国际经济学第4章(Helen)
国际经济学第四章
封闭条件下
❖ 一般均衡点在图中的E点，在E点相对价格线与生产 可能性边界相交，而不是相切。在均衡状态时，社 会福利则由通过E点与相对价格线相切的社会无差 曲线表示。
❖ 两国的相对价格完全相同，两国两种产品都生产， 社会福利也相同。
开放条件下
❖ 均衡点E对两国来说都不再是稳定的，两国通过国 际分工与贸易可以改善各自的福利。如果A国专门 生产X，B国专门生产Y，A、B两国都愿意将各自 所生产出的产品一半与对方进行交换，那么两国 的消费点都会超过生产可能性边界，位于图中直 线TT′的中点C，这时，很明显，两国都会获益。
产品的进出口特性：制造新产品的企业垄断世界市 场，国外富有者和在创新国的外国人开始购买该产 品，出口量从涓涓细流开始。
2.产品成熟阶段 技术特性：技术已定型，技术诀窍扩散到国外，技
术垄断优势开始丧失 生产地特性：资本丰富的国家 产品要素特性：资本密集型 成本特性：东道国的制造成本要比创新国的进口产
理论的评价
技术差距理论证明了即使在要素禀赋和需求 偏好相似的国家间，技术领先也会形成比较优 势，从而产生国际贸易。这也较好地解释了实 践中常见的技术先进国与落后国之间技术密集 型产品的贸易周期。
但是技术差距理论没有说明技术差距的大 小及形成的原因，也就没有解释技术差距如何 随着时间的推移而消失，因而无法解释贸易量 和贸易结构的变动。
实例 中国电器走向世界，美国自行车“远足”中国
卡尔马计算机公司设计出了一种新的产品， 其功能比现有产品稍有改进，但是外观作了很 大改动。其实际生产成本并不比现有的产品高， 公司却决定将现有产品转移到新加坡和韩国等 地生产，而在美国的工厂生产这种新的产品。 用产品生命周期理论对公司的这一决定进行分 析。
国际经济学第4章
（4）偏于进口替代产业型增长——逆贸易生产效应（anti-trade production effect）。两种产品的产量都增加，但是出口品的产 量增加小于进口品的产量增加。
一国经济增长后，可出口品和进口替代品的产品都可能 增加，或者一种增加，另一种反而减少，将两者的增长率作比较 ，可以划分出与贸易有关的5种类型：
（1）中立型(中性)增长——中性贸易生产效应（neutral-trade production effect）。这对应于平衡型经济增长。
（2）偏于出口型增长——顺贸易生产效应（pro-trade production effect）。两种产品的产量都增加，但是出口品的产量增加大 于进口品的产量增加。
4.2.1 要素增长与国际贸易
为了简化，现假设：（1）只有两种要素，即资本K和劳动L；（ 2）生产要素价格不变；（3）生产技术不变，其他外在的生 产条件也不变。生产要素增长可有如下3种情况 :
1. 生产要素按同一速率增长（见图4.1） 2. 生产要素按不同的速率增长(如图4.2所示) 3. 要素积累改变一国的比较优势 （如图4.3） 根据微观经济学中对于生产可能性边界特征的讨论，可以得出
人力资本论者认为，技能禀赋或人力资本赋予状 况对国际贸易格局、流向、结构和利益等方面具有重要的 影响。 因此，资本充裕的国家往往同时也是人力资本充裕的国家，
因此，这些国家的比较优势实际上在于人力资本的充裕， 这是它们参与国际分工和国际贸易的基础。在贸易结构和 流向上，这些国家往往是出口人力资本或人力技能要素密 集的产品。他们在分析美国的情况时指出，美国最充裕的 要素不是物质资本，而是人力资本，相对稀缺的是非熟练 劳动。这就决定了美国贸易结构必然是出口人力资本密集 型产品占主体。比如最先进的通讯设备、电子计算机等都 属于技能密集型产品，而不再是传统的资本密集型产品。 因此，用传统国际贸易理论的三要素论是无法说明当代国 际贸易现实的。
国际经济学[4]PPT课件
![国际经济学[4]PPT课件](https://img.taocdn.com/s3/m/13c4590bce2f0066f433229c.png)
1999年10月初的《参考消息》上连续转 载了两篇报道，一条译自9月21日的美国 《洛杉矶时报》，题目是“中国电器走向世 界”，另一篇是美国《芝加哥论坛报》9月 28日的文章，“赫菲公司开始自行车’远 足’”，报道赫菲（Huppy）公司将自行车 生产转移到中国。
中国电器从进口到出口，美国自行车从早 期生产出口到完全放弃生产，都反映了产品 技术周期和生产成本比较优势的动态变化。
2021/2/8
-
24
电视机
1923年，美国发明了第一台电视机。但 到90年代以后，美国国内连一台电视机都 不生产了，全部靠进口。日本在60年代后 成为电视机的主要生产国和出口国。90年 代以来，韩国和中国也逐渐成为电视机的生 产和出口国。
2021/2/8
-
25
中国电器走向世界，美国自行车“远足”中国
-
21
产品周期理论的国际贸易演变图示
创新国 内消费
创新国向 其他
发达国出 口
其他发达国 减少进口， 创新国向发 展中国出口
-
创新国进口，其 他
发达国家向创新 国和发展中 出口
发展中国 家净出口
22
产品生命周期的阶段
2021/2/8
-
23
纺织业
欧美最早向其他国家大宗输出，20世纪 初，洋布占领中国，挤垮了土布；几十年 后情况正好相反，欧美成为净进口国，主 要出口国是发展中国家，尤其是中国。
发达国家之间的贸易量大大增加； 同类产品之间的贸易量大大增加； 产业领先地位不断转移
2021/2/8
-
4
挑战之一
——发达工业国家间的贸易量大大增加
工业化国家之间的贸易量占其总贸易的份额(2000年)
数据202来1/2/源8 ：根据IMF贸易方向统计季报- （2002年3月）计算。
国际经济学课件：第4章 资源、比较优势与收入分配
4-8
生产可能性
• 在这个模型中棉布对粮食的机会成本是可变的：
当经济中生产大量粮食和少量的棉布时，棉布的机 会成本就小。
当经济中生产大量的棉布和少量的粮食时，棉布的 机会成本就大。
• 为什么？这是因为当把经济中的所有资源都用来生产一种 产品，生产率的稍微降低，就会造出生产的机会成本趋向 于升高。
4-23
要素价格、商品价格和生产要 素的数量
• 生产中要素的投入组合决定了生产可能性边界 上的产量最大化的点。
• 分析两要素经济中分配资源的的一个方便的办 法是，有一个如同4—8所示的盒状图。
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.
• 如果允许生产中劳动力对土地的替代，反过来 也行，那么生产可能性边界就会变为弓形。
例如， 许多工人可以在一小块土地上或者很少的工 人在一大块土地上生产相同数量的产品。
每单位要素需求能够恰当地运用到棉布和粮食的生 产中 。
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.
• 土地租金改变的影响大小取决于生产中使用的 土地数量。
土地租金增加对食物产量的影响比棉布的要大，因 为食物是土地密集型产品。
• With competition, changes in w/r are therefore directly related to changes in PC /PW .
在这个例子中，可以使用一些资源来更有效的生产量另外一 种产品。
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.
国际经济学4
“美国有成千上万个利益集团，这些集 团之间有共同的利益和要求，也存在着相互 对立的关系。因而在政府和国会活动期间， 这些利益集团都要将总统府的门挤破，把国 会山给踏平了。而这些不同的利益集团之间 相互排斥、相互监督、相互制衡。使政府的 决策不能只偏向某一个，从而保证了政策的 大众化，公正性”。如反华利益集团与援华 利益集团，在国会山上不停地决斗，从而使 国会时而通过有利中美关系的政策，时而又 搞僵中美关系。
第一节
国际贸易的利益分配
出口前： 生产者剩余： e 消费者剩余：a+d 出口后： 生产者剩余：a+b+c+e 消费者剩余：d 出口前后各利益集团的 福利变化情况如下： 生产者剩余： a+b+c 消费者剩余： a 社会福利水平： b+c
二、国际贸易的利益分配
d p1 a p0 e D b c S
出口前后各利益集团的剩 余变化情况
G’ G Lr
0C
第二节
生产要素的价格
布
（三）一种产品价格下降，另一种产品价格上升
同时考虑产品价格升降 大米 （进出口），则价格下降部门 VMPS 专门生产要素收入减少显得更 VMPS’ 加明显；价格上升部门专门生 产要素收入水平增加更加明显； 共同生产要素收入水平是升？ W1 C’ 是降？取决于进出口商品价格 W2 相对变化程度。 VMP r’ VMPr 0S G’
（二）进口部门产品价格降 低对生产要素收入的影响
进口部门产品价格水平的 下降会造成共同生产要素 在部门间的重新分配，并 造成共同生产要素报酬的 降低。产品价格上升部门 的专门生产要素的收入水 平上升，但会使共同生产 要素流出部门的专门生产 要素收入水平下降。 大米
C C’
国际经济学 (4)
C H A P T E R 4Resources and Trade: The Heckscher-Ohlin Model资源和贸易：赫克歇尔模型I f labor were the only factor of production, as the Ricardian model assumes, comparative advantage could arise only because of international differences in labor productivity. In the real world, however, while trade is partly explained by differences in labor productivity, it also reflects differences in countries' resources. Canada exports forest products to the United States not because its lumberjacks are more productive relative to their U.S. counterparts than other Canadians but because sparsely populated Canada has more forested land per capita than the United States. A realistic view of trade must allow for the importance not just of labor, but of other factors of production such as land, capital, and mineral resources.To explain the role of resource differences in trade, this chapter examines a model in which resource differences are the only source of trade. This model shows that comparative advantage is influenced by the interaction between nations' resources (the relative abundance of factorsof production) and the technology of production (which influences the relative intensity with which different factors of production are used in the production of different goods). The same idea was present in the specific factors model of Chapter 3, but the model we study in this chapter puts the interaction between abundance and intensity in sharper relief.That international trade is largely driven by differences in countries' resources is one of the most influential theories in international economics. Developed by two Swedish economists,Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin (Ohlin received the Nobel Prize in economics in 1977), the theory is often referred to as the Heckscher-Ohlin theory. Because the theory emphasizes the interplay between the proportions in which different factors of production are available in different countries and the proportions in which they are used in producing different goods, itis also referred to as the factor-proportions theory.To develop the factor-proportions theory we begin by describing an economy that does not trade, then ask what happens when two such economies trade with each other. Since thefactor-proportions theory is both an important theory and a controversial one, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the empirical evidence for and against the theory.Model of a Two-Factor EconomyThe simplest factor-proportions model is in many ways very similar to the specific factors model developed in Chapter 3. As in that model, it is assumed that each economy is able to produce two goods and that production of each good requires the use of two factors of production. In this case, however, we no longer assume that one of the factors used in each industry is specific to that industry. Instead, the same two factors are used in both sectors. This leads to a somewhat more difficult model, but also to some important new insights.Assumptions of the ModelThe economy we are analyzing can produce two goods: cloth (measured in yards) and food (measured in calories). Production of these goods requires two inputs that are in limited supply: labor, which we measure in hours, and land, which we measure in acres. Let us define the following expressions:a TC= acres of land used to produce one yard of clotha LC = hours of labor used to produce one yard of clotha TF — acres of land used to produce one calorie of fooda LF= hours of labor used to produce one calorie of foodL= economy's supply of laborT = economy's supply of landNotice that we speak in these definitions of the quantity of land or labor used to produce a given amount of food or cloth, rather than the amount required to produce that amount. The reason for this change from the Ricardian model is that in a two-factor economy there may be some room for choice in the use of inputs. A farmer, for example, may be able to grow more food per acre if he or she is willing to use more labor input to prepare the soil, weed, and so on. Thus the farmer may be able to choose to use less land and more labor per unit of output. In each sector, then, producers will face not fixed input requirements (as in the Ricardian model) but trade-offs like the one illustrated by curve II in Figure 4-1, which shows alternative input combinations that can be used to produce one calorie of food.Figure 4-1: Input Possibilities in Food ProductionIn the production of eachunit of food, unit factorrequirements of land andlabor are not constant in theHeckscher-Ohlin modelWhat input choice will producers actually make? It depends on the relative cost of land and labor. If land rents are high and wages low, farmers will choose to produce using relatively little land and a lot of labor; if rents are low and wages high, they will save on labor and use a lot of land. If w is the wage rate per hour of labor and r the cost of one acre of land, then the input choice will depend on the ratio of these two factor prices, w/r. The relationship between factor prices and the ratio of land to labor use in production of food is shown in Figure 4-2 as the curve FF.Figure 4-2: Factor Prices and Input ChoicesThere is a corresponding relationship between w/r and the land-labor ratio in cloth production. This relationship is shown in Figure 4-2 as the curve CC. As drawn, CC lies to the left of FF indicating that at any given factor prices production of food will always use a higher ratio of land to labor than production of cloth. When this is true, we say that production of food is land- intensive, while production of cloth is labor-intensive. Notice that the definition of intensity depends on the ratio of land to labor used in production, not the ratio of land or labor to output. Thus a good cannot be both land- and labor-intensive.Factor Prices and Goods PricesSuppose for a moment that the economy produces both cloth and food. (This need not be the case if the economy engages in international trade, because it might specialize completely in producing one good or the other; but let us temporarily ignore this possibility.) Then competition among producers in each sector will ensure that the price of each good equals its cost of production. The cost of producing a good depends on factor prices: If the rental rate on land is higher, then other things equal the price of any good whose production involves land input will also have to be higher.The importance of a particular factor price to the cost of producing a good depends, however, on how much of that factor the good's production involves. If cloth production makes use ofvery little land, then a rise in the price of land will not have much effect on the price of cloth; whereas if food production uses a great deal of land, a rise in land prices will have a largeeffect on its price. We can therefore conclude that there is a one-to-one relationship betweenthe ratio of the wage rate to the rental rate,w/r, and the ratio of the price of cloth to that of food, P C/P F. This relationship is illustrated by the upward-sloping curve SS in Figure 4-3.Figure 4-3: Factor Prices and Goods PricesFigure 4-4It is possible to put Figures 4-2 and 4-3 together. In Figure 4-4, the left panel is Figure 4-3 (of the SS curve) turned on its side, while the right panel reproduces Figure 4-2. By putting these two diagrams together, we see what may seem at first to be a surprisinglinkage of the prices of goods to the ratio of land to labor used in the production of eachgood. Suppose that the relative price of cloth is (P C /P F )1 (left panel of Figure 4-4); if the economy produces both goods, the ratio of the wage rate to the rental rate on land must equal (w/r)1. This ratio then implies that the ratios of land to labor employed in theproduction of cloth and food must be (T C /L C )1 and (T F /L F )1 respectively (right pane the relative price of cloth were to rise to the level indicated by (P l). If on from this diagram. The left panel already tells us eases, the ratio of land to labor rises in both clo relative prices havestr e Resources and Outputscription of a two-factor economy by describing the relationship s given. We know from Figure 4-4 that this de f e allocation of resources in a two-factor economy is to use a "b e C /P F )2, the ratio of the wage rate to the rental rate on land would rise to (w/r)2. Because land is now relatively cheaper the ratios of land to labor employed in the production of cloth and food would therefore rise to (T C /L C )2 and (T F /L F )2.We can learn one more important less that an increase in the price of cloth relative to that of food will raise the income of workers relative to that of landowners. But it is possible to make a stronger statement: Such a change in relative prices will unambiguously raise the purchasing power ofworkers and lower the purchasing power of landowners, by raising real wages andlowering real rents in terms of both goods.How do we know this? When P C /P F incr th and food production. But as we saw in Chapter 3, in a competitive economy factors of production are paid their marginal product—the real wage of workers in terms of cloth is equal to the marginal productivity of labor in cloth production, and so on. When the ratio of land to labor rises in producing either good, the marginal product of labor in terms of that good increases—so workers find their real wage higher in terms of both goods. On the other hand, the marginal product of land falls in both industries, solandowners find their real income lower in terms of both goods.In this model, then, as in the specific factors model, changes in ong effects on income distribution. Not only does a change in goods prices change th distribution of income; it always changes it so much that owners of one factor ofproduction gain while owners of the other are made worse off.e can now complete the de W between goods prices, factor supplies, and output.Suppose that we take the relative price of cloth a termines the wage-rental ratio w/r, and thus the ratio of land to labor used in the production o both cloth and food. But the economy must fully employ its supplies of labor and land. It is this last condition that determines the allocation of resources between the two industries and, therefore, the economy's output.A convenient way to analyze th ox diagram" like Figure 4-8. The width of the box represents the economy's total supply of labor; the height of the box its total supply of land. The allocation of resources between two industries can be represented by a single point within the box, such as point 1. We measure th use of labor and land in the cloth sector as the horizontal and vertical distances of such a point from O C ; thus at point 1 O C L C is the labor used in cloth production and O C T C is the land used in cloth production. We measure inputs into the food sector starting from the opposite corner: O F L F is the labor, O F T F the land used in food production.How can we determine the location of this resource allocation point? From Figure 4-4 we know that given goods prices, we can determine the ratio of land to labor in cloth production, T C/L C. Draw a straight line from O C whose slope equals that land-labor ratio, such as the line O C C; point 1 must lie on this line. Similarly, the known land-labor ratio in food production determines the slope of another line, O F F; point 1 must also lie on this line. (O F F is steeper than O C C, because, as we saw earlier, the ratio of land to labor is higher in food than in cloth production.) Thus the economy's resource allocation is identified by the point at which the two lines representing land-labor ratios cross—here, at point 1.Given the prices of cloth and food and the supplies of land and labor, then, it is possible to determine how much of each resource the economy devotes to the production of each good; and thus also to determine the economy's output of each good. The next question is how these outputs change when the economy's resources change.The initially surprising answer is shown in Figure 4-9, which shows what happens when the economy's supply of land is increased, holding both goods prices and the labor supply fixed. With the increased supply of land the box is taller. This means that inputs into food production can no longer be measured from O F(now labeled O F1), but must be measured from the corner of the new, enlarged box, O F2., and the original line O F1F1 must be replaced with O F2F2. The resource allocation point must therefore move from 1 to 2.What is surprising about this result? Notice that the quantities of labor and land used in cloth production actually fall, from L C1and T C1to L C2, and T C2. Thus an increase in the economy's supply of land will, holding prices constant, lead to a fall in the output of the labor-intensive good. What happens to the land and labor no longer used in cloth production? It is now used in the food sector, whose output must have risen more than proportionately to the increase in land supply; for example, if land supply were to rise by 10 percent, food output might rise by 15 or 20 percent.The best way to think about this result is in terms of how resources affect the economy's production possibilities. In Figure 4-10 the curve TT1 represents the economy's production possibilities before the increase in land supply. Output is at point 1, where the slope of the production possibility frontier equals minus the relative price of cloth, -P C/P F, and the economy produces Q C1and Q F1of cloth and food. The curve TT2 shows the production possibility frontier after an increase in land supply. The production possibility frontier shifts out to TT2, that is, the economy could produce more of both cloth and food than before. The outward shift of the frontier is, however, much larger in the direction of food than of clothing, that is, there is a biased expansion of production possibilities which occurs when the production possibility frontier shifts out much more in one direction than in the other. In this case, the expansion is so strongly biased toward food production that at unchanged relative prices production moves from point 1 to point 2, which involves an actual fall in cloth output from Q C1to Q C2and a large increase infood output from Q F1, to Q F2.The biased effect of increases in resources on production possibilities is the key to understanding how differences in resources give rise to international trade. An increase in the supply of land expands production possibilities disproportionately in the direction of food production, while an increase in the supply of labor expands them disproportionately in the direction of cloth production. Thus an economy with a high ratio of land to labor will be relatively better at producing food than an economy with a low ratio of land to labor. Generally, an economy will tend to be relatively effective at producing goods that are intensive in the factors with which the country is relativelywell-endowed.Effects of International Trade Between Two-Factor Economies Having outlined the production structure of a two-factor economy, we can now look at what happens when two such economies, Home and Foreign, trade. As always, Home and Foreign are similar along many dimensions. They have the same tastes and therefore have identical relative demands for food and cloth when faced with the same relative price of the two goods. They also have the same technology: A given amount of land and labor yields the same output of either cloth or food in the two countries. The only difference between the countries is in their resources: Home has a higher ratio of labor to land than Foreign does.Relative Prices and the Pattern of TradeSince Home has a higher ratio of labor to land than Foreign, Home is labor-abundant and Foreign is land-abundant. Note that abundance is defined in terms of a ratio and not in absolute quantities. If America has 80 million workers and 200 million acres (alabor-to-land ratio of one-to-two-and-a-half), while Britain has 20 million workers and 20 million acres (a labor-to-land ratio of one-to-one) we consider Britain to belabor-abundant even though it has less total labor than America. "Abundance" is always defined in relative terms, by comparing the ratio of labor to land in the two countries, so that no country is abundant in everything.Since cloth is the labor-intensive good, Home's production possibility frontier relative to Foreign's is shifted out more in the direction of cloth than in the direction of food. Thus, other things equal, Home tends to produce a higher ratio of cloth to food. Because trade leads to a convergence of relative prices, one of the other things that will be equal is the price of cloth relative to food. Because the countries differ in their factor abundances, however, for any given ratio of the price of cloth to that of food Home will produce a higher ratio of cloth to food than Foreign will: Home will have a larger relative supply of cloth. Home's relative supply curve, then, lies to the right of Foreign's.The relative supply schedules of Home (RS)and Foreign (RS*)are illustrated in Figure 4-11. The relative demand curve, which we have assumed to be the same for both countries, is shown as RD. If there were no international trade, the equilibrium for Home would be at point 1, the equilibrium for Foreign at point 3. That is, in the absence of trade the relative price of cloth would be lower in Home than in Foreign.When Home and Foreign trade with each other, their relative prices converge. The relative price of cloth rises in Home and declines in Foreign, and a new world relative price of cloth is established at a point somewhere between the pretrade relative prices, say at point 2. In Home, the rise in the relative price of cloth leads to a rise in the production of cloth and a decline in relative consumption, so Home becomes an exporter of cloth and an importer of food. Conversely, the decline in the relative price of cloth in Foreign leads it to become an importer of cloth and an exporter of food.To sum up what we have learned about the pattern of trade: Home has a higher ratio of labor to land than Foreign; that is, Home is abundant in labor and Foreign is abundant in land. Cloth production uses a higher ratio of labor to land in its production than food; that is, cloth is labor-intensive and food is land-intensive. Home, the labor-abundant country, exports cloth, the labor-intensive good; Foreign, the land-abundant country, exports food, the land-intensive good. The general statement of the result is: Countries tend to export goods whose production is intensive in factors with which they are abundantly endowed. Trade and the Distribution of IncomeTrade produces a convergence of relative prices. Changes in relative prices, in turn, have strong effects on the relative earnings of labor and land. A rise in the price of cloth raises the purchasing power of labor in terms of both goods while lowering the purchasing power of land in terms of both goods. A rise in the price of food has the reverse effect. Thus international trade has a powerful effect on income distribution. In Home, where the relative price of cloth rises, people who get their income from labor gain from trade but those who derive their income from land are made worse off. In Foreign, where the relative price of cloth falls, the opposite happens: Laborers are made worse off and landowners are made better off.The resource of which a country has a relatively large supply (labor in Home, land in Foreign) is the abundant factor in that country, and the resource of which it has a relatively small supply (land in Home, labor in Foreign) is the scarce factor. The general conclusion about the income distribution effects of international trade is: Owners of a country's abundant factors gain from trade, but owners of a country's scarce factors lose. This conclusion is similar to the one reached in our analysis of the case of specific factors. There we found that factors of production that are "stuck" in an import-competing industry lose from the opening of trade. Here we find that factors of production that are used intensively by the import-competing industry are hurt by the opening of trade. As a practical matter, however, there is an important difference between these two views. The specificity of factors to particular industries is often only a temporary problem: Garment makers cannot become computer manufacturers overnight, but given time the U.S. economy can shift its manufacturing employment from declining sectors to expanding ones. Thus income distribution effects that arise because labor and other factors of production are immobile represent a temporary, transitional problem (which is not to say that such effects are not painful to those who lose). In contrast, effects of trade on the distribution of income among land, labor, and capital are more or less permanent.We will see shortly that the trade pattern of the United States suggests that compared with the rest of the world the United States is abundantly endowed with highly skilled labor and that low-skilled labor is correspondingly scarce. This means that international trade tends to make low-skilled workers in the United States worse off—not justtemporarily, but on a sustained basis. The negative effect of trade on low-skilled workers poses a persistent political problem. Industries that use low-skilled labor intensively, such as apparel and shoes, consistently demand protection from foreign competition, and their demands attract considerable sympathy because low-skilled workers are relatively badly off to begin with.The distinction between income distribution effects due to immobility and those due to differences in factor intensity also reveals that there is frequently a conflict between short-term and long-term interests in trade. Consider a highly skilled U.S. worker who is employed in an industry that is intensive in low-skilled labor. Her short-term interest is to restrict international trade, because she cannot instantly shift jobs. Over the long term, however, she would be better off with free trade, which will raise the income of skilled workers generally.Factor Price EqualizationIn the absence of trade, labor would earn less in Home than in Foreign, and land would earn more. Without trade, labor-abundant Home would have a lower relative price of cloth than land-abundant Foreign, and the difference in relative prices of goods implies an even larger difference in the relative prices of factors.When Home and Foreign trade, the relative prices of goods converge. This convergence, in turn, causes convergence of the relative prices of land and labor. Thus there is clearly a tendency toward equalization of factor prices. How far does this tendency go?The surprising answer is that in the model the tendency goes all the way. International trade leads to complete equalization of factor prices. Although Home has a higher ratio of labor to land than Foreign, once they trade with each other the wage rate and the rent on land are the same in both countries. To see this, refer back to Figure 4-3, which shows that given the prices of cloth and food we can determine the wage rate and the rental rate without reference to the supplies of land and labor. If Home and Foreign face the same relative prices of cloth and food, they will also have the same factor prices.To understand how this equalization occurs, we have to realize that when Home and Foreign trade with each other more is happening than a simple exchange of goods. In an indirect way the two countries are in effect trading factors of production. Home lets Foreign have the use of some of its abundant labor, not by selling the labor directly but by trading goods produced with a high ratio of labor to land for goods produced with a low labor-land ratio. The goods that Home sells require more labor to produce than the goods it receives in return; that is, more labor is embodied in Home's exports than in its imports. Thus Home exports its labor, embodied in its labor-intensive exports. Conversely, Foreign's exports embody more land than its imports, thus Foreign is indirectly exporting its land. When viewed this way, it is not surprising that trade leads to equalization of the two countries' factor prices.Although this view of trade is simple and appealing, there is a major problem: In the real world factor prices are not equalized. For example, there is an extremely wide range of wage rates across countries (Table 4-1). While some of these differences may reflect differences in the quality of labor, they are too wide to be explained away on this basis alone.To understand why the model doesn't give us an accurate prediction, we need to lookat its assumptions. Three assumptions crucial to the prediction of factor price equalization are in reality certainly untrue. These are the assumptions that (1) both countries produce both goods; (2) technologies are the same; and (3) trade actually equalizes the prices of goods in the two countries.1. To derive the wage and rental rates from the prices of cloth and food in Figure 4-3, we assumed that the country produced both goods. This need not, however, be the case.A country with a very high ratio of labor to land might produce only cloth, while a country with a very high ratio of land to labor might produce only food. This implies that factor price equalization occurs only if the countries involved are sufficiently similar in their relative factor endowments. (A more thorough discussion of this point is given in the appendix to this chapter.) Thus, factor prices need not be equalized between countries with radically different ratios of capital to labor or of skilled to unskilled labor.2. The proposition that trade equalizes factor prices will not hold if countries have different technologies of production. For example, a country with superior technology might have both a higher wage rate and a higher rental rate than a country with an inferior technology. As described later in this chapter, recent work suggests that it is essential to allow for such differences in technology to reconcile the factor proportions model with actual data on world trade.3. Finally, the proposition of complete factor price equalization depends on complete convergence of the prices of goods. In the real world, prices of goods are not fully equalized by international trade. This lack of convergence is due to both natural barriers (such as transportation costs) and barriers to trade such as tariffs, import quotas, and other restrictions.CASE STUDYNorth-South Trade and Income InequalityBetween the late 1970s and the early 1990s there was a sharp increase in the inequality of wages in the United States. For example, while the real wage of male workers at the 90thpercentile (i.e., those earning more than the bottom 90 percent but less than the top 10 percent) rose 15 percent between 1970 and 1989, that of workers at the 10th percentile fell by 25 percent over the same period. The growing inequality of wages in the United States has arguably worsened the country's social problems: Falling wages at the bottom have made it more difficult for families to climb out of poverty, while the contrast between stagnating incomes for many families and rapidly rising incomes at the top may have contributed to a general social and political malaise.Why has wage inequality increased? Many observers attribute the change to the growth of world trade and in particular to the growing exports of manufactured goods from newly industrializing economies (NIEs), such as South Korea and China. Until the 1970s trade between advanced industrial nations and less-developed economies—often referred to as "North-South" trade because most advanced nations are still in the temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere—consisted overwhelmingly of an exchange of Northern manufactures for Southern raw materials and agricultural goods, such as oil and coffee. From 1970 onward, however, former raw material exporters increasingly began to sell manufactured goods to high-wage countries like the United States. As Table 4-2 shows, between the early 1970s and the mid 1990s, developing countries dramatically changed the kinds of goods they exported, moving away from their traditional reliance on agricultural and mineral products to a focus on manufactured goods. While NIEs also provided a rapidly growing market for exports from the high-wage nations, the exports of the newly industrializing economies obviously differed greatly in factor intensity from their imports. Overwhelmingly, NIE exports to advanced nations consisted of clothing, shoes, and other relatively unsophisticated products whose production is intensive in unskilled labor, while advanced-country exports to the NIEs consisted of capital- orskill-intensive goods such as chemicals and aircraft.To many observers the conclusion seemed straightforward: What was happening was a move toward factor price equalization. Trade between advanced countries that are abundant in capital and skill and NIEs with their abundant supply of unskilled labor was raising the wages of highly skilled workers and lowering the wages of less-skilled workers in the skill- and capital-abundant countries, just as the factor proportions model predicts.This is an argument with much more than purely academic significance. If one regards the growing inequality of income in advanced nations as a serious problem, as many people do, and if one also believes that growing world trade is the main cause of that problem, it becomes difficult to maintain the traditional support of economists for free trade. (As we pointed out in Chapter 3, in principle taxes and government payments can offset the effect of trade on income distribution, but one may argue that this is unlikely to happen in practice.) Some influential commentators have argued that advanced nations will have to restrict their trade with low-wage countries if they want to remain basically。
国际经济学课件 第4章
两要素经济模型
图 4-1: 粮食生产的要素投入组合
生产1卡路里粮食投入 的土地aTF （英亩）
生产1卡路里粮食 所有可能的投入组合
//
.
生产1卡路里粮食投入 的劳动aLF （小时）
Slide 4-10
两要素经济模型
• 要素密集度
– 在两产品（棉布和粮食），两要素（劳动和土地） 的世界中，如果在任何给定的实际工资率条件下， 粮食生产中所使投入的土地-劳动比率都高于棉布生 产的相应比率，那么粮食的生产是劳动密集型的, ： – TF/LF > TC/ LC – 比如: 如果粮食的生产使用80个单位劳动力和20 英亩土地，而棉布的生产使用20单位劳动和20英 亩土地，那么我们就说粮食的生产是土地密集型 的，而棉布的生产是劳动密集型的。
腹胀生产中土地使用量
O1 F
T1C T2C F2 OC 棉布生产中劳动土地量
1
C
2
F1 L2C L1C
T1F T2F
.
ห้องสมุดไป่ตู้
增加
Slide 4-22
雷布津斯基定理 (效应):
– 在商品价格既定的条件下，如果一种生产要 素量增加(T 或L) ，那么密集使用该要素的产 品的供给会增加，而其他产品的供给会减少。 – 反之亦然。 – 荷兰病
. Slide 4-16
(TC/LC)1 (TC/LC)2(TF/LF)1 (TF/LF)2 土地-劳动 比率, T/L Increasing
两要素经济模型
如果棉布对于粮食的相对价格PC/PF上升，那么会:
的投入比率，从而提高劳动相对于土地的边际 产出。 由于用两种产品衡量的实际工资的提高和实际 地租的减少，增强了工人的购买力而减弱土地 所有者的购买力。
国际经济学 第四章
第一节 特定要素模型（保罗· 萨缪尔森和罗纳德· 琼斯）
一、基本假设 X、Y两种产品生产都使用资本和劳动； 规模收益不变； 劳动是同质的，可在两个部门间自由流动； 劳动总量是固定的，并且充分就业； 资本是特定生产要素，即两个部门的资本不能互 相使用； 每个部门的资本投入都是固定不变的； 所有商品市场和要素市场都是完全竞争的。
Y Ey E’y E E’ P=Px/Py P=P’x/P’y
相对价格变化 带来的影响： X产量增加， Y产量降低。
O
Ex
E’x
X
第二节 相对价格与收入分配
一、相对价格与要素价格报酬的变化
边际 劳动 产品 的价 值， 工资
W MPLY · Py Y部门的劳动需求曲线
MPLX · Px X部门的劳动需求曲线 X部门使用的劳动Lx 头 Y部门使用的劳动Ly 尾
第四章 特定要素与国际贸易
在微观经济学中，关于供给面的分析通常分为短期 分析和长期分析两种，短期和长期并不是完全按时 间长短划分的，而主要视生产要素的流动性而定。 特定要素是指一种要素的用途通常仅限于某一部门， 而不适合于其它部门的需要。
国际贸易使得一国内X产品价格上升，Y产品 价格下降，或反之。那么对于要素价格有何 影响呢？
*模型假定劳动可自由流动所以两部门工资相等 *工资可由劳动总需求等于总供给来决定 总供给为： Lx+Ly=L总
边际劳动 产品的价 值(VMPLx)， 完全竞争条 件下也是工 资 W MPLX · Px
Ox到Oy表示 总劳动L总
MPLY · Py Y部门的劳动需求曲线
Lx+Ly=L总
MPLX · Px X部门的劳动需求曲线 X部门使用的劳动Lx Ox 图4-1 Y部门使用的劳动Ly Oy
国际经济学chapter4
4.3 The relationship between general and partial equilibrium analyses
4.2.1 Offer curves 4.2.2 General equilibrium analysis
4.2.1 Offer Curves
1. Origin Alfred Marshall, Ysidro Edgeworth The turn of 20th century
用几何图解为穆勒的国际价值决定原理作出进一步系 统的说明。 统的说明。
4.2.2 General equilibrium analysis
一般均衡分析： 一般均衡分析：两种产品的国际方法的比较： （1）标准模型：by trial and error 标准模型： （2）提供曲线
1） The equilibrium-relative commodity price with trade --General equilibrium analysis
相互需求原理结论： 相互需求原理结论：
（1）商品的国内交换比例是由其生产成本决定的，国际间商品的交 ）商品的国内交换比例是由其生产成本决定的， 换比例取决于国际供求关系。 换比例取决于国际供求关系。 （2）国际间商品的交换比率必定界于两国国内交换比率之间。 ）国际间商品的交换比率必定界于两国国内交换比率之间。 （3）在由两国产品的国内交换比率所决定的界限内，国际交换比率 ）在由两国产品的国内交换比率所决定的界限内， 取决于两个贸易国家各自对对方商品需求程度的强弱。 取决于两个贸易国家各自对对方商品需求程度的强弱。外国对本国商 品的需求强度越是大于本国对外国商品的需求强度， 品的需求强度越是大于本国对外国商品的需求强度，两国间的交换比 率越是接近于外国国内这两种商品的交换比率， 率越是接近于外国国内这两种商品的交换比率，这个实际的交换比率 对本国就越有利。 对本国就越有利。 （4）均衡的国际交换比率形成的必要条件是贸易双方的出口商品总 ） 值等于进口商品总值。 值等于进口商品总值。
国际经济学第四章
21
复习思考题（二）
见教材P78～79，第1题～第6题
End
22
本章结束
谢谢大家
23
End
17
短期与长期的比较（二）
在长期情况下，国际贸易通过商品价格的变化， 将促使两个部门所使用的资本——劳动比例朝着 相同的方向变化，即对于资本丰裕的国家来说， 国际贸易会同时降低出口部门、与进口相竞争部 门的资本——劳动比例，于是两个部门的相同要 素的实际报酬也会按相同方向变化。
End
18
短期与长期的比较（三）
End
19
本章总结
特定要素模型的贡献： 特定要素模型主要用于解释在短期内国际贸易 对收入分配的影响。 长期内，国际贸易对收入分配格局的影响是基 于商品要素密集度的差异； 而在短期内，国际贸易对收入分配格局的影响 则是因为要素的特定性或不流动性。与前面的要 素价格均等化理论相比，特定要素模型关于国际 贸易对收入分配影响的分析更接近于现实。
End
3
二、特定要素模型的基本假设
特定要素模型的基本结构与要素禀赋理论相比， 由于本章的目的主要是解释短期内国际贸易对一 国收入分配的影响，所以，这里仅以一国为例， 模型不涉及其他国家。模型的基本假设包括：
（1）X、Y两种产品生产都使用资本和劳动； （2）规模收益不变； （3）劳动是同质的，可在两个部门间自由流 动；
End
9
特定要素模型的说明（三）
当两个部门的劳动报酬相同时，劳动在两个 部门间的分配便达到均衡。图中，当两个部门 的劳动需求曲线相交时。两个部门面对相同的 劳动价格，均为w。此时，X部门的劳动投入量 为OXL，Y部门的劳动投入量为OYL。劳动的 分配一旦确定，两个部门的生产也随之确定。
《国际经济学第四章》
大卫·李嘉图认为，国际贸易的根源在于各国之间生产成本的差异。即使一个国家在所有产品的生产上都不具备绝 对优势，它仍然可以通过生产并出口具有比较优势的产品来获得贸易利益。比较优势是指一个国家在生产某一产 品时的机会成本低于其他国家的情况。
资源禀赋理论
总结词
资源禀赋理论，也称为H-O理论，认为各国 应该出口那些密集使用其丰裕要素生产的产 品，并从那些密集使用其稀缺要素生产的商 品进口。
创造就业
贸易可以创造更多的就业机会，为 贫困人口提供更多的就业选择和收 入来源，帮助他们摆脱贫困。
04
全球化与世界贸易组织
全球化的定义与影响
定义
全球化是指世界各国在经济、政治、文化等各个领域相互联系、相互依存的趋 势。
影响
全球化促进了国际贸易和投资的发展，加速了技术、知识和文化的传播，提高 了生产效率和人民生活水平，但同时也加剧了全球经济的不平衡和不稳定。
贸易政策
关税政策
关税定义
关税是一种对进出口商品征收的税种，其目的是增 加国家财政收入或保护本国产业。
关税种类
关税可以根据征收方式、税率、征收对象等不同标 准进行分类，如普通关税、最惠国关税、反倾销关 税等。
关税影响
关税会对进出口商品的价格、贸易量、产业结构、 消费者福利等方面产生影响，进而影响一国的经济 发展。
产业结构优化
贸易促进了产业分工和专业化生产，使国家能够更加专注 于具有比较优势的产业，提高生产效率和产品质量，进一 步推动经济增长。
贸易与产业结构
产业结构调整
贸易可以促使国家调整产业结 构，发展具有比较优势的产业 ，优化资源配置，提高生产效 率和产品质量。
技术转移
贸易可以促使国家引进先进技 术和设备，提高生产技术水平 ，推动产业结构升级。
国际经济学第4章-精品
PW’
bc d e
M2
SH
P
SH+F+t
SH+F
t
DH
大国进口需求曲线
国外出口供给曲线
征税后出口供给曲线
A c b+d C ef
B
Q1 Q3 Q4 Q2
Q
M2
M1
Q
M1 （a）国内市场
（b）进口市场
图4-3 大国关税的局部均衡效应
17
（2）关税对大国消费量、产量、贸易 量和财政收入的影响
关税消费效应：Q2－Q4； 关税生产效应： Q3－Q1 ； 关税贸易效应：M1－M2； 关税收入效应：c+e。
关税生产效应：由关税导致的国内生产的增加，
即： Q3－Q1 ；
关税贸易效应：由关税导致的进口的减少，即：
M1－M2；
关税收入效应：由关税所导致的政府财政收入的
增加，即：c。
14
（3）关税对小国消费者剩余（Cs）和 生产者剩余（Ps）的影响
关税导致小国Cs减少-(a+b+c+d); 关税导致小国Ps增加：+a;
关税的概念 关税的种类 关税的征收方式
5
5.1.1 关税的概念
关税（tariff）是一国通过海关对进出口商 品所课征的一种税收。由于征收关税提高了 进出口商品的成本和价格，客观上限制了进 出口商品的数量，故又称关税壁垒。
征收关税的目的有二：其一，增加政府的财 政收入（财政关税）；其二，保护本国的产 品和市场（保护关税）。
未曝光的窄长彩色胶卷
16元/平方米
232元/平方米
(1)每台完税价格低于或等于 (1)每台完税价格低于或等于
混 合 税
国际经济学- 第4章 现代贸易理论
4.1 Inter-industry Trade and Intra-industry Trade第 11 页
Advanced industrial countries have increasingly emphasized intraindustry trade ——two-way trade in a similar commodity.
Chapter Organization
第3页
＊ Introduction
引言
4.1 Inter-industry Trade and Intra-industry Trade
行业间贸易和行业内贸易
4.2 Product Life Cycle Theory
产品生命周期理论
4.3 Theory of Overlapping Demands 重叠需求理论
factors.
同质产品的产业内贸易的另一个原因是季节性因素。
4.1 Inter-industry Trade and Intra-industry Trade第 17 页
Example: The seasons in the Southern Hemisphere are opposite to those in the Northern Hemisphere.Brazil may export seasonal items (such as agricultural products) to the United States at one time of the year and import them from the United States at another time during the same year. 南半球的季节与北半球的季节相反。巴西可以在一年中的某个时间向 美国出口季节性商品(如农产品)，并在同一年内的另一个时间从美国进 口。
《国际经济学》大学教学课件 第四章 国际贸易纯
吸收到对方的出口。如果对手对于本国商品的需求强度大于本国对于对
手商品的需求强度，则交换比率越接近于外国国内的交换比率；反之， 则越接近本国国内的交换比率。
y
B国国内交换比率
国际贸易区
A国国内交换比率
x
2.贸易的静态均衡
图示 p
出口
pw
p1
p2 进口
x
二、提供曲线与贸易的动态均衡
图示 Y
E E’
X
三、贸易条件及其度量
一国的贸易条件（terms of trade）是指一国出口商品价格和该国 进口商品价格的比值。在一个两国世界中，一国的出口正是其贸 易伙伴的进口，所以，在两国条件下，一国的贸易条件等于另一 国贸易条件的倒数。
在一个具有多种贸易商品（不只两种）的世界中，贸易条件定义 为一国出口商品价格指数与该国进口商品价格指数的比值。这个 比值通常要乘以100，以百分比的形式表示。
固定机会成本条件下的生产可能性曲线、贸易基础与贸易利益
2.固定机会成本条件下的贸易基础 教材P105
3.固定机会成本条件下的贸易利益 教材P105-106 (1)基于分工的利益 (2)基于交换的利益
三、机会成本递增条件下的生产可能性曲线、贸易基础与贸易利益
1.固定机会成本条件下的生产可能性曲线 机会成本递增是指随着一种商品的生产量的增加，该种商品的机会成本
二、固定机会成本条件下的生产可能性曲线、贸易基础与贸易利益
1.固定机会成本条件下的生产可能性曲线
固定机会成本条件下的生产可能性曲线可以表示为下图。图1表示A国固 定机会成本条件下的生产可能性曲线；图2表示B国固定机会成本条件下 的生产可能性曲线。
y
y
MRTxy=0.5 x
- 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)。
三．国际贸易与生产要素的收入
1．几点假定 两国：中国；外国 两部门：小麦；布 三要素：共同要素—劳动；小麦部门特定要 素—土地；布部门特定要素—资本 中国出口布，进口小麦 （贸易前中国布价相对较低，小麦价格较高； 贸易后中国国内布价上升，小麦价格下降）
2．出口品（布）价格上升的影响
布价↑→布与小麦部门共有要素劳动收入上升 布部门特定要素资本收入上升 小麦部门特定要素土地收入下降
P 1
PL
w
MPL L MPL MPL
一．生产要素的价格决定
1．决定于要素的边际产品价值（VMP） VMP = MP × P MP — 要素的边际物质产品（增加一单位 要素投入带来的产量增加）
P — 产品价格 VMP — 要素的边际产品价值（增加一单位 要素投入带来的产品价值的增加）
2. 边际物质产品（MP） （1） MP可表示单位要素的实际收入
2、生产要素价格均等化的过程
由于假定中国劳动力丰裕，所以封闭条件下中国劳动力价格低，资本价格 高；美国资本丰裕，所以美国资本价格低，劳动力价格高。
生产要素价格均等化过程
中国
出口劳动密集 型产品布
（劳动力丰裕）
进口资本密集 型产品小麦
因出口增 加生产
因进口减 少生产
美国 （资本丰裕）
出口资本密集 型产品小麦
因此，如果同时考虑国际贸易使得布的价格提高、小麦价格下降，则我 们可以得到如下结论：
国际贸易会导致出口部门特定要素的实际收入上升，进口部 门特定要素的实际收入下降，可自由流动的共同要素实际收 入变动不确定，取决于其消费结构。
英国历史上曾发生有关《谷物法》是否应该废除的大辩论：资产阶 级主张废除，而地主阶级则极力反对废除。两大阶级立场的不同可 以通过特定要素模型很好地进行分析。
4．某部门产品（小麦）价格下降的影响
（1）对共同要素（劳动）收入的影响
VMPL = MPL × P 小麦价格↓→小麦部门VMPL↓
→小麦部门工资水平＜布部门工资水平
→劳动力由小麦部门移向布部门
→小麦部门劳动投入↓, MPL↑, VMPL↑ 布部门劳动投入↑, MPL↓, VMPL↓
→两部门工资相等，劳动力停止流动
A
A
Of
G’
G
Oc
三、生产要素价格的均等化（H-O模型）
1、假定前提条件
（1）两个国家：中国和美国，两种产品：小麦和布，两种要素：劳动力和资本； （2）中国劳动丰裕，美国资本丰裕，小麦和布分别是资本和劳动密集型产品； （3）生产要素存量一定； （4）生产要素在一国范围内各部门间可自由流动，而在国与国之间不流动； （5）两国实行自由贸易，没有运输成本和贸易障碍； （6）生产要素充分利用。
小结：某部门产品价格下降会使两部门共 有要素收入下降，价格下降部门特定要素收 入下降，另一部门特定要素收入上升。
3、国际贸易与生产要素的收
入w
w
VMPLc’ VMPLc
VMPLw
B
A
w*
w*
Ow
L1 L*
Oc
假设开放条件下，本国在布的生产 上具有比较优势，而小麦的生产具 有比较劣势，则本国出口布，进口 小麦。这意味着布的价格会上升， 而小麦价格下降。我们先假定布的 价格上升，小麦价格不变，则布部 门劳动的边际产品价值曲线会向左 上方移动。在新的均衡点，劳动力 流入布部门，从而使得布部门劳动 力的实际收入下降，而资本的实际 收入上升。
w
w 封闭条件下，当两个部门的工资
VMPLc
率相等时，即在两个部门劳动边 际产品价值曲线的交点，经济处
于均衡状态。此时，小麦部门劳
VMPLw
动力和土地的实际收入分别为：
w* B
MP A
w*
w*
w
Pw
L
Ow
L* L1
Oc
L 布部门劳动力和资本的实际收入分别为：
t Pw
MPTw
w* Pc
MPLc
r Pc
上升
增加
3、生产要素价格均等化的图形说明
封闭条件下，中国和美国的生产均衡点分 Ow 别为T点和S点，中国劳动力便宜，资本
贵；美国资本便宜，劳动力贵。
开放后，中国出口布，倾向于多生产布；
S
美国出口小麦，倾向于多生产小麦，两国
的生产均衡点发生变化。
K1
K2
R
T
Oc L1 L2
O’w 两国生产的变化导致
4．国际贸易对要素收入的影响
国际贸易后，出口品价格↑，进口品价格↓ →两部门共有要素收入变化不确定 出口部门特定要素收入上升 进口竞争部门特定要素收入下降
共有要素收入变动不确定，但其在两部门间的分配 确定，出口部门使用量↑，进口竞争部门使用量↓
小麦部门工资
布部门工资
VMPf VMPf’
VMPc’ VMPc
VMPL = MPL × P 布价↑→布部门 VMPL↑
→布部门工资水平＞小麦部门工资水平
→劳动力由小麦部门移向布部门
→小麦部门劳动投入↓, MPL↑, VMPL↑ 布部门劳动投入↑, MPL↓, VMPL↓
→两部门工资相等，劳动力停止流动
小麦部门工资 VMPf
VMPc’ VMPc
布部门工资
A’
E
→劳动由小麦部门流向布部门，小麦部门
土地相对劳动增加，MP土地↓, VMP土地↓ 小麦价格下降会使小麦部门特定要素收入下 降。
（3）对布部门特定要素（资本）收入的影响 布部门劳动力流入，资本相对劳动变得更少， 资本的边际物质产品上升，边际产品价值也 上升。 小麦价格下降会使布部门特定要素收入上升。
4、妨碍要素价格均等化的因素
各国生产技术并不相同；
生产要素并非同质；
各国商品价格并不一致。
Paul A. Samuelson, 1915－
实际收入 = 名义收入 / 价格
MP = VMP / P （2）边际生产力递减规律
随要素投入量的增加，其MP起初可能递增， 但随着要素使用量的继续增加，MP一定会转 为下降，甚至成为负值。
MR P 厂商生产1单位布的边际收益等于布的市场价格，即
c
所以厂商利润最大化的条件为
w MPL
Pc
即 w MPL • Pc VMPLc
E
A
A
Of
G’ G
Oc
某部门产品价格上升会使共同要素名义收入上升,并 使共同要素在部门间重新分配,价格上升部门共同要 素使用量上升,另一部门共同要素使用量下降。
（2）布价上升对布部门特定要素（资本）收入 的影响
VMPK = MPK × P 布价↑→布部门 VMPK↑
→劳动由小麦部门流向布部门，布部门劳
w 资本总收 入
w*
VMPLc
劳动力 总收入
土地总收入
w*
劳动 力总 收入
VMPLw
O
L*
L
O L*
L
封闭条件下，假定小麦和布两个部门，小麦生产部门投入劳动力和土地，布
生产部门投入劳动力和资本，劳动力作为两个部门的共同生产要素可以在两 个部门之间自由流动。利用上端开口的埃奇沃思－鲍利盒状图（EdgeworthBowley Box Diagram），我们可以分析封闭条件下要素的价格和收入分配。
或者： 出口品价格↑→两部门共有要素收入上升
出口部门特定要素收入上升 进口竞争部门特定要素收入下降
3．进口品（小麦）价格下降的影响
小麦价格↓→两部门共有要素劳动收入下降 小麦部门特定要素土地收入下降 布部门特定要素资本收入上升
或者： 进口品价格↓→两部门共有要素收入下降
进口竞争部门特定要素收入下降 出口部门特定要素收入上升
第四章 国际贸易与利益分配
一、国际贸易的福利分析 二、生产要素价格和收入的短期变动 三、生产要素价格的均等化
一、国际贸易的福利分析
1、生产者剩余和消费者剩余
生产者剩余（Producer Surplus）是指生产者愿意接受的价格与 实际接受的价格之间的差额；消费者剩余（Consumer Surplus） 是指消费者愿意支付的价格与实际支付的价格之间的差额。
（2）有两个部门，即小麦生产部门和布生产部门；
（3）小麦生产需要土地和劳动力，布的生产需要资本和劳动力。劳动 力称为“共同生产要素”，土地和资本称为“特定要素”；
（4）生产要素在各国之间不流动，但在一国范围内可以自由流动。
（5）生产要素充分利用。
2、封闭条件下的收入分配
厂商实现利润最大化的条件是边际收益等于 边际成本。在完全竞争条件下，当保持其它 要素使用量不变，如果通过增加某种要素 （如劳动力）使用量而增加1单位产品（如 布）产量，则生产这增加的1单位布的边际 成本为
P
消费者剩余
S
P*
生产者剩余
D
O Q*
Q
消费者剩余是需求曲线、价 格线和纵轴围成的三角形区 域；生产者剩余是供给曲线、 价格线和纵轴围成的三角形 区域。
2、国际贸易的福利分析
P
S
P
P
Pa c
a Pc e
bd
b+d f
D
Sw Dw
g hf i
S’ D’
进口国
Q
Q
生产者剩余 消费者剩余
净福利
贸易前 贸易后
MPKc
二．封闭条件下的收入分配
1．几点假定 （1）两部门：小麦；布 （2）三要素：共同要素—劳动；小麦部门特
定要素—土地；布部门特定要素—资本 （3）共同要素在两部门间可以自由流动
2．基本图示
小麦部 门工资
VMPf
VMPc
布部门 工资
A
A
Of
G
L
Oc
3．某部门产品（布）价格上升的影响