta}_2+i\bullet {\varDelta}_2\left(i=-9,\cdots,\;1,\;0,\;1,\cdots, 9\right) $$

    Using the above algorithm repeatedly, and then, the coefficient of determination is maximised.

Appendix 2

We have the following conclusions for OGE (5), OGDE-G (6) and services exports σ = qμ *:

  1. (i).

    If \( \left[1+q\left(1/w-1/\overline{\theta}\right)\right]{q}^{\overline{\theta}-1}<v/\left(\overline{\theta}w\right) \), innovation growth causes OGE to grow.

  2. (ii).

    If \( q<{\left(\overline{\theta}v/w\right)}^{1/\left(\overline{\theta}-1\right)} \), innovation growth causes services exports, σ = qμ *, to grow.

  3. (iii).

    if \( q<{\left(v/w\right)}^{1/\left(\overline{\theta}-1\right)} \), innovation growth causes OGDE-G to grow.

    Proof. Let \( {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d{\mu}^{*}}{dq}}>0 \), \( {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d}{dq}}\left({\mu}^{*}\cdot q\right)>0 \) and \( {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d}{dq}}\left({\left.{Y}_E\right|}_{\mu ={\mu}^{*}}\right)>0 \) separately, and Appendix 2 is as follows.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dai, F., Wu, S., Liang, L. et al. Bilateral Trade under Environmental Pressure: Balanced Growth. J Ind Compet Trade 16, 209–231 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-015-0205-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Import–export model
  • Trade environmental pressure
  • Policy index
  • Bilateral trade balance
  • Balanced growth

JEL Classification

  • C53
  • F43
  • F47
  • O44