Advertisement

Open Economies Review

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 645–674 | Cite as

Bounded Love of Variety and Patterns of Trade

  • Philip SauréEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Long-run bilateral trade data exhibit four empirical regularities: (i) countries import only a small fraction of all traded varieties, (ii) per capita income and the number of imported varieties correlate positively, (iii) per capita income and trade shares correlate positively and (iv) world trade shares have markedly increased. Standard theories fail to simultaneously explain these patterns. This paper reconciles theory and data by assuming that the consumer’s marginal utility from varieties is bounded. Given this assumption, consumers do not purchase foreign varieties that bear high transport costs. With increasing incomes, however, consumers include more of the latter varieties, which generates the four patterns above.

Keywords

Marginal utility Variety 

JEL Classification

F10 F13 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Raphael Auer, Giancarlo Corsetti, Gino Gancia, Omar Licandro, Marco Maffezzoli, Diego Puga, Morten Ravn, Karl Schlag and Jaume Ventura and two anonymous referees for many valuable comments. All remaining errors are mine.

The views expressed in this paper are mine and do not necessarily represent those of the Swiss National Bank.

References

  1. Alcalá F, Ciccone A (2004) Trade and productivity. Q J Econ 119(2):613–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson J (1979) A theoretical foundation of the gravity equation. Am Econ Rev 69(1):106–116Google Scholar
  3. Anderson J, van Wincoop E (2004) Trade costs. J Econ Lit 42(3):691–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baier S, Bergstrand J (2001) The growth of world trade: tariffs, transport costs, and income similarity. J Int Econ 53:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin RE, Harrigan J (2007) Zeros, quality and space: trade theory and trade evidence. NBER WP 13214Google Scholar
  6. Bergoeing R, Kehoe TJ (2003) Trade theory and trade facts. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Research Department Staff Report 284Google Scholar
  7. Bergstrand J (1990) The Heckscher–Ohlin–Samuelson model, the Linder hypothesis, and the determinants of bilateral intra-industry trade. Econ J 100:1216–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broda C, Weinstein DE (2004) Variety growth and world welfare. Am Econ Rev 94(2):139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broda C, Weinstein DE (2006) Globalization and the gains from variety. Q J Econ 121(2):541–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cuñat A, Maffezzoli M (2007) Can comparative advantage explain the growth of US trade? Econ J 117:583–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feenstra R, Lipsey R, Deng H, Ma A, Mo H (2005) World trade flows 1962–2000. NBER WP 11040Google Scholar
  12. Francois J, Kaplan S (1996) Aggregate demand shifts, income distribution, and the linder hypothesis. Rev Econ Stat 78(2):244–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frankel J, Romer D (1999) Does trade cause growth? Am Econ Rev 89:379–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hallak JC (2006) Product quality and the direction of trade. J Int Econ 68:238–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrigan J (1994) Scale economies and the volume of trade. Rev Econ Stat 76:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haveman J, Hummels D (2004) Alternative hypothesis and the volume of trade: evidence on the extent of specialization. Can J Econ 37:199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helpman E, Melitz M, Rubinstein Y (2008) Estimating trade flows: trading partners and trading volumes. Q J Econ 123(2):441–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hufbauer G (1970) The impact of national characteristics and technology on the commodity composition of trade. In: Vernon R (ed) The technology factor in international trade. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Hummels D, Lugovskyy V (2005) Trade in ideal varieties: theory and evidence. NBER WP no. 11828Google Scholar
  20. Krugman P (1980) Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. Am Econ Rev 70:950–959Google Scholar
  21. Krugman P (1995) Growing world trade: causes and consequences. Brookings Pap Econ Act 1:327–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Markusen JR (1986) Explaining the volume of trade: an eclectic approach. Am Econ Rev 76(5):1002–1011Google Scholar
  23. Melitz M (2003) The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6): 1695–1725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melitz M, Ottaviano G (2008) Market size, trade, and productivity. Rev Econ Stud 75(1):295–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodriguez F, Rodrik D (2000) Trade policy and economic growth: a skeptic’s guide to the crossnational evidence. In: Bernanke B, Rogoff K (eds) Macroeconomics annual 2000. MIT Press for NBER, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruhl K (2005) Solving the elasticity puzzle in international economics. Mimeo, University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
  27. Schott PK (2004) Across-product versus within-product specialization in international trade. Q J Econ 119(2):647–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simonovska I (2010) Income differences and prices of tradables. NBER WP 16233Google Scholar
  29. Thursby JG, Thursby MC (1987) Bilateral trade flows, the Linder hypothesis, and exchange risk. Rev Econ Stat 69(3):488–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ventura J (2006) A global view of economic growth. In: Aghion P, Durlauf SN (eds) Handbook of economic growth, vol 1B. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Yi K-M (2003) Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade? J Polit Econ 111(1):52–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Young A (1991) Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of international trade. Q J Econ 106(2):369–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss National BankZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations