Factor Endowments and the Pattern of Commodity and Factor Trade

  • Michihiro Ohyama
Part of the Advances in Japanese Business and Economics book series (AJBE, volume 14)


In the traditional theory of international trade, it is customary to assume that the factors of production are prohibited from moving from country to country for some reason or another. This assumption of factor immobility has an important function, especially in the theory of comparative advantage. The standard Heckscher–Ohlin theory explains the pattern of commodity trade in terms of factor endowment proportions of different countries on the assumption that no factors of production are internationally mobile (for an excellent recapitulation and generalization of the doctrine, see Dixit and Woodland 1982). In reality, however, some factors are known to move across national borders, as exemplified by the international transfer of entrepreneurial resources and labor services (often through direct investment), as well as by international capital movements.


Home Country Constant Return Factor Price Trade Pattern Excess Supply 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Batra, R. N., & Casas, F. R. (1976). A synthesis of the Heckscher–Ohlin and the neoclassical models of international trade. Journal of International Economics, 6, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dixit, A. K., & Norman, V. (1980). Theory of international trade, a dual general equilibrium approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dixit, A., & Woodland, A. (1982). The relationship between factor endowments and commodity trade. Journal of International Economics, 13, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ethier, W. J., & Svensson, L. E. O. (1986). The theorems of international trade with factor mobility. Journal of International Economics, 20, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferguson, D. G. (1978). International capital mobility and comparative advantage—The two-country, two-factor case. Journal of International Economics, 8, 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hill, J. K., & Méndez, J. (1983). Factor mobility and the general equilibrium model of productions. Journal of International Economics, 19, 18–26.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, R. W., & Easton, S. T. (1983). Factor intensities and factor substitution in general equilibrium. Journal of International Economics, 19, 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones, R. W., & Ruffin, R. (1975). Trade patterns with capital mobility. In M. Parkin & A. R. Nobay (Eds.), Current economic problems: The proceedings of the Association of University Teachers of Economics (pp. 307–332). Manchester: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Leontief, W. W. (1954). Domestic production and foreign trade: The American capital position reexamined. Economia Internazionale, 7, 9–45.Google Scholar
  10. Ruffin, R. (1981). Trade and factor movements with three factors and two goods. Economics Letters, 7, 177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Suzuki, K. (1983). A synthesis of the Heckscher–Ohlin and the neoclassical models of international trade: A comment. Journal of International Economics, 14, 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Svensson, L. E. O. (1984). Factor trade and goods trade. Journal of International Economics, 16, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michihiro Ohyama
    • 1
  1. 1.Professor EmeritusKeio UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations