The Long Run Interplay Between Trade Policy and the Location of Economic Activity in Brazil Revisited

  • L. P. do C. Ferraz
  • E. A. HaddadEmail author
  • M. C. Terra
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


This paper addresses the question of whether further trade liberalization in Brazil may exert some influence on its already heterogeneous economic landscape. This is a rather relevant issue for the Brazilian economy, still one of the closest economies in the world, with huge economic disparities among its regions. The central question was motivated by an influent (and also controversial) theoretical insight brought about by Krugman and Elizondo (J Develop Econ 49: 137–150, 1996). Trough the specification of an interregional CGE model for the Brazilian economy, this paper argues that the adoption of (horizontal) liberal trade policies in Brazil, beyond traditional gains from trade, can also contribute to ameliorate regional inequality in the country, a result quite in line with Krugman and Elizondo’s predictions. In this sense, it makes the case for trade liberalization in Brazil as an additional (horizontal) public policy apparently effective in fighting regional inequality trough traditional market forces.


Trade liberalization Spatial general equilibrium CGE models Latin America New Economic Geography 


  1. Ades AF, Glaeser EL (1995) Trade and circuses: explaining urban giants. Quart J Econ 110(1):195–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso-Villar O (2001) Large metropolises in the third world: an explanation. Urban Stud 38(8):1359–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altomonte C, Bosco MG (2011) Environmental standards, spatial location and employment: the EU cement sector case. In: Riccardo C, Marco P (eds) Geography, institutions and regional economic performance. Springer, England,  Chapter 12 Google Scholar
  4. Campos-Filho L (1998) Unilateral liberalisation and Mercosul: implications for resource allocation. Rev Brasileira de Econ 52(4):601–636Google Scholar
  5. Ferraz L, Haddad E (2009) On the effects of scale economies and import barriers on Brazilian trade performance and growth: an interstate CGE analysis. Stud Reg Sci 39(1):53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flores RG Jr (1997) The gains from Mercosul: a general equilibrium, imperfect competition evaluation. J Policy Model 19(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fujita M, Krugman P (1995) When is the economy monocentric?: von Thunen and Chamberlin unified. Reg Sci Urban Econ 25:505–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gonzaga GM, Terra MCT, Cavalcante J (1999) O Impacto do Mercosul sobre o Emprego setorial no Brasil, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  9. Haddad EA, Azzoni CR (2001) Trade and location: geographical shifts in the Brazilian economic structure. In: Guilhoto JJM, Hewings GJD (eds) Structure and structural change in the Brazilian economy. Aldershot, AshgateGoogle Scholar
  10. Haddad EA, Hewings G (2001) Trade and regional development: international and interregional competitiveness in Brazil. In Johansson B, Karlsson Ch, Stough RR (eds) Theories of endogenous regional growth: lessons for regional policy. Theories of endogenous regional growth: lessons for regional policy. Springer, Berlin, pp 181–208Google Scholar
  11. Haddad EA, Hewings GJD (2005) Market imperfections in a spatial economy: some experimental results. Q Rev Econ Finance 45:476–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haddad EA, Bonet J, Hewings GJD, Perobelli FS (2009) Spatial aspects of trade liberalization in Colombia: a general equilibrium approach. Pap Reg Sci 88:699–732. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2009.00268.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henderson JV (1996) Ways to think about urban concentration: neoclassical urban systems versus the new economic geography. Int Reg Sci Rev 19(1&2):31–36Google Scholar
  14. Isserman AM (1996) “It’s obvious, it’s wrong, and anyway they said it years ago”? Paul Krugman on large cities. Int Reg Sci Rev 1996(1&2):37–48Google Scholar
  15. Krugman P (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krugman P (1991a) Geography and trade. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Krugman P (1991b) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Politic Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krugman P (1993) First nature, second nature, and metropolitan location. J Reg Sci 34:129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krugman P, Elizondo LR (1996) Trade policy and third world metropolis. J Develop Econ 49:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peter MW, Horridge M, Meagher GA, Naqvi F, e Parmenter BR (1996) The theoretical structure of MONASH-MRF. Preliminary Working Paper No. OP-85, IMPACT Project, Monash University, ClaytonGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanguinetti P, Martincus CV (2005) Does trade liberalization favor spatial de-concentration of industry? Investigación y Publicaciones, Universidad Torcuato di TellaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. P. do C. Ferraz
    • 1
  • E. A. Haddad
    • 2
    Email author
  • M. C. Terra
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.EESP/FGVSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.THEMA/Université de Cergy-PontoiseCergy-PontoiseFrance

Personalised recommendations