Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Evidence on the Gains from Trade

  • Published:
Review of World Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We summarize the evidence on the gains from trade in monopolistic competition models, arising from three sources: (i) price reductions due to increasing returns to scale; (ii) increased product variety available to consumers; (iii) self-selection of firms with only the most efficient firms surviving after trade liberalization. There is little direct evidence to support the first source of gains from trade, though some indirect evidence from the European Union. The second and third sources of gains from trade find strong empirical support from studies from various countries, relying on new models and new empirical methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Allen, C., M. Gasiorek, and A. Smith (1998). The Competition Effects of the Single Market in Europe. Economic Policy 13 (27): 441–486.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Badinger, H. (2006). 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, forthcoming.

  3. Baldwin, R. (2006a). The Euro’s Trade Effects. Working Paper 594. European Central Bank, Frankfurt/M.

  4. Baldwin, R. (2006b). In or Out: Does It Make a Difference? An Evidence Based Analysis of the Trade Effects of the Euro. London: Center for Economic Policy Research.

  5. Bernard, A. B., J. B. Jensen, and P. K. Schott (2005). Importers, Exporters, and Multinationals: A Portrait of Firms in the U.S. that Trade Goods. NBER Working Paper 11404. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.

  6. Bernard, A. B., J. Eaton, J. B. Jensen, and S. Kortum (2003). Plants and Productivity in International Trade. American Economic Review 93 (4): 1268–1290.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Broda, C., and D. E. Weinstein (2006). Globalization and the Gains from Variety. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 (2): 541–585.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Broda, C., D. Greenfield, and D. E. Weinstein (2006). From Groundnuts to Globalization: A Structural Estimate of Trade and Growth. NBER Working Paper 12512. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.

  9. Diewert, W. E. (1976). Exact and Superlative Index Numbers. Journal of Econometrics 4 (2): 115–145.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Eaton, J., and S. Kortum (2002). Technology, Geography and Trade. Econometrica 70 (5): 1741–1780.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eaton, J., S. Kortum, and F. Kramarz (2003). An Anatomy of International Trade: Evidence from French Firms. Unpublished, CREST, University of New York and University of Minnesota.

  12. Eaton, J., S. Kortum, and F. Kramarz (2004). Dissecting Trade: Firms, Industries, and Export Destinations. American Economic Review 94 (2): 150–154.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Feenstra, R. C. (1994). New Product Varieties and the Measurement of International Prices. American Economic Review 84 (1): 157–177.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Feenstra, R. C., and H. L. Kee (2006). Export Variety and Country Productivity: Estimating the Monopolistic Competition Model with Endogenous Productivity. University of California, Davis and World Bank Policy Research Group.

  15. Feenstra, R. C., and J. R. Markusen (1994). Accounting for Growth with New Intermediate Inputs. International Economic Review 35 (2): 429–447.

  16. Feenstra, R. C., A. Heston, M. P. Timmer, and H. Deng (2004). Estimating Real Production and Expenditures across Countries: A Proposal for Improving the Penn World Tables. NBER Working Paper 10866. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.

  17. Feenstra, R. C., D. Madani, T. H. Yang, and C. Y. Liang (1999). Testing Endogenous Growth in South Korea and Taiwan. Journal of Development Economics 60 (2): 317–341.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Friberg, R. (2001). Two Monies, Two Markets? Variability and the Option to Segment. Journal of International Economics 55 (2): 317–327.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Frisch, R. (1933). Pitfalls in the Statistical Construction of Demand and Supply Curves. Leipzig: Hans Buske.

  20. Funke, M., and R. Ruhwedel (2001a). Export Variety and Export Performance: Evidence from East Asia. Journal of Asian Economics 12 (4): 493–505.

  21. Funke, M., and R. Ruhwedel (2001b). Product Variety and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence from the OECD Countries. IMF Staff Papers 48 (2): 225–242.

  22. Funke, M., and R. Ruhwedel (2002). Export Variety and Export Performance: Empirical Evidence for the OECD Countries. Weltwirtschaftliche Archiv/Review of World Economics 138 (1): 97–114.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Harris, R. (1984a). Applied General Equilibrium Analysis of Small Open Economies with Scale Economies and Imperfect Competition. American Economic Review 74 (5): 1016–1032.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Harris, R. (1984b). Trade, Industrial Policy, and Canadian Manufacturing. Toronto: Ontario Economic Council.

  25. Hausman, J. A. (1997). Valuation of New Goods under Perfect and Imperfect Competition. In T. F. Bresnahan and R. J. Gordon (eds.), The Economics of New Goods. NBER Studies in Income and Wealth 58, Chicago: University of Chicago.

  26. Hausman, J. A. (1999). Cellular Telephone, New Products, and the CPI. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 17 (A2): 188–194.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Head, K. C., and J. Ries (1999). Rationalization Effects of Tariff Reductions. Journal of International Economics 47 (2): 295–320.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Head, K. C., and J. Ries (2001). Increasing Returns versus National Product Differentiation as an Explanation for the Pattern of US-Canada Trade. American Economic Review 91 (4): 858–876.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Helpman, E. (1981). International Trade in the Presence of Product Differentiation, Economics of Scale and Monopolistic Competition: A Chamberlin–Heckscher–Ohlin Approach. Journal of International Economics 11 (3): 305–340.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Helpman, E., M. Melitz, and S. Yeaple (2004). Exports vs. FDI with Heterogeneous Firms. American Economic Review 94 (1): 300–316.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hicks, J. R. (1940). The Valuation of Social Income. Economica 7: 105–124.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hobijn, B., F. Ravenna, and A. Tombalotti (2006). Menu Costs at Work: Restaurant Prices and the Introduction of the Euro. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121 (3): 1103–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hummels, D., and P. Klenow (2005). The Variety and Quality of a Nation’s Trade. American Economic Review 95 (3): 704–723.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kimura, F., and K. Kiyota (2006). Exports, FDI, and Productivity: Dynamic Evidence from Japanese Firms. Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, this issue.

  35. Krugman, P. R. (1979). Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition and International Trade. Journal of International Economics 9 (4): 469–479.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Krugman, P. R. (1980). Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade. American Economic Review 70 (5): 950–959.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Krugman, P. R. (1981). Intra-Industry Specialization and the Gains from Trade. Journal of Political Economy 89 (5): 959–973.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lancaster, K. (1980). Intra-Industry Trade under Perfect Monopolistic Competition. Journal of International Economics 10 (2): 151–175.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Leamer, E. E. (1981). Is It a Demand Curve, or Is It a Supply Curve? Partial Identification through Inequality Constraints. Review of Economics and Statistics 63 (3): 319–327.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Leontief, W. (1929). Ein Versuch zur Statistischen Analyse von Angebot und Nachfrage. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv/Review of World Economics 30 (1): 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Melitz, M. J. (2003). The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica 71 (6): 1695–1725.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Raff, H., and M. J. Ryan (2006). Firm-Specific Characteristics and the Timing of Foreign Direct Investment Projects. Mimeo. University of Kiel and Western Michigan University.

  43. Raff, H., M. J. Ryan, and F. Stähler (2006). Firm Productivity and the Foreign Market Entry Decision. Mimeo. University of Kiel, Western Michigan University and University of Otago.

  44. Rigobon, R. (2003). Identification through Heteroskedasticity. Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (4): 777–792.

  45. Rose, A. K. (2000). One Money, One Market: Estimating the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade. Economic Policy 30: 9–45.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sato, K. (1976). The Ideal Log-Change Index Number. Review of Economics and Statistics 58 (May): 223–228.

  47. Smith, A., and A. J. Venables (1988). Completing the Internal Market in the European Community: Some Industry Simulations. European Economic Review 32: 1501–1525.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Smith, A., and A. J. Venables (1991). Economic Integration and Market Access. European Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 35 (2/3): 388–395.

  49. Trefler, D. (2004). The Long and Short of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. American Economic Review 94 (4): 870–895.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tybout, J. R., and M. D. Westbrook (1995). Trade Liberalization and Dimensions of Efficiency Change in Mexican Manufacturing Industries. Journal of International Economics 39 (1/2): 53–78.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tybout, J. R., J. de Melo, and V. Corbo (1991). The Effects of Trade Reform on Scale and Technical Efficiency. New Evidence from Chile. Journal of International Economics 31 (3/4): 231–250.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vartia, Y. O. (1976). Ideal Log-Change Index Numbers. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 3 (3): 121–126.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of California, 95616, Davis, CA, USA

    Robert C. Feenstra

  2. National Bureau of Economic Research, USA

    Robert C. Feenstra

Authors
  1. Robert C. Feenstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert C. Feenstra.

Additional information

JEL no.

F10, F12, F15

About this article

Cite this article

Feenstra, R. New Evidence on the Gains from Trade. Rev. World Econ. 142, 617–641 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-006-0086-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-006-0086-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation