1 / 75

Upcoming

Upcoming. PS #3 due now Office hours tomorrow cancelled PS #4 due next week (10/20) MT 2 on 11/3. The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model. Factor Proportions Theory. Problems with the Generic Neoclassical Model.

salena
Download Presentation

Upcoming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Upcoming • PS #3 due now • Office hours tomorrow cancelled • PS #4 due next week (10/20) • MT 2 on 11/3

  2. The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model Factor Proportions Theory

  3. Problems with the Generic Neoclassical Model • What is the source of a country’s comparative advantage? Generic neoclassical theory doesn’t really say • Factors other than labor (especially capital) are not explicitly included

  4. H-O-S In General • Heckscher, and his student Ohlin, worked in the early part of the 20th century • Samuelson refined their work after WWII • Closer attention is paid in this model to each country’s resource endowment

  5. H-O-S Assumptions • 2 countries • 2 commodities • 2 factors (labor and capital) • Perfect competition exists in all markets • Each country’s endowment of factors is fixed • Factors are mobile internally, but immobile internationally

  6. H-O-S Assumptions (cont’d) • Each producer has a wide range of options as to how to produce X or Y • if K is cheap relative to labor, a relatively capital-intensive method will be adopted • if K is expensive relative to labor, a relatively labor-intensive method will be adopted • Each country has the same CRTS technology

  7. H-O-S Assumptions (cont’d) • Tastes and preferences are the same for both countries

  8. Concepts and Terminology • The capital-labor ratio for good X is simply KX/LX, and for Y is KY/LY • If KX/LX > KY/LY, production of good X is capital intensive relative to production of good Y • For example, the amount of capital per worker in the U.S. petroleum and coal industry is $468,000 • The similar figure for apparel products is $8,274 • Therefore, petroleum and coal is produced in a relatively capital-intensive manner

  9. Concepts and Terminology • Also, production of Y must be relatively labor intensive (If KX/LX > KY/LY, then LY/KY > LX/KX) • That is, apparel products are produced in a labor-intensive manner (as compared to petroleum and coal)

  10. Relative Factor Intensities, Selected U.S. Industries (1992)

  11. Concepts and Terminology • Country A is said to be capital abundant relative to Country B if (K/L)A > (K/L)B • For example, if the U.S. has a capital stock of $4.3 trillion and a labor force of 121 million, then K/L is about $36,000. • K/L for India works out to $607 billion/$304 million = $2,000. • Therefore, the U.S. is capital abundant relative to India; India is relatively labor abundant.

  12. Relative Factor Endowments, Selected Countries (1992)

  13. Concepts and Terminology To summarize: • goods are produced relatively K or L intensively • countries are relatively K or L abundant

  14. Concepts and Terminology • The factor price of labor (the wage) is denoted w • The factor price of capital is denoted r • If labor is relatively expensive, w/r will be a relatively big number • If labor is relatively cheap, w/r will be a relatively small number

  15. More on Factor Prices • What makes labor relatively expensive? • If it is relatively scarce • What makes labor relatively cheap? • If it is relatively abundant • So: If (K/L)A is a relatively big number (that is, capital is relatively abundant), w/r will be a relatively big number, reflecting the relative scarcity of L and abundance of K

  16. A Review of Trade in the Neoclassical Model • Suppose the U.S. is capital abundant relative to Mexico • This, of course, means that Mexico is relatively labor abundant • These differences affect the shape of each country’s PPF • Suppose that cars are produced rel. K-intensively, and textiles labor intensively

  17. Autarky in Mexico and the U.S. U.S. Cars Mexico Cars (PT/PC)Mex E e Y1 Y4 (PT/PC)US X1 Textiles Textiles X4

  18. Autarky in Mexico and the U.S. • The relative price of textiles in autarky is greater in the U.S. than in Mexico • That is, the U.S.’s autarky price line is steeper than Mexico’s • In symbols, (PT/PC)U.S. > (PT/PC)Mex. • This means thatMexico has the comparative advantage in textiles

  19. Autarky in Mexico and the U.S. U.S. Cars Mexico Cars (PT/PC)Mex E e Y1 Y4 (PT/PC)US X1 Textiles Textiles X4

  20. Autarky in Mexico and the U.S. • This also means that the relative price of cars in autarky is lower in the U.S. than in Mexico • That is, (PC/PT)U.S. < (PC/PT)Mex. • This means thatthe U.S. has the comparative advantage in cars

  21. Autarky to Trade U.S. Cars Mexico Cars (PX/PY)trade E e Y1 Y4 X1 Textiles Textiles X4

  22. Production in Trade U.S. Cars Mexico Cars (PX/PY)T e' Y5 E e Y1 Y4 E' Y2 X1 X2 Textiles Textiles X5 X4

  23. Consumption in Trade U.S. Cars Mexico Cars e' Y5 C' Y3 E e Y1 Y4 c' Y6 E' Y2 X1 X2 Textiles Textiles X5 X3 X4 X6

  24. The Result • The relatively capital abundant country (U.S.) exports the relatively capital intensive good (cars) • The relatively labor abundant country (Mexico) exports the relatively labor intensive good (textiles)

  25. The Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem • A country will export the commodity that uses relatively intensively the factor that country has in relative abundance • A country will import the commodity that uses relatively intensively the factor that is relatively scarce in that country

  26. The Source of Comparative Advantage • If a country has a lot of labor relative to K, its wage rates will be relatively low, so • the product that uses a lot of labor in its production (relatively speaking) will be produced at a relatively low cost, so • the country should export the labor intensive good

  27. The Source of Comparative Advantage • If a country has a lot of capital relative to L, its capital price will be relatively low, so • the product that uses a lot of K in its production (relatively speaking) will be produced at a relatively low cost, so • the country should export the capital intensive good

  28. The Source of Comparative Advantage • So it is a country’s relative factor endowment that determines its comparative advantage • This is why the H-O-S model is also called the factor proportions theory

  29. Changes in Relative Commodity Prices • As we learned before, • (PT/PC)US falls as the U.S. moves to trade. That is, the international relative textile price is lower than the U.S.’s autarky price. • (PT/PC)Mex rises as Mexico moves to trade. That is, the international relative textile price is higher than Mexico’s autarky price.

  30. Changes in Factor Prices • In autarky, the K-intensive product (cars) is less expensive to produce in the U.S. as compared to Mexico • this is because K is relatively abundant in the U.S., which makes the price of capital relatively low • As trade commences, r will rise since demand for capital will rise

  31. Changes in the Price of Capital in the U.S. r SK D1K QK

  32. Changes in the Price of Capital in the U.S. r SK In autarky, the price of capital (r1) is determined by supply of and demand for capital in the U.S r1 D1K QK

  33. Changes in the Price of Capital in the U.S. r SK When trade starts, the U.S. increases its production of the capital intensive product, and therefore demand for capital increases in the U.S. r2 r1 D2K D1K QK

  34. Changes in Factor Prices • In autarky, the L-intensive product (textiles) is more expensive to produce in the U.S. as compared to Mexico • this is because L is relatively scarce in the U.S., which makes the price of labor relatively high. • As trade commences, w will fall since demand for labor will fall

  35. Changes in the Price of Labor in the U.S. w SL D1L QL

  36. Changes in the Price of Labor in the U.S. w SL In autarky, the price of labor (w1) is determined by supply of and demand for labor in the U.S w1 D1L QL

  37. Changes in the Price of Labor in the U.S. w SL When trade starts, the U.S. decreases its production of the labor intensive product, and therefore demand for labor decreases in the U.S. w1 w2 D1L QL

  38. Commodity and Factor Prices In Trade: A Summary • When trade begins, the relative price of the good intensive in the abundant factor rises (e.g., (PC/PT)US rises) • The relative price of the good intensive in the scarce factor falls (e.g., (PT/PC)US falls) • Also, the price of the abundant factor rises, and the price of the scarce factor falls (i.e., w falls, r rises in the U.S.)

  39. Commodity and Factor Prices In Trade: A Summary • In our example, (PT/PC)US falls as trade commences • (w/r)US also falls • In Mexico, the opposite is happening: • (PT/PC)Mex rises • (w/r)Mex also rises • Therefore relative commodity and factor prices move together as trade commences

  40. The Relative Cost Curve • Since relative factor and commodity prices move together as countries move from autarky to trade, we can look at a picture of these two sorts of prices • We also know that in autarky (PT/PC)Mex is lower than (PT/PC)US • (w/r)Mex is also lower in autarky than (w/r)US since Mexico is relatively labor abundant

  41. The Relative Cost Curve PT/PC (PT/PC)US (PT/PC)Mex (w/r)Mex (w/r)US w/r

  42. The Relative Cost Curve PT/PC (PT/PC)US (PT/PC)Mex (w/r)Mex (w/r)US w/r

  43. The Relative Cost Curve PT/PC (PT/PC)US As trade commences, (PT/PC)US falls, and (PT/PC)Mex rises (PT/PC)Mex (w/r)Mex (w/r)US w/r

  44. The Relative Cost Curve PT/PC (PT/PC)US In addition, as trade commences (w/r)US falls, and (w/r)Mex rises (PT/PC)Mex (w/r)Mex (w/r)US w/r

  45. Factor Price Equalization • In fact, each country moves along the relative cost curve to a common point • We know this because there is only one international price • If the countries wind up with a common international price, they must also wind up with a common set of relative factor prices

  46. The Relative Cost Curve PT/PC (PT/PC)US (PT/PC)Int Both relative commodity and factor prices equalize in trade (PT/PC)Mex (w/r)Mex (w/r)US (w/r)Int w/r

  47. The Factor Price Equalization Theorem In equilibrium, with both countries facing the same relative product prices, relative costs will be equalized. This can only happen if relative factor prices are equalized between countries.

  48. H-O-S and the Distribution of Income • The H-O theorem, together with the FPE theorem, also tell us about how the incomes of different groups within a country change as trade starts • This provides insight into the politics of free trade

  49. The Stolper-Samuelson Theorem As trade commences, the owners of the relatively abundant factor will find their real incomes rising; the owners of the relatively scarce factor will find their real incomes falling.

  50. H-O-S and the Distribution of Income • According to the S-S theorem, if the U.S. is a relatively K-abundant country, who in America should favor free trade? • Who in America should favor protectionism?

More Related