Explanations to Leontief Paradox and Development of Trade Theory

合集下载

列昂惕夫反论及其解释

产品生命周期的基本内容
新产品生命分为四个阶段
(1)垄断时期由于在技术、生产及市场方面
的垄断优势,创新国在国内生产、销售并出口到与创新国家收入水平相近的国家。 (2)成长时期其他发达国家开始生产，对该新产品的技术差距与创新国逐步缩小，减少进口；创新国对那些发达国家出口下降，对发展中国家出口上升。
列的柑桔）。
。
需求状况(demand conditions)— 指本国市场对该产业的产品或服务的需求情况。国内需求状况不同会导致各国竞争优势的差异。国内需求促使当地厂商提供更先进的产品，该国最有可能在该产业获得竞争优势。相关产业与支持性产业(related and supporting industries )— 相关产业指因共用某种技术、共享同
产品生命周期理论* (Theory of Product Life Cycle)

美国学者弗农和威尔斯等人在论述技术差距说的基础上，引入市场营销学中的这一概念,创立的反映动态化的比较利益的理论。他们认为,产品同人一样,也具有诞生、成长、成熟和衰老的生命周期。在不同时期,对商品的生产和出口应采用不同的策略。这个理论成为国际投资的重要理论。
产业内贸易理论的假设前提：
1.基本从静态进行理论分析； 2.分析前提是：在垄断竞争市场条件下； 3.具有规模经济收益； 4.在分析中要考虑对同质产品和异质产品的需求
产业内贸易形成的原因同类产品的同质性指产品间可以完全相互替代,
消费者对这类产品的消费偏好完全一样（常因市场区位、市场时间不同产生贸易,如水果、大豆、木材)。

需求偏好相似说（Theory of Demand Preference Similarity) 该理论创始人林德认为,人均收入水平越接近的国家,其消费偏好和需求结构越相似,产品的相互适应性越强,贸易交往也就越密切。对此类产品，一国可以通过规模经济收益递增获得产量增加,生产成本递减的比较优势, 来满足国家间对产品的需求。人均收入水平存在较大差距是产业内贸易发展潜在的障碍。

HO模型赫克歇尔俄林理论

4.4.3 贸易对收入分配的影响
斯托尔泼－萨缪尔森定理：某一商品相斯托尔泼－萨缪尔森定理：对价格的上升，对价格的上升，将导致该商品密集使用的生产要素的实际价格或报酬提高，生产要素的实际价格或报酬提高，而另一种生产要素的实际价格或报酬则下降。种生产要素的实际价格或报酬则下降。由斯托尔泼——萨缪尔森定理，可以引申出一条结论：国际贸易会提高该国丰裕要素所有者的实际收入，降低稀缺要素所有者的实际收入。理由是贸易后一国出口商品的相对价格上升，根据H－O定理，
4.6 the Leontief Paradox
对H－O模型的第一次经验检验是在1951 年，由瓦西里·里昂惕夫利用美国1947 年数据进行的。里昂惕夫之谜：里昂惕夫的检验结果显示，美国进口替代品的资本密集程度比美国出口商品的资本密集程度高出大约 30％。这意味着，美国进口的是资本密集型商品，出口的反而是劳动密集型商品。检验结果与H－O理论的预测完全相反。
4.2.1 Factor Intensity
4.2.2 要素充裕度
有两种定义要素充裕度的方法，一种是以实物单位定义（即用各国所有可以利用的资本和劳动的总和来衡量）。另一种是用相对要素价格定义（即用每一国家的资本的租用价格和劳动时间价格来定义）。方法一：如果B国的可用总资本和可用总劳动的比率（TK/TL）大于A国的这一比率，我们就说B国是资本丰裕的。方法二：如果B国的资本租用价格和劳动时间价格的比率小于A国这一比率，我们就说B 国是资本丰裕的。（PK/PL=r/w）
4.2.3 要素丰裕度和生产可能性曲 A国是劳动丰裕的线
Y B国
A国
X A国和B国生产可能性曲线的形状
国家，而X是劳动密集型的商品，A 国的生产可能性曲线偏向度量商品X B 的横轴。B国是资本丰裕的国家，且商品Y是资本密集型的，B国的生产可能性曲线偏向度量商品Y的纵轴。

CHT3

CHAPTER 3 NEOCLASSICAL TRADE THEORY◆Reciprocal Demand Theory◆Factor Endowment Theory◆The Leontief Paradox§1穆勒的相互需求论一、互惠贸易的范围相互需求论认为，交易双方在各自国内市场有各自的交换比例，在世界市场上，两国商品的交换形成一个国际交换比例（即贸易条件），这一比例只有介于两国的国内交换比例之间，才对贸易双方均有利。

二、贸易利益的分配贸易利益的大小取决于两国国内交换比例之间范围的大小。

而贸易利益的分配，则取决于具体的国际交换比例：◆国际间商品交换比例越接近于本国国内的交换比例，对本国越不利，本国分得的贸易利益越少◆国际间商品交换比例越接近于对方国家国内交换比例，对本国越有利，分得的贸易利益就越多三、相互需求法则一方出售商品是购买对方商品的手段，即一方的供给是对对方商品的需求。

供给和需求也就是相互需求。

在互惠贸易的范围内，两国间商品交换比例（贸易条件）是由两国相互需求对方产品的强度决定的。

当两国间商品交换的比例与相互需求对方产品总量之比相等时，两国的贸易达到均衡。

互惠贸易的范围：15 L < 10 W < 20 L现假设：10w:17L英国愿意用1000ⅹ10码毛呢换德国的1000ⅹ17码麻布德国愿意用1000ⅹ17码麻布换英国的1000ⅹ10码毛呢则：麻布SGer=DU.K毛呢SU.K=DGer思考：如果两国的需求强度发生变化，如：英国对德国麻布的需求量下降，只需要800ⅹ17码布，德国对英国毛呢的需求量不变，而交换比例还是10W =17L ,会发生什么情况？则英国将进口800ⅹ17码麻布，出口800ⅹ10码毛呢, 德国进口1000ⅹ10码毛呢这意味着就毛呢而言SU.k＜DGer德国为了进口更多的毛呢，所以将会选择降低麻布的价格，以刺激英国对麻布的需求。

假设：10W:18L英国对麻布的需求增加到900ⅹ18码德国对毛呢的需求降低到900ⅹ10码10w:18L= 900ⅹ10 ：900ⅹ18码总结：两种商品的贸易条件即均衡交换比例必须等于双方相互需求对方产品的总量之比，这样才使两国贸易达到均衡。

国际经济学题库(英文版)

Part Ⅰ。

Fill in the blank with suitable content.1.Seven themes recur throughout the study of international economics. These are the gains from trade ， the pattern of trade ， protectionism the balance of payments ， exchange rate determination ， international policy coordination ， international capital market.2。

Countries engage in international trade for two basic reasons ： comparative advantage and economics of scale 。

3。

A country has a comparative advantage in producing a good if the opportunity cost of producing that good in terms of other goods is lower in that country than it is in other countries.4。

Labor is the only one factor of production. LC a 、LW a and *LC a 、*LW a are the unit labor requirement in cheese and wine at Home and Foreign ， respectively 。

If aLC/aLW<aLC*/aLW* ， Home has a comparative advantage in cheese 。

关于“里昂惕夫之谜”的理论回顾

关于“里昂惕夫之谜”的理论回顾摘要：赫克歇尔—俄林模型（以下简称ho模型）自问世以来，经历了从备受推崇，到被批评和再解释，再到被不断地修正的过程。

在这个过程中，leontief于1953年的研究结果颇具影响力，吸引了后来众多学者对ho模型进行实证研究，从而奠定了当代国际贸易实证研究的主流方向。

文章主要介绍hov模型的要素含量思想以及leamer的研究等，以期与读者一起探讨该领域的突破性研究成果与研究方法，并对未来理论发展进行展望。

关键词：ho模型；要素含量；hov模型一、“里昂惕夫之谜”1953年9月，leontief在美国哲学会年会上提出了自己的研究报告《国内生产与对外贸易：美国资本状况的再检验》（domestic production and foreign trade,the american capital position re-examined）。

在报告中，他自行编制了1947年美国国民经济的投入产出平衡表，并利用美国的贸易数据，计算进口品和出口品所使用的劳动和资本比率。

结果发现，每百万美元美国出口品的资本劳动比率要小于进口品的资本劳动比率。

这一结果打破了根深蒂固的传统观念，即通常被认为是资本丰裕的美国，原应以出口资本密集品为主，实际上出口的却是劳动密集品，而进口的是资本密集品。

这个与传统ho理论预测完全相反的结果被称为“里昂惕夫稀缺要素悖论”（leontief scarce-factor paradox），简称“里昂惕夫之谜”。

在《the factor proportions theory:the n-factor case》的论文中，首先提出了“商品要素含量”（factor content of trade）这个概念，并以此对二维的ho模型进行了重新表述。

通过分析一国商品生产对要素的使用情况，得出进（出）口商品，实际是进（出）口本国的生产要素，并经数学求解可得到隐含在进（出）口商品中的净要素含量。

克鲁格曼国际经济学

Chapter3In1986,thepriceofoilonworldmarketsdroppedsharply.SincetheUnitedStatesisan oil-importingcountry,thiswaswidelyregardedasgoodfortheU.S.economy.YetinTexasandLou isiana1986wasayearofeconomicdecline.Why?ItcandeducethatTexasandLouisianaareoil-producingstatesofUnitedStates.Sowhenthepriceofoilonworldmarketsdeclined,therealwageofthisindustryfellintermsofothergoods.Thismightbether easonofeconomicdeclineinthesetwostatesin1986.2。

Aneconomycanproducegood1usinglaborandcapitalandgood2usinglaborandland.Thetotalsupplyoflaboris100unit s.Giventhesupplyofcapital,theoutputsofthetwogoodsdependsonlaborinputasfollows:Toanalyzetheeconomy’sproductionpossibilityfrontier,considerhowtheoutputmixchangesaslaborisshifte dbetweenthetwosectors.Graphtheproductionfunctionsforgood1andgood2.Q1Q 1(K 1,L 1)Q2Q 2(K 2,L 2)ProductionFunctionforGood1Output10093.9 1009080.7 87.48073.670666057.55038.148.6403025.12010 010 20 30 40 50607080 90100ProductionFunctionforGood2 LaborInputforGood1Output10091.495.51009081.586.78075.87069.360 52.561.850 40 39.830 2010 0110 20 30 40 50607080 90 100LaborInputforGood2Graphtheproductionpossibilityfrontier.Whyisitcurved?Q2Q2(K2,L2)Q2100PPFL2Q1100L1Q1Q1(K1,L1)a.ThePPFiscurvedduetodecliningmarginalproductoflaborineachgood.Thetotallaborsupplyisfixed.SoasL1rises,MPL1falls;correspondingly,asL2falls,MPL2rises.SoPPgetssteeperaswemovedownittotheright.b.Themarginalproductoflaborcurvescorrespondingtotheproductionfunctionsinproblem2areasfollows:c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.Supposethatthepriceofgood2relativetothatofgood1is2.Determinegraphicallythewage rateandtheallocationoflaborbetweenthetwosectors. Withtheassumptionthatlaborisfreelymobilebetweensectors,itwillmovefromthelow-wagesectortothehigh-wagesectoruntilwagesareequalized.Soinequilibrium,thewagerateisequaltothevalueoflabor’smarginalproduct.MPL1P1MPL2P2P2/P122b.Theabscissaofpointofintersectionillustratedaboveshouldbebetween(20,30).Sinceweonlyhavetofindouttheapproximateanswer,linearfunctioncouldbeemployed.c.ThelaborallocationbetweenthesectorsisapproximatelyL1=27andL2=73.Thewagerateisapproximately0.98.ingthegraphdrawnforproblem2,determinetheoutputofeachsector.Thenconfirmgraphicallythattheslopoftheproductionpossibilityfrontieratthatpointequalstherelativepri ce.Q2Q2(K2,L2)Q2slope11002 PPFL2Q1c.100d.L1Q1Q1(K1,L1)e.TherelativepriceisP2/P1=2andwehavegottheapproximatelaborallocation,sowecanemploythelinearfunctionagaintocalculatetheapproximateoutputofeachsector:Q1=44andQ2=90.f.Supposethattherelativepriceofgood2fallsto1.Repeat(a)and(b).3Therelativedeclineinthepriceofgood2causedlabortobereallocated:laborisdrawnoutofproductionofgood2andentersproduction ofgood1(Ｌ1=62,L2=38).Thisalsoleadstoanoutputadjustment,thatis,productionofgood2fallsto68unitsandproductionofgood1risesto76unit s.Andthewagerateisapproximatelyequalto0.74.Q2Q2(K2,L2)Q2slope12 slope1100PPFL2Q1d.100e.L1Q1Q1(K1,L1)f.Calculatetheeffectsofthepricechangeontheincomeofthespecificfactorsinsectors1and2.3.WiththerelativepricechangefromP2/P1=2toP2/P1=1,thepriceofgood2hasfallenby50percent,whilethepriceofgood1hasstayedthesame.Wageshavefallentoo,butbylessthanthefallinP2(wagesfell approximately25percent).Thus,therealwagerelative4.toP2actuallyriseswhilerealwagerelativetoP1falls.Hence,todeterminethewelfareconsequenceforworkers,theinformationabouttheirconsumptionsharesofgood1andgood2isneeded.5.Inthetextweexaminedtheimpactsofincreasesinthesupplyofcapitalandland.Butwhatifthemobilefactor,labor,increasesinsupply?4a．Analyzethequalitativeeffectsofanincreaseinthesupplyoflaborinthespecificfactorsmodel,holdingthepriceofbothgoodsconstant.Foraneconomyproducingtwogoods,XanY,withlabordemandsreflectedbytheirmarginalrevenueproductcurves,thereisaninitial wageofw1andaninitiallaborallocationofL x=O x AandL y=O y A.Whenthesupplyoflaborincreases,therightboundaryofthediagramill ustratedbelowpushedouttoO y’.ThedemandforlaborinsectorYispulledrightwardwiththeboundary.Thenewintersectionofthela bordemandcurvesshowsthatlaborexpandsinbothsectors,andthereforeoutputofbothXandYalsoexpand.Therelativeexpansion ofoutputisambiguous.Wagespaidtoworkersfall.W MPLy P yMPL x P xw1w2A BO y O yb．Graphtheeffectontheequilibriumforthenumericalexampleinproblems2and3,givenarelativepriceof1,whenthelaborforceexpandsfrom100to140.Withthelawofdiminishing returns,thenewproductionpossibility frontier ismoreconcaveandsteeper(flatter)attheendswhentotallaborsupplyincreases.L1increaseto90from62andL2increasesto50from38.Wagesdeclinefrom0.74to0.60.ThisnewallocationoflaborleadstoanewoutputmixofapproximatelyQ1=85andQ2=77.5Q2Q2(K2,L2)Q2140100PPFL2Q1100140L1Q1Q1(K1,L1)Chapter41．IntheUnitedStateswherelandischeap,theratiooflandtolaborusedincattlerisingishigherthanthatoflandusedinwhe atgrowing.Butinmorecrowdedcountries,wherelandisexpensiveandlaborischeap,itiscommontoraisecowsbyusingle sslandandmorelaborthanAmericansusetogrowwheat.Canwestillsaythatraisingcattleislandintensivecomparedwithf armingwheat?Whyorwhynot? Thedefinitionofcattlegrowingaslandintensivedependsontheratiooflandtolaborusedinproduction,notontheratiooflandorlaborto output.TheratiooflandtolaborincattleexceedstheratioinwheatintheUnitedStates,implyingcattleislandintensiveintheUnitedStat es.Cattleislandintensiveinothercountriestooiftheratiooflandtolaborincattleproductionexceedstheratioinwheatproductioninthat country.ThecomparisonbetweenanothercountryandtheUnitedStatesislessrelevantforansweringthequestion.2．Supposethatatcurrentfactorpricesclothisproducedusing20hoursoflaborforeachacreofland,andfoodisproducedusingonly5hoursoflaborperacreofland.Supposethattheeconomy’ingadiagramdeterminetheallocationofresources.aLC/aTC (LC/QC)/(TC/QC) LC/TC LC 20TCaLF/aTF (LF/QF)/(TF/QF) LF/TF LF 5TFWecansolvethisalgebraicallysinceL=LC+LF=600andT=TC+TF=60.ThesolutionisLC=400,TC=20,LF=200andTF=40.6LandTCCloth Labor LF Food TFLCN owsupposethatthelaborsupplyincreasefirstto800,then1000,ingadiagramlikeFigure4-6,traceoutthechangingallocationofresources.L800:TC33.33,LC666.67,TF26.67,LF133.33L1000:TC46.67,LC933.33,TF13.33,LF66.67L1200:TC60,LC1200,TF0,LF0.(complspeteeciatlizoan) FoodLand12001000800Cloth0l0l0lbor4.Whatwouldhappenifthelaborsupplyweretoincreaseevenfurther?5.Atconstantfactorprices,somelaborwouldbeunused,sofactorpriceswouldhavetochange,ortherewouldbeunemployment.6.“Theworld’spoorestcountriescannotfindanythingtoexport.Thereisnoresourcethatisabundant—certainlynotcapitalorland,andinsmallpoornationsnotevenlaboris76.abundant.”Discuss.7.Thegainsfromtradedependoncomparativeratherthanabsoluteadvantage.Astopoorcountries,whatmattersisnottheabsoluteabundanceoffactors,buttheirrelativeabundance.Poorcountrieshaveanab undanceoflaborrelativetocapitalwhencomparedtomoredevelopedcountries.bormovement—whichmostlyrepresentsblue-collarworkersratherthanprofessionalsandhighlyeducatedworkers—hastraditionallyfavoredlimitsonimportsformless-affluentcountries.Isthisashortsightedpolicyofarationaloneinviewoftheinterestsofunionme mbers?Howdoestheanswerdependonthemodeloftrade?9.IntheRicardo’smodel,laborgainsfromtradethroughanincreaseinitspurchasingpower.Thisresultdoesnotsupportlaboruniondemandsforlimitsonimportsfromlessaffluentcountries.10.IntheImmobileFactorsmodellabormaygainorlosefromtrade.Purchasingpowerintermsofonegoodwillrise,butintermsoftheothergooditwilldecline.11.TheHeckscher-Ohlinmodeldirectlydiscussesdistributionbyconsideringtheeffectsoftradeontheownersoffactorsofpr oduction.Inthecontextofthismodel,borlosesfromtradesincethisgrouprepresentsthe relativelyscarcefactorsinthiscountry.TheresultsfromtheHeckscher-Ohlinmodelsupportlaboruniondemandsforimportlimits.12.ThereissubstantialinequalityofwagelevelsbetweenregionswithintheUnitedStates.Forexample,wagesofmanufacturingworkersinequivalentjobsareabout20percentlowerintheSouthea stthantheyareintheFarWest.Whichoftheexplanationsoffailureoffactorpriceequalizationmig htaccountforthis?HowisthiscasedifferentfromthedivergenceofwagesbetweentheUnitedSt atesandMexico(whichisgeographicallyclosertoboththeU.S.SoutheastandtheFarWestthant heSoutheastandFarWestaretoeachother)?13.Whenweemployfactorpriceequalization,weshouldpayattentiontoitsconditions:bothcountries/regionsproducebothgoods;bothcountrieshavethesametechnologyofproduction,andtheabsenceofbarri erstotrade.InequalityofwagelevelsbetweenregionswithintheUnitedStatesmaycausedbysomeorall ofthesereasons.14.Actually,thebarrierstotradealwaysexistintherealworldduetotransportationcosts.AndthetradebetweenU.S.andMexico,bycontrast,issubjecttolegallimits;togetherwithculturaldifferencesthatinhibitthe flowoftechnology,thismayexplainwhythedifferenceinwageratesissomuchlarger.15.ExplainwhytheLeontiefparadoxandthemorerecentBowen,Leamer,andSveikauskasresultsreportedinthetextcontradictthefactor-proportionstheory.Thefactorproportionstheorystatesthatcountriesexportthosegoodswhoseproductionisintensiveinfa ctorswithwhichtheyareabundantlyendowed.OnewouldexpecttheUnitedStates,whichhasahighcap ital/laborratiorelativetotherestoftheworld,toexportcapital-intensivegoodsiftheHeckscher-Ohlintheoryholds.LeontieffoundthattheUnitedStatesexportedlabor-intensivegoods.Bowen,LeamerandSveikauskasfoundthatthecorrelationbetweenfactorendowme ntandtradepatternsisweakfortheworldasawhole.Thedatadonotsupportthepredictionsofthetheoryt hatcountries'exportsandimportsreflecttherelativeendowmentsoffactors.89.InthediscussionofempiricalresultsontheHeckscher-Ohlinmodel,wenotedthatrecentworksuggeststhattheefficiencyoffactorsofproductionseemstodifferinternationally.Explainhowthiswouldaffecttheconceptoffactorpriceequalization. Iftheefficiencyofthefactorsofproductiondiffersinternationally,thelessonsoftheHeckscher-Ohlintheorywouldbeappliedto“effectivefactors”whichadjustforthedifferencesintechnologyorworkerskillsorlandquality(forexa mple).Theadjustedmodelhasbeenfoundtobemoresuccessfulthantheunadjustedmodelatexplainingthepatternoftradebetween countries.Factor-priceequalizationconceptswouldapplytotheeffectivefactors.Aworkerwithmoreskillsorinacountrywithbettertechnologycouldbe consideredtobeequaltotwoworkersinanothercountry.Thus,thesinglepersonwouldbetwoeffectiveunitsoflabor.Thus,theonehigh-skilledworkercouldearntwicewhatlowerskilledworkersdoandthepriceofoneeffectiveunitoflaborwouldstillbeequalized.3、经过活动，使学生养成博学多才的好习惯。

tpo54三篇阅读原文译文题目答案译文背景知识

托福阅读tpo54全套解析阅读-1 (2)原文 (2)译文 (4)题目 (5)答案 (9)背景知识 (10)阅读-2 (10)原文 (10)译文 (12)题目 (13)答案 (18)背景知识 (20)阅读-3 (25)原文 (26)译文 (27)题目 (28)答案 (33)背景知识 (35)阅读-1原文The Commercialization of Lumber①In nineteenth-century America, practically everything that was built involved wood.Pine was especially attractive for building purposes.It is durable and strong, yet soft enough to be easily worked with even the simplest of hand tools.It also floats nicely on water, which allowed it to be transported to distant markets across the nation.The central and northern reaches of the Great Lakes states—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota—all contained extensive pine forests as well as many large rivers for floating logs into the Great Lakes, from where they were transported nationwide.②By 1860, the settlement of the American West along with timber shortages in the East converged with ever-widening impact on the pine forests of the Great Lakes states. Over the next 30 years, lumbering became a full-fledged enterprise in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Newly formed lumbering corporations bought up huge tracts of pineland and set about systematically cutting the trees. Both the colonists and the later industrialists saw timber as a commodity, but the latter group adopted a far more thorough and calculating approach to removing trees. In this sense, what happened between 1860 and 1890 represented a significant break with the past. No longer were farmers in search of extra income the main source for shingles, firewood, and other wood products. By the 1870s, farmers and city dwellers alike purchased forest products from large manufacturingcompanies located in the Great Lakes states rather than chopping wood themselves or buying it locally.③The commercialization of lumbering was in part the product of technological change. The early, thick saw blades tended to waste a large quantity of wood, with perhaps as much as a third of the log left behind on the floor as sawdust or scrap. In the 1870s, however, the British-invented band saw, with its thinner blade, became standard issue in the Great Lakes states' lumber factories.Meanwhile, the rise of steam-powered mills streamlined production by allowing for the more efficient, centralized, and continuous cutting of lumber. Steam helped to automate a variety of tasks, from cutting to the carrying away of waste. Mills also employed steam to heat log ponds, preventing them from freezing and making possible year-round lumber production.④For industrial lumbering to succeed, a way had to be found to neutralize the effects of the seasons on production. Traditionally, cutting took place in the winter, when snow and ice made it easier to drag logs on sleds or sleighs to the banks of streams. Once the streams and lakes thawed, workers rafted the logs to mills, where they were cut into lumber in the summer. If nature did not cooperate—if the winter proved dry and warm, if the spring thaw was delayed—production would suffer. To counter the effects of climate on lumber production, loggers experimented with a variety of techniques for transporting trees out of the woods. In the 1870s, loggers in the Great Lakes states began sprinkling water on sleigh roads, giving them an artificial ice coating to facilitate travel. The ice reduced the friction and allowed workers to move larger and heavier loads.⑤But all the sprinkling in the world would not save a logger from the threat of a warm winter. Without snow the sleigh roads turned to mud. In the 1870s, a set of snowless winters left lumber companies to ponder ways of liberating themselves from the seasons. Railroads were one possibility.At first, the remoteness of the pine forests discouraged common carriers from laying track.But increasing lumber prices in the late 1870s combined with periodic warm, dry winters compelled loggers to turn to iron rails. By 1887, 89 logging railroads crisscrossed Michigan, transforming logging from a winter activity into a year-round one.⑥Once the logs arrived at a river, the trip downstream to a mill could be a long and tortuous one.Logjams (buildups of logs that prevent logs from moving downstream) were common—at times stretching for 10 miles—and became even more frequent as pressure on the northern Midwest pinelands increased in the 1860s. To help keep the logs moving efficiently, barriers called booms (essentially a chain of floating logs) were constructed to control the direction of the timber. By the 1870s, lumber companies existed in all the major logging areas of the northern Midwest.译文木材的商业化①在19世纪的美国，几乎所有建筑材料都含有木材。

国际贸易英文版教材

作者、书名、出版社、出版年份、目录Thomas A．Pugel. International Economics(15th). Renmin University of China p ress. 2012-12CONTENTSChapter 1 International Economics Is DifferentFour ControversiesEconomics and the Nation-StateThe Scheme of This BookPART ONE THE THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADEChapter 2 The Basic Theory Using Demand and SupplyFour Questions about TradeA Look AheadDemand and SupplyCase Study Trade Is ImportantGlobal Crisis The Trade Mini-Collapse of 2009Two National Markets and the Opening of TradeChapter 3 Why Everybody Trades: Comparative Advantage 33Adam Smith’s Theory of Absolute AdvantageCase Study Mercantilism: Older Than Smith—and Alive TodayRicardo’s Theory of Comparative AdvantageRicardo’s Constant Costs and the Producti on-Possibility CurveFocus on Labor Absolute Advantage Does MatterExtension What If Trade Doesn’t Balance?Chapter 4 Trade: Factor Availability and Factor Proportions Are KeyProduction with Increasing Marginal CostsCommunity Indifference CurvesProduction and Consumption TogetherFocus on China The Opening of Trade and China’s Shift Out of AgricultureThe Gains from TradeTrade Affects Production and ConsumptionWhat Determines the Trade Pattern?The Heckscher–Ohlin (H–O) TheoryChapter 5 Who Gains and Who Loses from Trade?Who Gains and Who Loses within a CountryThree Implications of the H–O TheoryExtension A Factor-Ratio ParadoxDoes Heckscher–Ohlin Explain Actual Trade Patterns?Case Study The Leontief ParadoxWhat Are the Export-Oriented and Import-Competing Factors?Focus on China China’s Exports and ImportsDo Factor Prices Equalize Internationally?Focus on Labor U.S. Jobs and Foreign Trade 86Chapter 6 Scale Economies, Imperfect Competition, and TradeScale EconomiesIntra-Industry TradeMonopolistic Competition and TradeExtension The Individual Firm in MonopolisticOligopoly and TradeExtension The Gravity Model of TradeChapter 7 Growth and TradeBalanced versus Biased GrowthGrowth in Only One FactorChanges in the Country’s Willingness to TradeCase Study The Dutch Disease and DeindustrializationEffects on the Country’s Terms of TradeTechnology and TradeFocus on Labor Trade, Technology, and U.S. WagesPART TWO TRADE POLICYChapter 8 Analysis of a TariffGlobal Governance WTO and GATT: Tariff SuccessA Preview of ConclusionsThe Effect of a Tariff on Domestic ProducersThe Effect of a Tariff on Domestic ConsumersThe Tariff as Government RevenueThe Net National Loss from a TariffExtension The Effective Rate of ProtectionCase Study They Tax Exports, TooThe Terms-of-Trade Effect and a Nationally Optimal TariffChapter 9 Nontariff Barriers to ImportsTypes of Nontariff Barriers to ImportsThe Import QuotaGlobal Governance The WTO: Beyond TariffsGlobal Crisis Dodging ProtectionismExtension A Domestic Monopoly Prefers a QuotaVoluntary Export Restraints (VERs)Other Nontariff BarriersCase Study VERs: Two ExamplesCase Study Carrots Are Fruit, Snails Are Fish, and X-Men Are Not HumansHow Big Are the Costs of Protection?International Trade DisputesFocus on China China’s First Decade in the WTOChapter 10 Arguments for and against ProtectionThe Ideal World of First BestThe Realistic World of Second BestPromoting Domestic Production or EmploymentThe Infant Industry ArgumentFocus on Labor How Much Does It Cost to Protect a Job?The Dying Industry Argument and Adjustment AssistanceThe Developing Government (Public Revenue) ArgumentOther Arguments for Protection: Non=economic ObjectivesThe Politics of Protection The Basic Elements of the Political-Economic Analysis Case Study How Sweet It Is (or Isn’t)Chapter 11 Pushing ExportsDumpingReacting to Dumping: What Should a Dumpee Think?Actual Antidumping Policies: What Is Unfair?Case Study Antidumping in ActionProposals for ReformExport SubsidiesWTO Rules on SubsidiesShould the Importing Country Impose Countervailing Duties?Case Study Agriculture Is AmazingStrategic Export Subsidies Could Be GoodGlobal Governance Dogfight at the WTOChapter 12 Trade Blocs and Trade BlocksTypes of Economic BlocsIs Trade Discrimination Good or Bad?The Basic Theory of Trade Blocs: Trade Creation and Trade DiversionOther Possible Gains from a Trade BlocThe EU ExperienceCase Study Postwar Trade Integration in EuropeNorth America Becomes a BlocTrade Blocs among Developing CountriesTrade EmbargoesChapter 13 Trade and the EnvironmentIs Free Trade Anti-Environment?Is the WTO Anti-Environment?Global Governance Dolphins, Turtles, and the WTOThe Specificity Rule AgainA Preview of Policy PrescriptionsTrade and Domestic PollutionTrans-border PollutionGlobal Environmental ChallengesChapter 14 Trade Policies for Developing CountriesWhich Trade Policy for Developing Countries?Are the Long-Run Price Trends against Primary Producers?Case Study Special Challenges of TransitionInternational Cartels to Raise Primary-Product PricesImport-Substituting Industrialization (ISI)Exports of Manufactures to Industrial CountriesChapter 15 Multinationals and Migration: International Factor MovementsForeign Direct InvestmentMultinational EnterprisesFDI: History and Current PatternsWhy Do Multinational Enterprises Exist?Taxation of Mul tinational Enterprises’ProfitsCase Study CEMEX: A Model Multinational from an Unusual PlaceMNEs and International TradeShould the Home Country Restrict FDI Outflows?Should the Host Country Restrict FDI Inflows?Focus on China China as a Host CountryMigrationHow Migration Affects Labor MarketsShould the Sending Country Restrict Emigration?Should the Receiving Country Restrict Immigration?Case Study Are Immigrants a Fiscal Burden?APPENDIXESA The Web and the Library: International Numbers and Other InformationB Deriving Production-Possibility CurvesC Offer CurvesD The Nationally Optimal Tariff周瑞琪. International Trade Practice. University of International Business and Economics press. 2011.9CONTENTSChapter One General Introduction（第一章导论）1.1 Reasons for International Trade （国际间贸易的起因）1.2 Differences between International Trade and Domestic Trade （国际贸易与国内贸易的差异）1.3 Classification of International Trade（国际贸易的分类）1.4 Export and Import Procedures（进出口贸易的程序）1.5 Overview of This Book （本书的基本内容）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Specimens（单证样本）Chapter Two International Trade Terms（第二章国际贸易术语）2.1 Three Sets of Rules （三种贸易术语的解释规则）2.2 Basics of Incoterms 2010 （2010年国际贸易术语解释通则基本概念）2.3 Application Issues（贸易术语在使用中应注意的问题）2.4 Determinants of Choice of Trade Terms （贸易术语选用的决定因素）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Chapter Three Export Price（第三章出口商品的价格）3.1 Expression of Export Price（出口价格的表达）3.2 Pricing Considerations（影响定价的因素）3.3 Calculation of Price（价格的计算）3.4 Understanding the Price（价格的评估）3.5 Communication of Price（价格的沟通）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Chapter Four Terms of Commodity（第四章商品条款）4.1 Name of Commodity （商品的名称）4.2 Specifying Quality（商品的品质）4.3 Measuring Quantity（商品的数量）4.4 Packing and Marking（商品的包装及标志）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Chapter Five Cargo Transportation（第五章国际货物运输）5.1 Ocean Transportation （海洋运输）5.2 Other Modes of Transportation （其他运输方式）5.3 Transportation Documents（运输单据）5.4 Shipment Clause in the Sales Contract（销售合同中的装运条款）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Specimens（单证样本）Chapter Six Cargo Transportation Insurance（第六章货物运输保险）6.1 Fundamental Principles of Cargo Insurance（货物保险的基本原则）6.2 Marine Risks and Losses（海上风险和损失）6.3 Coverage of Marine Cargo Insurance of CIC（我国海上货物保险范围）6.4 Coverage of Marine Cargo Insurance of ICC（协会货物保险范围）6.5 Other Types of Cargo Insurance（其他货物保险的种类）6.6 Procedures of Cargo Insurance（货物保险程序）6.7 Insurance Terms in the Sales Contract（销售合同中的保险条款）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Specimens（单证样本）Chapter Seven International Payments（第七章国际货款支付）7.1 Issues in Concern（影响支付条件的因素）7.2 Paying Instruments（支付工具）7.3 Remittance（汇付）7.4 Collection（托收）7.5 Basics of Letter of Credit（信用证基础知识）7.6 Types of Documentary Credit（跟单信用证的种类）7.7 Letter of Guarantee（L/G）（保函）7.8 Export Financing（出口融资）7.9 Payment Problems（支付中出现的问题）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Specimens（单证样本）Chapter Eight Export Documentation（第八章出口单证）8.1 Significance of Documentation（单证的重要性）8.2 Basic Requirements for Documentation（单证的基本要求）8.3 Prerequisites of Documentation（制单的依据）8.4 Export Documents（出口单证的种类）8.5 Clause Concerning Documents in the Sales Contract（销售合同中有关单证的条款）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Specimens（单证样本）Chapter Nine Inspection, Claim, Force Majeure and Arbitration（第九章商检、索赔、不可抗力和仲裁）9.1 Commodity Inspection（商品检验）9.2 Disputes and Claims（争议和索赔）9.3 Force Majeure（不可抗力）9.4 Arbitration（仲裁）Summary（总结）Key Terms（主要术语）Abbreviations（缩略语）Exercises（练习）Key to Exercises（练习答案）Glossary（词汇表）Appendix 1INCOTERMS 2010 （FOB, CFR, CIF）（附录12010年国际贸易术语解释通则（FOB，CFR，CIF））Appendix 2CISG 1980 （Part II）（附录2联合国国际货物销售合同公约1980（第二部分）) References （参考书目）帅建林. International Trade Practice. University of International Business and Economics press. 2007.9CONTENTSPart 1 OverviewChapter 1 Introduction to International TradeChapter 2 International Trade PolicyChapter 3 Trade Bloc and Trade BlockChapter 4 WTO :A Navigation GuidePart 2 Terms of International TradeChapter 5 International Trade TermsChapter Terms of CommodityChapter International Cargo TransportChapter 8 Cargo InsuranceChapter 9 Terms of PriceChapter 10 International Payment and SettlementChapter 11 Claims, Force Majeure and ArbitrationPart 3 International Trade ProcedureChapter 12 Launching a Profitable TransactionChapter 13 Business Negotiation and Establishment of ContractChapter 14 Exporting ElementsChapter 15 Importing ElementsChapter 16 DocumentationPart 4 Trade FormsChapter 17 Agency, Distribution and ConsignmentChapter 18 TendersChapter 19 Counter TradeChapter 20 Futures TradingChapter 21 E-CommerceAppendix Glossary of International Trade Terms with English-Chinese InterpretationsBibliographyPaul R.Krugman & Maurice Obstfeld. International Economics:Theory andPolicy,8E. Tsinghua University press. 2011-11Contents前言第1章绪论第1部分国际贸易理论第2章世界贸易：概览第3章劳动生产率和比较优势：李嘉图模型第4章资源、比较优势和收入分配第5章标准贸易模型第6章规模经济、不完全竞争和国际贸易第7章国际要素流动第2部分国际贸易政策第8章贸易政策工具第9章贸易政策中的政治经济学第10章发展中国家的贸易政策第11章贸易政策中的争论数学附录第4章附录要素比例模型第5章附录贸易下的世界经济第6章附录垄断竞争模模型张素芳，International trade: theory and practice. University of International Business & Economics Press, Beijing, 2010contentsSection I. International Trade Theory and PolicyCHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL TRADE1.The Reasons for International Trade1.1. Resources reasons1.2. Economic reasons1.3. Other reasons2. The Differences between International Trade and Domestic Trade'.'2.1. More plex context2.2. More difficult and risky2.3. Higher skills required3.Basic Concepts Relating to International Trade3.1. Visible trade and invisible trade3.2. Favorable balance of trade and unfavorable balance oft rade3.3. General trade system and special trade system3.4. Volume of international trade and quantum of international trade3.5. Commodity position of international trade3.6. Geographical position of international trade3.7. Degree of dependence on foreign tradeCHAPTER 2.CLASSICAL TRADE THEORIES1.Mercantilism1.1. The development of mercantilist thought1.2. The mercantilist economic system1.3. Economic policies pursued by the mercantilists1.4. Discussions2.David Hume's Challenge to Mercantilism2.1. Assumptions of price-specie=flow mechanism2.2. The price-specie-flow mechanism3.Adam Smith's Theory of Absolute Advantage3.1. Assumptions of Adam Smith's theory of absolute advantage3.2. Challenge to Mercantilism3.3. Example4.David Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage4.1. The concept of parative advantage4.2. Example4.3. Analysis of the theory of parative advantage by using modemtools. CHAPTER 3.NEOCLASSICAL TRADE THEORIES.1.Gains from Trade in Neoclassical Trade Theory1.1. Increasing opportunity costs on the PPF1.2. General equilibrium and gains in autarky1.3. General equilibrium and gains after the introduction of international trade ...2.Reciprocal Demand Theory2.1. A country's offer curve2.2. Trading equilibrium2.3. Measurement of terms of trade3.Factor Endowment Theory3.1. Factor intensity in production3.2. Factor endowments, factor prices, and parative advantage3.3. Assumptions of the factor proportions theory.,3.4. The Heckscher-Ohlin theorem.:3.5. An example to illustrate H-O theorem.3.6. The factor price equalization theorem:3.7. The Stolper-Samuelson theorem4.The Leontief Paradox——An Empirical Test of the Factor Proportions Theory 4.1. The Leontief paradox.-4.2. Suggested explanations for the Leontief Paradox and related theories CHAPTER 4.POST-HECKSHER-OHLIN THEORIES OF TRADE1.The Product Cycle Theory1.1. The imitation lag hypothesis1.2. The product cycle theory2.The Linder Theory2.1. Assumptions of the Linder theory2.2. Trade es in the overlapping ranges of products ophistication.:3.Intra-Industry Trade Theory3.1. Explanations of intra-industry trade3.2. Measurement of intra-industry tradeCHAPTER 5.IMPORT PROTECTION POLICY: TARIFFS1.Types of Import Tariffs1.1. In terms of the means of collection1.2. In terms of the different tariff rates applied1.3. In terms of special purposes for collection2.The Effects of Import Tariffs2.1. Concepts of consumer surplus and producer surplus2.2. The welfare effects of import tariffs3.Measurement of Import Tariffs3.1. The 'height' of import tariffs3.2. Nominal versus effective tariff ratesCHAPTER 6.IMPORT PROTECTION POLICY: NON-TARIFF BARRIERS''1.Forms of Non-tariff Barriers.1.1. Quantity control measures1.2. Price control measures1.3. Para-tariff measures1.4. Finance measures1.5. Anti-petitive measures.,.1.6. Miscellaneous measures2.Effects of Non-tariff Barriers2.1. The effects of an import quota2.2. The effects of a subsidy to an import-peting industryCHAPTER 7.EXPORT PROMOTION AND OTHER POLICIES1.Export Subsidy and Production Subsidy1.1. Export subsidy and its effects1.2. Production subsidy and its effects.2.Other Export Promotion Policies2.1. Devaluation of home currency.2.2. Commodity dumping2.3. Bonded warehouse2.4. Special trade zone2.5. Export promotion programs3.Export Restrictions and Import Promotion Policies3.1. Export restrictions policies3.2. Import promotion policies4.Trade Sanctions4.1. Introduction to trade sanctions4.2. Effectiveness of trade sanctionsCHAPTER 8.ARGUMENTS AGAINST FREE TRADE1.Traditional Arguments against Free Trade1.1. Infant industry argument.1.2. Terms of trade argument1.3. Balance of trade argument1.4. Tariff to reduce aggregate unemployment argument1.5. Fair petition argument1.6. National security argument2.New Protectionism2.1. Tariff to extract foreign monopoly profit2.2. Export subsidy in duopoly3.The Political Economy of Trade Policy3.1. Median voter model3.2. Collective action theory.3.3. Contribution in political campaignsCHAPTER 9.REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATIONof Regional Economic Integration1.1. Preferential tariff arrangement1.2. Free trade area1.3. Customs union1.4. Common market.1.5. Economic union2.The Static and Dynamic Effects of Regional Economic Integration2.1. Static effects of regional economic integration2.2. Dynamic effects of regional economic integration3.Economic Integration in Europe, North America and Asia3.1. Economic integration in Europe……………………………………Chapter 10 International Cargo Transportation InsuranceChapter 11 International Trade PaymentChapter 12 Inspection,Claim,Force Majeure and ArbitrationChapter 13 Trade Negotiation and Formation of the ContractChapter 14 Implementation of the Contract丹尼斯·R·阿普尔亚德 & 小艾尔弗雷德·J·菲尔德 & 史蒂文·L·科布.国际贸易.中国人民大学出版社. 2012-7第1章国际经济学的世界第一部分古典贸易理论第2章早期的国际贸易理论：由重商主义向大卫·李嘉图的古典贸易理论的演进第3章大卫·李嘉图的古典贸易理论和比较优势第4章对古典贸易模型的扩充及验证第二部分新贸易理论第5章新古典贸易理论——基本分析工具的介绍第6章新古典贸易理论中的贸易利得第7章贸易提供曲线和贸易条件第8章贸易的基础：要素禀赋理论和赫克歇尔俄林模型第9章要素禀赋理论的实证分析第三部分贸易理论的扩展第10章后赫克歇尔俄林贸易理论与产业内贸易第11章经济增长与国际贸易第12章国际要素流动第四部分贸易政策第13章贸易政策工具第14章贸易政策的影响第15章对干涉主义贸易政策的争论第16章经济的政治因素与美国的对外贸易政策第17章经济一体化第18章国际贸易与发展中国家参考文献当我被上帝造出来时，上帝问我想在人间当一个怎样的人，我不假思索的说，我要做一个伟大的世人皆知的人。

LeontiefParadox

Chapter12Leontief ParadoxThere exist two possible methods for the investigation,the inductive inference and deductive inference.The inductive inference collects empirical observations and infers the general conclusion from them.Although it is very useful for the practical purposes,the inductive inference cannot arrive to the deﬁnite conclusion. You observe as many white swans as you like in the northern hemisphere,but cannot conclude that swan is white,since you cannot exclude the possibility to see black swans in the southern hemisphere.You can collect all the cases in the past,but cannot conclude deﬁnitely,since you cannot know the possible cases in the future. To arrive at the deﬁnite conclusion,therefore,we have to rely on the deductive inference.It starts with some assumptions and derive logical conclusions from them.Some assumptions may be derived from inductive inference founded on the empirical observations while other assumptions are made merely as the simplifying assumptions.As far as the assumptions are admitted,and the logical operations are correct,the derived conclusion must be accepted.Since there is no assurance that assumptions are empirically true,however,the conclusion of the deductive inference cannot be assured to be empirically right. Such a conclusion must be subject to the empirical tests,since to test the empirical validity of assumptions themselves is,in general,more difﬁcult.If the conclusion is empirically refuted,something must be wrong with respect to assumptions.We have to discard at least some of them and replace them by new assumptions.With the new set of assumptions,then,the deductive inference and the empirical test of its conclusion must be repeated.If the conclusion is not refuted,however,it does not imply that it is empirically true.It merely means that it is not refuted temporarily,since we cannot exclude the possibility that it will be refuted by some other empirical tests in the future.When carefully planned experiments are possible,as in the case of some natural sciences,it is easy to refute empirically the conclusion of the deductive inferences.When it is not,as in the case of social sciences,the empirical test must rely on the observation of empirical data which we cannot control and it is very difﬁcult to see whether the data given is relevant and appropriate for the refutation of the conclusion.87 T.Negishi,Developments of International Trade Theory,Advances in Japanese Businessand Economics2,DOI10.1007/978-4-431-54433-3__12,©Springer Japan2014Our Heckscher–Ohlin theorem,discussed in Chap.10,is a typical example of the conclusion of the deductive inference logically derived from assumptions.From the assumptions on the production functions,consumer taste,the endowments of factors of production,etc.,the theorem is derived logically that a country exports those commodities which use intensively such factors of productions that are endowed abundantly,and imports those commodities which use intensively such factors of production that are endowed scarcely.It was Leontief(1954)who tried to check this theorem empirically.Leontief(1954)considered a Heckscher–Ohlin international trade model of two countries,the USA and the rest of the world.Two commodities considered are a composite commodity“US exports”and another composite commodity“US competitive import replacements.”Competitive import is deﬁned as the import of commodities which can be and are,at least in part,actually produced by domestic industries.In other words,two domestic industries are the export industry and the import competing industry.The question to be studied is,then,whether it is true that the United States exports commodities the domestic production of which absorbs relatively large amounts of capital and little labor and imports foreign goods which, if produced at home,would employ a great quantity of indigenous labor but a small amount of domestic capital.By applying his famous input–output analysis to the 1947input–output table of the US economy,Leontief computed the total(direct and indirect)input requirements of capital and labor per unit of two composite commodities.The result is that the capital–labor ratio is approximately14for US Exports and18for US Import replacements.In other words,USA exports labor-intensive commodities and imports capital-intensive commodities.This is called Leontief paradox,since USA was considered generally to be a capital abundant country relative to the rest of the world.Heckscher–Ohlin theorem seems to be empirically refuted.One might wonder,of course,whether Leontief’s result was relevant or appropriate to the empirical test of Heckscher–Ohlin theorem.As a matter of fact, Leontief himself was theﬁrst who wondered.If the labor is measured by using the man-years units and the capital,by dollars in1947prices,as was done in his study,certainly USA is a relatively capital abundant country.Since labor is more efﬁcient in USA than in the rest of the world,however,USA should be considered as a labor abundant country,if the labor is measured by using the efﬁciency units.“[W]ith a given quantity of capital,one man-year of American labor is equivalent to,say,three man-years of foreign labor.Then,in comparing the relative amount of capital and labor possessed by the United States and the rest of the world—the total number of American workers must be multiplied by three—.Spread thrice as thinly as the unadjustedﬁgures suggest,the American capital supply per“equivalent worker”turns out to be comparatively smaller,rather than larger,than that of many other countries.”Leontief’s empirical data,then,does not refute Heckscher–Ohlin theorem.Another possibility is that the choice of labor and capital as two factors of production,as was done by Leontief,might not be appropriate for the case of trade between USA and the rest of the world.In view of the fact,for example,that US oil-ﬁelds are less rich than those in Venezuela or in the Arabian countries, it is important to consider natural resources as factors of production.Then,the United States might import goods intensive in natural resources,which is the relatively less abundant factors there,and export goods intensive in capital and labor relative to natural resources.If so,again,Leontief’s empirical data does not refute Heckscher–Ohlin theorem.For the details of literature which insists on this possibility,see Gandolfo(1994,p.96).If one accept Leontief’s empirical result as the refutation of Heckscher–Ohlin theorem,on the other hand,some of assumptions of the theorem must be rejected. Among the assumptions of Heckscher–Ohlin theorem,one of the assumptions which can be most easily doubted is that of the identical consumption pattern between different countries.This may be particularly so in the case of Leontief paradox since the per-capita income level is much different between USA and the rest of the world.Suppose,relatively speaking,USA is abundantly endowed with capital and labor,scarcely.If Heckscher–Ohlin theorem is right as far as the pattern of incomplete specializations is concerned,USA is specialized in the production of those commodities which are relatively capital intensive,though the specialization is incomplete.Suppose,however,the domestic consumption pattern in USA is biased to capital intensive commodities.Even though the domestic supply of such capital intensive commodities is large,the domestic demand for them may be still larger. Then,the domestic excess demand for such capital intensive commodities should be supplied by the imports from the rest of the world,a country where capital is, relatively speaking,scarcely endowed.Since the information on technology is mobile internationally,we may assume the identical production functions between different countries.As people are not freely mobile between countries,however,we may not assume the identical level of income,which include not only wage income but also that from capital,1so that the consumption pattern can be different in different countries.It is well known that the ratio of the food consumption in the total expenditure is less for the high income families than for the low income ones(Engel’s law).Can we suppose high income USA families prefer the capital intensive commodities rather than the labor intensive commodities?Unfortunately,this is not certain.High income families may prefer such labor intensive commodities as expensive homemade goods like homespun cloth rather than to such capital intensive commodities as machine-made cheap goods produced in large-scale production factories.Another assumption of Heckscher–Ohlin theorem,which may be doubted,is that of no factor intensity reversal.It is assumed in the theorem that the commodity1, for example,is always more capital intensive(capital–labor ratio is higher)than the commodity2for any value of the wage–rental ratio,i.e.,k1>k2for any given w/r.Suppose,however,that the commodity1is more capital intensive than1If capital is abundantly endowed relative to labor,in comparison with the rest of the world,per-capita income level is higher in such a country than in the rest of the world,since per-capita income from capital is larger.Fig.12.1Factor intensityreversal Fig.12.2Wage–rental rationot equalizedthe commodity 2when the wage–rental ratio is high,w /r >(w /r )1;but is less capital intensive when the wage–rental ratio is low,w /r <(w /r )1,as is shown in Fig.12.1.Then in Fig.12.2,we cannot have the unique solution of w /r for the given value of p ,i.e.,the price of the second commodity in terms of the ﬁrst.For the same p in the international market,it is possible that w /r for the country 1is Oa while it is Ob for the second country.The commodity 1is less capital intensive (k 1<k 2)in the ﬁrst country while it is more capital intensive (k 1>k 2)in the second country.Then,Heckscher–Ohlin theorem cannot be valid generally,since the exportables have the same kind of factor intensity in both countries.It remains valid for one country only.The case like Fig.12.1occurs if the production functions are of CES (constant elasticity of substitution)type,Y =[aL −b +(1−a )K −b ]−1/b (0<a <1,b >−1)(12.1)Bibliography91 where Y,L,and K denote,respectively,the output,the labor input,and the capital input,while a and b are given constants.2Using production functions of this type, Minhas(1962)found that factor intensity reversals were quite frequent in the real world.This suggests that,theoretically speaking,Leontief paradox is very likely to occur.What is most important with respect to Leontief paradox is,however,that the presence of the paradox could be by no means systematically conﬁrmed by the subsequent studies carried out with respect to both USA and other countries.How, then,should we interpret the signiﬁcance of this almost single empirical evidence against Heckscher–Ohlin theorem?It depends on the nature of the theorem.If it is the exact theorem which insists that each country always exports the commodity which uses her more abundant factor more intensively,it should be refuted by a single empirical evidence against it.In view of the long-run and the aggregate nature of Heckscher–Ohlin two-country two-commodity two-factor model,however,we should rather interpret the theorem that most of the countries generally export the commodities which use,on the average,their abundantly endowed factors more intensively.Then,we have to retain such a theorem on the long-run average tendency,unless it is repeatedly and systematically refuted empirically.This is the reason why,in spite of Leontief’s paradox,Heckscher–Ohlin theorem is still in the textbooks of international trade theory as one of the basic theorems.12.1Problems12.1.Demonstrate that there is no factor intensity reversal if the production functions are of Cobb–Douglas type.12.2. a.Demonstrate that w/r=[a/(1−a)]k b+1,where w/r is the wage–rentalratio and k is the capital–labor ratio,if the production function is of the constant elasticity of substitution type,i.e.,(12.1).Consider the elasticity of k with respect to(w/r)and show it is constant.b.Explain,then,that we have a case of Fig.12.1,if two commodities havethe identical production function,i.e.,the constant elasticity of substitution production function but with different values of b.BibliographyGandolfo,G.(1994).International economics,I.Berlin:Springer.Kemp,M.C.(1964).The pure theory of international trade.Englewood Cliff,NJ:Prentice Hall. 2For the constant elasticity of substitution production functions,see Kemp(1964,pp.22and57). See also Problem12.2.9212Leontief Paradox Leontief,W.(1954).Domestic production and foreign trade;the American capital position re-examined.Economia Internazionale,7,3–32.Minhas,B.S.(1962).The homohypallagic production functions,factor intensity reversals,and the Heckscher–Ohlin Theorem.Journal of Political Economy,70,140–168.。

《国际贸易理论与政策》习题

《国际贸易理论与政策》习题（International Trade Exercises oftheory and policy）Previously looked at another upload document, the upload point documents shared with you!Exercises database and some answers of international trade theory and PracticeFirst, noun interpretationTwo. Judge the right and wrong of the following questions1, when the trade is open, all consumers will be better off2, according to the simple trade model, before the trade, if countries have the same price of goods, there will be no incentive for these countries to exchange the goods3. If a producer in a certain country can improve his situation through trade, then all producers in the country will improve their own situation through trade4, in the equilibrium trade price between two countries, a country's excessive supply of a certain commodity is necessarily equal to the excessive demand of the other country for the commodity5, there is no free lunch, but there is free trade6, even if a country has an absolute disadvantage in theproduction of a commodity, it can also have a relative advantage in the production of this commodity7, according to the H-O theory, a country that has more acres of land than other countries is a country rich in land8, under the condition of increasing cost, countries do not have to be fully specialized in the production of a commodity9, H-O theory assumes that countries have the same commodity preferences10, we may be able to solve Leontief Paradox by defining a more finely defined production factor11, the Stolper-Samuelson theorem holds that trade will make the owners of the rich elements get lower real incomes, while the owners of scarce elements get higher real incomes12, if countries have the same production technology, trade will not make the price of production factors equal13, non skilled workers in one country are more opposed to trade liberalization than skilled workers14, large countries can invest in the development of import alternative industries rather than export industries, thereby improving their terms of trade15, according to the definition, small countries' economic growth will not change the terms of trade16, adolescence is a good example of "immiserizing growth"17, the growth of production factors in a country will always make the country more self-sufficient, thereby reducing dependence on international trade18, a country that is isolated from the outside world will certainly lower the standard of living of its citizens19, intra industry trade is more prevalent in fully competitive industries20, according to the H-0 theory, countries should carry out a large number of intra industry tradeThree, multiple-choice questions1. the absolute value of the gains brought by open trade to the consumers of imported goods:A. is greater than the loss of domestic producers of this commodityB. is less than the loss of domestic producers of this commodityC. is equal to the loss of domestic producers of this commodityD. is not measurableWhich of the following 2. items will not promote timber tradeamong countries?Before A. trade, timber prices are equal in different countriesB. profit seeking wood price arbitrageDifferences in timber supply between C. countriesDifferences in timber demand among D. countries3. consumer surplus is:A. consumers have to pay to the government for the production of goodsB. consumers earn by paying less than the price of the marketThe benefits of C. to consumers: consumers need to pay less than what they want and the price they can pay for the goodsD. consumers can get benefits at all levels of price4. after trade, a country's income distribution will change as follows:A. producers who are subject to import competition suffer losses while producers of export goods benefitB. as a whole will benefit from the country, while the individual will suffer lossesC. consumers are impaired and producers benefitD. income shifts from consumer to producer5., if the price elasticity of export supply is smaller than that of import demand, then:A. importing countries will be reluctant to tradeB. exporting countries will be reluctant to tradeC.The exporter will get most of the trade incomeD. importing countries will get most of the trade gains6.. The first economist who systematically describes the principle of comparative advantage is:A.Bertil Ohlin.B.Eli Heckscher.C.John Maynard Keynes.D.David Ricardo.Explanation of 7.H-O theory:Compared with other resources, A. countries with relativelyabundant labor power do not have comparative advantagesB. a country with higher labor resources to non labor resources should reduce its participation in international tradeC. a country rich in non labor resources will not benefit from international tradeThe strength of the D. international market will guide countries to specialization in the production and export of goods that use their relatively abundant elements8. if A countries can produce 3 units of X products or 3 units of Y products with 1 working hours, B countries can produce 1 units of X products or 1 units of Y products with 1 working hours, assuming labor is the only input, then:A.A countries have absolute advantages in the production of two kinds of commoditiesB.B countries have absolute advantages in the production of two kinds of commoditiesC.A countries have comparative advantages in the production of two kinds of commoditiesD.B countries have comparative advantages in the production of two kinds of commodities9., for H-O theory, the main reason for the difference of relative commodity prices among different countries is that themain reason is that the price difference between different countries is the main reason:A. factor endowmentB. national incomeC. TechnologyD. consumption preference10., in the absence of trade, a country's consumption point:A. is above the production possibility curveB. is above or beyond the possibility of productionC. on the production possibility curveD. position is not decidable11. in the short period after opening trade:A. all groups related to declining industries will suffer lossesB. only those factors that are more intensively used in declining industries will suffer lossesC. only those less intensive use of declining industries will suffer lossesD. is only the most abundant element in its own country and will suffer losses12. Mexico has rich unskilled workers, and the United States has rich skilled workersIn the long run, the wages of unskilled workers will rise in the long run:A. has fallen in both countriesB. declined in the United States, rising in MexicoC. rises in the United States and falls in MexicoD. has risen in two countries13., the following is wrong:A. consumption patterns will not affect the welfare gains or losses of neutral elementsB. consumption patterns will affect the income or loss of all elementsC. consumption patterns do not affect the gains or losses of the most specialized elementsD. consumption patterns will not affect the welfare gains or losses of a country as a whole14. in the following conditions, the theorem of factor price equalization can not be established?A. elements will not flow among industriesB. factors have different productivity in different countriesC. countries have set up trade barriers to stop free tradeD. all 3 items mentioned above15. "in a rapidly growing country, the rapid accumulation of new capital will make the country import more natural resources."The theorem implicit in this assertion is that:A.Heckscher-Ohlin theorem.B.Stolper-Samuelson theorem.C.Rybczynski theorem.D.Factor-price Equalization theorem.16. if a country has a comparative advantage in the production of capital intensive products, and capital growth faster than other inputs (such as labor) growth rate, then, according to the trade theory and resulting growth mode:A. import substitutionBalanced growth of B. capital intensive products and other trade goodsC. export expansionMore than D., three are wrong17., a necessary condition for "Immiserizing growth" is:The growth of A. countries is biased towards export industriesB. foreign export demand for the country has price elasticityThe consumption preference of C. countries is highly biased towards export commoditiesD.Trade is not very important in the national economyThe theory of 18.H--O has been successfully explained:A.'s product innovation process and industry layout and development outside the United StatesB. exports and imports of similar products become more important countriesBecause of the similarity of factor endowments, trade betweenthe United States and Canada is increasing day by day in C.D. trade patterns between industrialized and developing countries with different factor endowmentsWhich of the following 19. products is the most likely to experience a product life cycle?A. riceB. TV setC. crude oilD. minerals20., intra industry trade is more likely to occur:A. between rich and poor countriesB. between high income countriesC. between developing countriesD. between developed and developing countriesWhich of the following statements is the most correct statement under 21.?A. economies of scale determine the comparative advantages of countriesB. economies of scale can not determine the comparative advantage of each country, but transform the existing comparative advantages into low prices and the expansion of output and tradeC. external economy can explain the comparative advantage better than the internal economy, because the external economy means the expansion of the output of other competing companiesD. comparative advantage can be best explained by the internal economy, because the latter leads to the improvement of the company's productivity and cost reduction22. economies of scale are more likely to occur:A. small scale textile industryB. aircraft manufacturing industryC. footwear industryD. small business23. in the monopolistic competition model of trade:A. if the two countries have the same total capital labor ratio, they will not tradeB. trade leads to the increase of commodity varieties and the expansion of economies of scale, which can bring benefitsC. in the long run, manufacturers can make a profitD. factor endowments can not determine the occurrence of inter industry trade24. in the H-O model, international trade is mainly based on the differences between countries in the following aspects:A. TechnologyB. factor endowmentC. economies of scaleD. product differentiation25. for a small country (price recipient), the optimal tariff is:A. zeroB. prohibitive tariffC. is definitely positiveD. increases with the increasing demand elasticity of the country26. the best tariff requirement that can bring net welfare benefits to the country:A. countries are price takers"There is no residual consumer loss in B.C. trade partner countries will not be hurt by customs dutiesD. countries have monopoly power in the international market27. tariff setting:A. will bring in full income from foreignersB. will always increase the domestic price level of Exporting CountriesCompared with free trade, C. will reduce the welfare of small import countriesD. will always increase welfare28. the effective protection rate of an industry:A. is always higher than the optimal tax rateB. is a measure of increasing employment opportunities for countries with tariffsC. depends on the share of domestic output of GDP in related products, and will be greater than or less than the nominal tariff rateD. depends on the tariff rate of the inputs, and will be greater than or less than the nominal tariff rateImport tariffs set by 29. major countries:A. will increase the welfare of the countryB. will reduce the welfare of the stateC. will keep the welfare of the state unchangedD. the above three are possibleWhich of the following 30. is the most correct one?A. import quotas tend to generate monopoly rentsThe B. quota system is more efficient than the tax systemCompared with the tariff system, the import quota is more suitable for use in the economic situation of C.D. in competition, compared with the tariff system, the import quota can make the producers competing with the imported products obtain greater profitsFour, case study1. below is the hypothetical input-output state of food production (assuming labor is the only input):riceWheatNational input output U.S.AChinaJapanThailandLabor inputTenFortyTenTentotal outputOne hundred and twenty Two hundredFiftyOne hundredLabor inputTenOne hundredTentotal outputFive hundredFour hundredTwentyTenWhich country has the absolute advantage of producing rice? Which country has the comparative advantage of producing rice most?What should the United States export if Japan and the United States carry out grain trade? What to import (illustrated by drawing)Under the same technology, if Japan's labor force increased by50%, what would happen to the food trade pattern of the United States and Japan? What will happen to the price of rice and wheat in the two countries?2. with A, B, C three kinds of products, production of every 1 million dollars of products, respectively, the input of the following production factors:Essential factorproductLabor (day)Capital (US $10000)Land (sq km)AOne hundredTwo hundredTenBFiftyFive hundredFiveCFive hundredFiftyTenWhat kind of products have comparative advantages in the production of China, the United States and Japan? What kinds of products are the most likely to import and export?Some reference answersTwo. Judgment questions1. mistakes,2. pairs,3. mistakes,4. pairs,5. pairs6. pairs,7. errors,8. pairs,9. pairs, 10. pairs11. mistakes, 12. pairs, 13. pairs, 14. pairs, 15. pairs16. to 17., 18. to 20., 19. to wrongThree, multiple-choice questions1.A2. A3. C4. A5.C6. D7. D8. A9. A 10.B11. A 12. B 13. A 14. D 15.C16. C 17. A 18. D 19. B 20.B21. B 22. B 23. B 24. B 25.A26. D 27. C 28. D 29. D 30.CFour, case study1. A. due to input per unit of labor to the number of rice production, the United States is 12 units, Chinese 5 units, 5 units in Japan, 10 in Thailand, the U.S. labor productivity is highest, so the United States in the production of rice has the absolute advantage; from the production of 1 units of wheat will cost us 0.24. Unit 1.25 unit China rice, rice, rice in Japan is2.5 units to 5 units, Thailand riceThe opportunity cost of wheat in Thailand is the highest, and conversely, the opportunity cost of Thailand rice is the lowest. Therefore, Thailand has a comparative advantage in rice productionB. if the United States and Japan for the grain trade, because the United States 1 units of wheat the opportunity cost of only 0.24 units and 2.5 units of Japanese rice, rice, so the United States should export wheat, rice imports (omitted)C. technology in the unchanged, if the Japanese workforce grew50% in labor is the only factor under the assumption that the mean that Japan's rice and wheat demand increased by 50%, so the United States export wheat, rice export trade pattern of Japan will not change, but because Japan has a comparative advantage in rice production so, international rice prices will decline, while wheat prices will rise2. according to the problem, A for land intensive products, B is the capital intensive products, C for labor-intensive products, according to the difference between the United States and Japan, China three conditions, China has a comparative advantage in terms of C products, the United States has a comparative advantage in terms of A products, and B products in Japan have comparative advantageTherefore, China's export of C products is the most likely, the United States exports A products the most likely, and Japan exports B products most likelyIn terms of imports, the possibility of China's imports of B products is the most likely, Japan's A products are the most likely, the United States imports C products the most likely。

经济学发展史之国际贸易理论发展综述

经济学发展史之国际贸易理论发展综述伴随着国家的产生和生产力的发展，当一国生产出现剩余产品的时候，国际贸易便诞生了。

不同的时期，不同地理论指导和解释着国际贸易产生的条件和一些贸易现象。

本文对国际贸易理论的产生和发展进行了阐述和分析。

1 重商主义（mercantilism）时期15世纪到17世纪期间，以威廉•斯坦福（W·Stafford 1554—1612年）的“货币差额论（又称重金主义）”和托马斯·孟(Thomas·Mun 1571—1641)的“贸易差额论（又称重工主义）”为代表的重商主义第一次对国际贸易做出了理论解释。

“货币差额论”认为，一切进口都会减少货币，而货币的减少对本国是有害的，对外应该少买或根本不买。

“贸易差额论”观点认为，卖给外国人的商品总值大于购买他们的商品总值，从每年的进出口贸易中取得顺差，增加货币流入量。

两种观点都认为：国家政策的首要目标是使国家富强，一个国家的富裕程度和实力大小的唯一标志就是该国金银等贵金属的拥有量；实现政策目标的唯一途径就是保持贸易的顺差，为此目的所需采取的手段就是保护国内工业的管制贸易，阻止金银外流。

重商主义还认为，国际贸易是“零和游戏”，贸易是单方面有利的，一国所得，必然是另一国之所失。

重商主义在一定程度上解释了国际贸易产生的原因以及贸易利益在国际间的分配，并且在那一时期为早期西方资本主义的发展完成了大量的资本原始积累，2 古典贸易理论时期2.1 绝对优势理论（Theory of Absolute Advantage）绝对优势理论（Theory of Absolute Advantage），又称绝对成本说（Theory of Absolute Cost）、地域分工说（Theory of Territorial Division of Labor）。

该理论将一国内部不同职业之间、不同工种之间的分工原则推演到各国之间的分工，从而形成其国际分工理论。

国际经济学名词解释

国际经济学名词解释1.相互依存（interdependence）：国家间的经济关系，用商品和劳务的进出口总额占国内生产总值的比例来粗略衡量。

2.贸易基础（basis for trade）：两国贸易增长的原动力。

只有当其能从中获利时才会自愿从事贸易。

3.贸易所得（gains from trade）：由生产专业化和贸易引起的一国消费的增加。

4.重商主义（Mercantilism）：17、18世纪盛行的理论，指出一国富裕的出路在于限制进口，刺激出口。

因此一国的盈利必然建立在他国的亏损之上。

5.绝对优势（absolute advantage）：一国在生产某种产品上比另一国家有更高的效率。

6.比较优势理论（law of comparative advantage）：解释一国在生产所有商品都不如他国有效或相对他国有绝对劣势的情况下，互利贸易仍能发生。

该国应生产并出口其绝对劣势较小的商品，进口其绝对劣势较大的商品。

7.社会无差异曲线（community indifference curve）：反映能使社会或国家获得同等满足程度的两种商品的不同组合。

斜率为负，凸向原点，且不相交。

8.显性比较优势（revealed comparative advantage）：一国或地区的显性比较优势由一国或地区中各种主要商品的进出口净额的百分比来衡量。

9.交易所得（gains from exchange）：由交易引起的消费增加，与国家在闭关自守时继续生产相比较而言。

10.分工所得（gains from specialization）：由于生产专业化引起的消费增加。

11.提供曲线（offer curves）：反映一国为了进口其需要的某一数量的商品而愿意出口的商品数量，或在各种相对商品价格下，一国愿意出口和进口的程度。

12.贸易条件（terms of trade）：一国出口商品价格指数与进口商品价格指数的比值。

13.劳动密集型商品（labor-intensive commodity）：在所有相对要素价格条件下，均有较高的劳动/资本比率的商品。

国际经济学理论与政策第八版上册保罗课后答案[第4章]

Chapter 4Resources, Comparative Advantage,and Income DistributionChapter OrganizationA Model of a Two-Factor EconomyPrices and ProductionChoosing the Mix of InputsFactor Prices and Goods PricesResources and OutputEffects of International Trade Between Two-Factor Economies Relative Prices and the Pattern of Trade Trade and the Distribution of Income Factor Price EqualizationTrade and Income Distribution in the Short Run Case Study: North-South Trade and Income Inequality The Political Economy of Trade: A Preliminary View The Gains from Trade, Revisited Optimal Trade PolicyIncome Distribution and Trade Politics Box: Income Distribution and the Beginnings of Trade TheoryEmpirical Evidence on the Heckscher-Ohlin ModelTesting the Heckscher-Ohlin ModelImplications of the TestsSummaryAppendix: Factor Prices, Goods Prices, and Input ChoicesChoice of TechniqueGoods Prices and Factor PricesFactor Economiesadeomeort RunIncome InequalitPreliminary Viewisitedde PoliticChapter 4 Resources, Comparative Advantage, and Income Distribution13Chapter OverviewIn Chapter 3, trade between nations was motivated by differences internationally in the relative productivity of workers when producing a range of products. In Chapter 4, this analysis goes a step further by introducing the Heckscher-Ohlin theory .The Heckscher-Ohlin theory considers the pattern of production and trade which will arise when countries have different endowments of factors of production, such as labor, capital, and land. The basic point is that countries tend to export goods that are intensive in the factors with which they are abundantly supplied. Trade has strong effects on the relative earnings of resources, and tends to lead to equalization acrosscountries of prices of the factors of production. These theoretical results and related empirical findings are presented in this chapter.The chapter begins by developing a general equilibrium model of an economy with two goods which are each produced using two factors according to fixed coefficient production functions. The assumption of fixed coefficient production functions provides an unambiguous ranking of goods in terms of factor intensities. (The appendix develops the model when the production functions have variable coefficients.) Two important results are derived using this model. The first is known as the Rybczynski effect . Increasing the relative supply of one factor, holding relative goods prices constant, leads to a biased expansion of production possibilities favoring the relative supply of the good which uses that factor intensively. The second key result is known as the Stolper-Samuelson effect . Increasing the relative price of a good, holding factor supplies constant, increases the return to the factor used intensively in the production of that good by more than the price increase, while lowering the return to the other factor. This result has important income distribution implications. It can be quite instructive to think of the effects of demographic/labor force changes on the supply of different products. For example, how might the pattern of production during the productive years of the “Baby Boom ” generation differ from the pattern of production for post Baby Boom generations? What does this imply for returns to factors and relative price behavior? The central message concerning trade patterns of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory is that countries tend to export goods whose production is intensive in factors with which they are relatively abundantly endowed. This is demonstrated by showing that, using the relative supply and relative demand analysis, the country relatively abundantly endowed with a certain factor will produce that factor more cheaply than the other country. International trade leads to a convergence of goods prices. Thus, the results from the Stolper-Samuelson effect demonstrate that owners of a country ’s abundant factors gain from trade, but owners of a country ’s scarce factors lose. The extension of this result is the important Factor Price Equalization Theorem , which states that trade in (and thus price equalization of) goods leads to an equalization in the rewards to factors across countries. The political implications of factor price equalization should be interesting to students.The chapter also introduces some political economy considerations. First, it briefly notes that many of the results regarding trade and income distribution assume full and swift adjustment in the economy. In the short run, though, labor and capital that are currently in a particular industry may have sector-specific skills or knowledge and are being forced to move to another sector, and this involves costs. Thus, even if a shift in relative prices were to improve the lot of labor, for those laborers who must change jobs, there is a short run cost.supply of Stolper-Samuelson reases the return to increase, while low implications.ink of the eff how mig functionnown as the constant, leads togood which uses thson effect . Increasn to the factor uselowering the retureffects of demogrmight the patternom the pattern of pctors and relative prning trade patternduction is intensivby showing that,ndowed withde leads14 Krugman/Obstfeld • International Economics: Theory and Policy, Eighth EditionThe core of the political economy discussion focuses on the fact that when opening to trade, some may benefit and some may lose, but the expansion of economic opportunity should allow society to redistribute some of the gains towards those who lose, making sure everyone benefits on net. In practice, though, those who lose are often more concentrated and hence have more incentive to try to affect policy. Thus, trade policy is not always welfare maximizing, but may simply reflect the preferences of the loudest and best organized in society.Empirical results concerning the Heckscher-Ohlin theory , beginning with the Leontief paradox andextending to current research, do not support its predictions concerning resource endowments explaining overall patterns of trade, though some patterns do match the broad outlines of its theory (e.g., the United States imports more low-skill products from Bangladesh and more high-skill products from Germany). This observation has motivated many economists to consider motives for trade between nations that are not exclusively based on differences across countries. These concepts will be explored in later chapters. Despite these shortcomings, important and relevant results concerning incomedistribution are obtained from the Heckscher-Ohlin theory.Answers to Textbook Problems1. The definition of cattle growing as land intensive depends on the ratio of land to labor used in production, not on the ratio of land or labor to output. The ratio of land to labor in cattle exceeds the ratio in wheat in the United States, implying cattle is land intensive in the United States. Cattle is land intensive in other countries as well if wheat production in that relevant for this purpose.of the other two sides (representing land). There will be a ray from each of the two corners representing the origins. To find the slopes of these rays we use the information from the question concerning the ratios of the production coefficients. The question states that a LC /a TC 20 anda LF /a TF 5.Since a LC /a TC (L C /Q C )/(T C /Q C )C we have L C 20T C . Using the same reasoning,a LF /a TF (L F /Q F )/(T F /Q F )T F L F 5T F . We cansolve this algebraically since L C L F 600 and T T C T F 60.The solution is L C 400, T C 20, L F 200 and T F b. The dimensions of the box change with each increase in available labor, but the slopes of the raysfrom the origins remain the same. The solutions in the different cases are as follows.L 800: T C 33.33, L C 666.67, T F 26.67, L F 133.33L 1000: T C 46.67, L C 933.33, T F 13.33, L F 66.67L 1200: T C 60, L C 1200, T F 0, L F 0. (complete specialization).c. At constant factor prices, some labor would be unused, so factor prices would have to change, orthere would be unemployment.3. This question is similar to an issue discussed in Chapter 3. What matters is not the absolute abundanceof factors, but their relative abundance. Poor countries have an abundance of labor relative to capital when compared to more developed countries.depend output. The ra g cattle is land inte ratio of land to lab mparisons between he length of tw The box diagram has 600 as the length of two sides (representing labor) and 60 as the length ng land) e ratio of land to laio of land to laborntensive in the Unlabor in cattle prothe ratio of land to labor in cattle production exceeds the ratio in een another countrcountry. Comparisons between another country and the United States is less of two sides (repre2. a. and). T here will be here will be a ray from each of the two cornerse slopes of th representing the origins. To find the slopes of th ese ra ese rays we use the information from the questionduction coefficient L C /T L F / and s and since this ratio equals 5, we have ly since LChapter 4 Resources, Comparative Advantage, and Income Distribution 154. In the Ricardian model, labor gains from trade through an increase in its purchasing power. Thisresult does not support labor union demands for limits on imports from less affluent countries. The Heckscher-Ohlin model directly addresses distribution by considering the effects of trade on the owners of factors of production. In the context of this model, unskilled U.S. labor loses from trade since this group represents the relatively scarce factors in this country. The results from the Heckscher-Ohlin model support labor union demands for import limits. In the short run, certainunskilled unions may gain or lose from trade depending on in which sector they work, but in theory, in the longer run, the conclusions of the Heckscher-Ohlin model will dominate.5. Specific programmers may face wage cuts due to the competition from India, but this is not inconsistent with skilled labor wages rising. By making programming more efficient in general, this development may have increased wages for others in the software industry or lowered the prices of the goods overall. In the short run, though, it has clearly hurt those with sector specific skills who will face transition costs. There are many reasons to not block the imports of computer programming services (or outsourcing of these jobs). First, by allowing programming to be done more cheaply, it expands the production possibilities frontier of the U.S., making the entire country better off on average. Necessary redistribution can be done, but we should not stop trade which is making the nation as a whole better off. In addition, no one trade policy action exists in a vacuum, and if the U.S. blocked the programming imports, it could lead to broader trade restrictions in other countries.6. The factor proportions theory states that countries export those goods whose production is intensive in factors with which they are abundantly endowed. One would expect the United States, which has a high capital/labor ratio relative to the rest of the world, to export capital-intensive goods if the Heckscher-Ohlin theory holds. Leontief found that the United States exported labor-intensive goods. Bowen, Leamer and Sveikauskas found for the world as a whole the correlation between factor endowment and trade patterns to be tenuous. The data do not support the predictions of the theory that countries ’ exports and imports reflect the relative endowments of factors.7. If the efficiency of the factors of production differs internationally, the lessons of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory would be applied to “effective factors ” which adjust for the differences in technology or worker skills or land quality (for example). The adjusted model has been found to be more successful than the unadjusted model at explaining the pattern of trade between countries. Factor-price equalization concepts would apply to the effective factors. A worker with more skills or in a country with better technology could be considered to be equal to two workers in another country. Thus, the single person would be two effective units of labor. Thus, the one high-skilled worker could earn twice what lower-skilled workers do, and the price of one effective unit of labor would still be equalized. o broad s that countries ex bundantly endowed relative to the rest olds. Leontief foun eikauskas found fo tterns to be ten mports r trade whicsts in a vacuumrestrictions in othexport those goodwed. One would eest of the world, toound that the Unitd for the world astenuous. The datats reflect the relatiors of production dpplied to effectivend quality (for exaunadjusted modesuccessful than the unadjusted model at explaining n concepts wouldprice equalization concepts would apply to the effecti er technologyuld be t。

The Leontief paradox 里昂惕夫之谜

The Leontief paradoxThe Leontief paradox is a confliction on international trade and division, which states that countries with high capital-per worker have a lower capital/labor ratio in exports than in imports.Traditional international trade theory proposed by David Richado (1817) suggests that countries should concentrate on industries that have comparative advantage (either resource or technique oriented) and abandon those industries without comparative advantages. Thus, through international trade, there are mutual benefits for both countries. Based on this theory, Heckscher–Ohlin theory which assumes that countries have different resource endowments and indicates that country with abundant capital will export the capital-intensive goods and services and vice versa. In 1954, Leontief adopted an input-output research on actual flow of commodities and services among different US sectors and finds that, “an average million dollars’ worth of exports embodies considerably less capital and somewhat more labor than would be required to replace from domestic production an equivalent amount of competitive imports.” in other words, US export more labor intensive commodities and services than capital intensive ones in the international trade markets. This finding is in contraction with the Heckscher–Ohlin theory Since the US is characterized as capital surplus and labor shortage, it should have exported more capital-intensive goods on the international division.Advocators of Leontief made similar conclusions. Robert Baldwin (1971) made investigation on US trade data in 1962 and found that its imports are 27% more capital-intensive than its exports.However, there are advocators of H-O theory disagree with Leontief’s theory. Valavanis-Vail, S (1954) argued that due to the logically incompatible of input-output with international trade, the estimate of Leontief may be inaccurate. Moreover, researchers argue that the labor should be divided into unskilled labor and skilled labor. With such a conception, the US labors that are characterized as highly skilled labor in terms of education, health and “know how” are considered to have more advantage than its capital resources. Thus, they export more labor-intensive commodities and services. This argument is highly recognized more recently, as the skilled labor is treated as the human capital in modern society.Brecher, R. A., & Choudhri, E. U. (1984) introduced “new products”to the two-in to the put version re-examine the relative factor abundance of capital and labor and implied the resolve of Leontief paradox in some conditions. Another response to Leontief paradox the lightening the role of comparative advantage as a determinant of trade since there are other important factors which also have influence on trade pattern, for instance, the domestic and international demand of commodities and service.ReferenceBall, D. S., 1967. United States effective tariffs and labor's share. The Journal of Political Economy, 75(2), 183-187.Brecher, R. A., & Choudhri, E. U., 1982. The Leontief paradox, continued. The Journal of Political Economy, 90(4), 820-823.Brecher, R. A., & Choudhri, E. U., 1984. New Products and the Factor Content of International Trade. The Journal of Political Economy, 965-971.Jones, R. W., 1956. Factor proportions and the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem. The Review of Economic Studies, 24(1), 1-10.Leamer, E. E. , 1980. The Leontief paradox, reconsidered. The Journal of Political Economy,495-503.Leontief, W., 1953. Domestic production and foreign trade; the American capital positionre-examined. Proceedings of the American philosophical Society, 97(4), 332-349.Leontief, W., 1954. Mathematics in economics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 60(3), 215-233.Valavanis-Vail, S.,1954. Leontief's scarce factor paradox. The Journal of Political Economy, 62(6), 523-528.。

里昂惕夫之谜

对要素禀赋论的其他检验
1959年，日本经济学家建元正弘（M.Tatemoto）和市村真一（S.Ichimura）分析日本的贸易结构整体上，日本这个劳动力丰裕的国家，输出的主要是资本密集型产品、输入的则是劳动密集型产品他们认为，日本的资本和劳动的供给介于发达国家和不发达国家之间。日本与发达国家贸易，在劳动密集型产品上具有相对优势；而与不发达国家贸易在资本密集型产品上具有相对优势。所以，就日本的全部对外贸易而言，结论支持里昂惕夫之谜，但在双边贸易上，支持H-O。
对里昂惕夫之谜的解释 ——自然资源因素被忽略自然资源因素被忽略
美，凡涅克（J.Vanek），1959年里昂惕夫是用双因素模型（资本和劳动）来分析的，未考虑自然资源的投入分析。一些产品既不属于劳动密集型，又不属于资本密集型，而是自然资源密集型。美国的进口品中初级产品占60%—70%，而这些初级产品中大部分是木材和矿产品，这些产品的自然密集程度很高，把这些产品划分在资本密集型产品中无形中加大了美国进口品中资本与劳动的比率。里昂惕夫后来在投入—产出表中减去19种自然资源密集型产品，成功地揭开了“谜”。鲍德温，研究结果——剔除自然资源产品，则生产进口替代品，每个工人所需的资本数量相对出口商品生产由127%—— 104%
里昂惕夫之谜简评
里昂惕夫之谜是传统国际贸易理论发展史上的一个转折点，引发了人们对二战后国际贸易新现象、新问题的探索，使当代国际贸易理论更接近现实。投入—产出分析法开辟了用统计数据全面验证贸易理论的道路。当今传统国际贸易理论中居主导地位的仍然是以比较利益为核心、修正过的H-O-S。但是HO-S对现实世界解释的范围越来越小。
对要素禀赋论的检验 ——里昂惕夫之谜
里昂惕夫的研究发现，美国进口替代品的资本密集程度反而高于出口品的资本密集程度（大约30 ％），因而得出与H-O相反的结论：“美国参加国际分工是建立在劳动密集型生产专业化的基础上，而不是建立在资本密集型生产专业化基础上。换言之，这个国家是利用对外贸易来节约资本和安排剩余劳动力，而不是相反。” 1956年，里昂惕夫又对1951年美国的贸易结构进行了第二次检验，结果与第一次一样。

国际贸易理论

4）需求偏好相似论
A：国内需求是产品出口的重要条件 B：需求结构是影响国际贸易规模的重要因素，需求结构越相似，贸易量越大。而决定需求结构的是收入水平。需 d 求结 c 构 b

a

1000
2000
3000
4000
Y（收入）
结论：

首先产品异质性提供了同一产业内产品的多样化，各国根据规模经济理论选取规模经济产品专业化生产，然后根据需求偏好相似论，再将这些产品出口将到收入水平相当的国家，这就发生了产业内贸易。
3、主要观点
1） H—O理论：一国出口的是本国丰富的要素所生产的商品，进口的是本国稀缺的要素所生产的商品。
推导：
K要素丰裕 P要素低生产商品成本低出口
L要素稀缺
P要素高
生产商品成本高
进口
日本的纺织品较多地使用了便宜的生产要素，即劳动，而美国的机器较多地使用了便宜的生产要素，即资本
日本的纺织品具有比较优势，美国的机器具有比较优势
提出——H-O 模型验证却出反论
解释：劳动熟练说人力资本说技术差距说
熟练劳动人力资本技术资本
资本密集型商品
2、国家竞争优势理论
生产要素导向投资导向创新导向财富导向
3、产业内贸易理论
1）产品异质性——物质基础 Trade mark, brand, pattern, package, specification 2）规模经济理论——重要原因随着生产规模的扩大，在规模经济收益递增阶段，单位产品成本递减而取得成本优势，因此专业化生产并出口这一产品。 3）经济发展水平是重要因素经济分工越细，异质产品规模越大，异质产品供给市场形成发展水平购买力越强，需求强烈，异质产品的需求市场形成越高

H-O理论及两个推论一个例子

H-O理论及两个推论一个例子1、H-O理论2、S-S理论3、Rybczynski theorem(要素的累积)4、immiserising growth(Rybczynski theorem的运用)5、要素禀赋理论的验证与补充（Leontief paradox and explanation）1、H-O理论(A)预备知识(preliminary knowledge)(B）前提假设(assumption)(C）模型推导(model)(D）结论（conclusion）(A ) two concepts(Factor endowment and Factor intensity)Factor endowment:要素禀赋：指一国所拥有的两种生产要素的相对比例。

如果一国的要素禀赋（K/L）大于他国，则称该国为资本（相对）丰富或劳动（相对）稀缺的国家；反过来，他国则为劳动丰富或资本稀缺的国家。

一国拥有两种生产要素的相对比例，是一个相对概念资本存量与劳动存量的比值：K r L=,称为劳动的资本配比率。

A B r r >时，称A 国为资本丰富的国家，B 国则为劳动丰富的国家。

Factor intensity:要素密集度（Factor intensity ）：指生产某种产品所投入两种生产要素的比例。

这也是一个相对的概念，与生产要素的绝对投入量无关。

X X X K L ρ=,YY YKL ρ=当X Y ρρ>时，称X 是资本密集型商品，Y 是劳动密集型商品。

要素密集度的性质说明图结论：（补充）(B ）前提假设(assumption) 1两国相同部门的生产函数相同；kx=Kx/Lxky=Ky/Ly kx>ky X 是资本密集型产品Y 是劳动密集型产品2两国消费者偏好相同；3规模收益不变；4所有商品市场、要素市场都是完全竞争的；5两国的生产要素供给是既定不变的；6假设A国为资本丰富的国家，B国为劳动丰富的国家；7生产要素在一国之内可自由流动，在国际间不能流动；8X、Y的生产技术不同，假设X为资本密集型产品，Y为劳动密集型产品；9不存在运输成本或其他贸易障碍。

列昂惕夫反论及其解释

国家竞争优势的发展阶段
波特认为，一国经济地位上升的过程就是其竞争优势加强的过程。国家竞争优势的发展可分为四个阶段： 1. 要素推动阶段— 基本要素上的优势是竞争优势的主要源泉。 2. 投资推动阶段— 竞争优势主要源于资本要素。大量更新设备，提高技术水平，扩大生产规模。 3. 创新推进阶段— 竞争优势来源于创新。 4. 财富推动阶段— 国家主要靠过去的长期积累的物质、精神财富而维持经济的运行。若创新的意愿及能力均下降，则面临丧失竞争优势的危险。
国家竞争优势模型（“波特菱形”或“钻石系统” diamonds framework）该模型用来解释获得国家竞争优势的所需要的宏观竞争机制。
机遇机遇企业战略、结构与竞争
生产要素
需求状况
相关产业与支持性产业
政府政府
说明： 6个因素的每一个都可以单独发生作用，同时又对其他因素产生影响。各个因素组合成一个有机体，共同起作用决定国家的竞争地位。6个因素中，图中心的4 个因素（黄字）是国家竞争优势的决定因素，它们的情况如何直接导致国家竞争地位的变化。另2种因素（机遇和政府）对国家的竞争优势产生影响。
（加在P45第一句话后面）
对在R&D的资本投入与活动是影响工业品对外贸易格局和对外竞争能力的决定性因素。
技术差距说 (Theory of Technological Gap)
该理论是美国经济学家波斯纳、弗农等人提出的。他们认为,技术可以作为一种资本或独立的生产要素。由于各国对技术的投资和技术革新进展不一致,因而存在技术差距。这就使技术资源相对丰裕或技术发展处于领先地位的国家,有可能享有生产和出口技术密集型产品的比较优势。
（记录）

规模经济（economics of scale), 指生产规模扩大而导致产品成本下降, 效益提高或报酬递增。生产要素比例相近的国家之间,通过企业规模经济的差别,取得规模节约的经济效益,其成本随着产量的增长而递减，从而获得生产成本的比较优势,具有更强的国际竞争力。

1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。

False Appearance Makes the Paradox

Economists who are in favor of this idea insist that factors of production can not be considered homogeneous just as Heckscher and Ohlin assumed. Capital, for instance, might be subdivided into two types, Physical Capital and Human Capital. When human capital as a production factor is inserted into the framework of analyzing trade model, trade structure of the United States must be completely reexamined. Superficially, wage rate of the US laborers is averagely higher than their foreign partners. This difference actually reflects a higher rate of return for the more human capital investment the US laborers have made. Seeing through the appearance to the essence, the US, as a country, must be regarded as to be abundant in human capital endowment.
Human Capital

Irving Klavis, Availability and Other Influences on the Commodity Composition of Trade, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 64, No. 2 , Apr., 1956. Peter Kenen, Nature, Capital and Trade, Journal of Political Economy 73, October 1965.
Explanations to Leontief Paradox and Development of Trade Theory
Major Explanations to the Paradox

Inhomogeneous(不均一的) Factors Theory Human Capital Skills of Labor Factors Expansion Theory Natural Resources R & D Factors Effect Reversion Theory Factor-intensity Reversal Consumption Biases Reversal Trade Policy Distortion Effect

Old Campus of Yale University
Nations and individuals invest in their future not only by accumulating physical capital, such as plant buildings, equipments, and inventories, but also by spending on education, training, and other investments that are embodied in human form, that is, human capital. Human capital investment acquires an appropriate rate of return in terms of relatively higher wage rate. The general level of wage rate is higher in those industries in which human capital is employed in a relatively larger proportion.
Equivalently(相当于), higher wage rate of a particular country means it must be endowed(赋予) with relatively abundant human capital because of the developed higher learning education and the advanced social servicent statistics suggest that a typical US laborer has an average more years of education than a foreign worker. Thus the US laborers earn a relatively higher salary than their foreign competitors. Taking advantages of its abundant human capital the US may have been exporting human capital-intensive goods to the other countries. Such sorts of the US trade is consistent with the basic prediction of the H-O theory no paradox at all. Unfortunately, the effect of human capital, generally higher wage rate had been falsely concluded as more labor input by Leontief. That false appearance must be the reason for Leontief Paradox. Peter Kenen in 1965 calculated the value of extra human capital and reexamined trade pattern of the US. He suggested that if the value of human capital were included, the US exports were capital-intensive relative to US imports. This would reverse the Leontief paradox.

Explanations to Leontief Paradox and Development of Trade Theory

列昂惕夫反论及其解释

HO模型赫克歇尔俄林理论

CHT3

国际经济学题库(英文版)

关于“里昂惕夫之谜”的理论回顾

克鲁格曼国际经济学

tpo54三篇阅读原文译文题目答案译文背景知识

国际贸易英文版教材

LeontiefParadox

《国际贸易理论与政策》习题

经济学发展史之国际贸易理论发展综述

国际经济学名词解释

国际经济学理论与政策 第八版 上册 保罗 课后答案[第4章]

The Leontief paradox 里昂惕夫之谜

里昂惕夫之谜

国际贸易理论

H-O理论及两个推论一个例子

列昂惕夫反论及其解释

国际经济学理论与政策第八版上册保罗课后答案[第4章]