Productivity, demand and the home market effect

The causality between international trade and industrialization is still ambiguous. We consider a model of international trade with the Home Market Effect - with differences in income and productivity between sectors and between countries - in order to identify additional channels for determining th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores Principales: Giraldo, Lader, Jaramillo, Fernando
Formato: Documento de trabajo (Working Paper)
Lenguaje:Español (Spanish)
Publicado: Universidad del Rosario 2016
Materias:
F10
F12
F17
Acceso en línea:http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/11931
id ir-10336-11931
recordtype dspace
institution EdocUR - Universidad del Rosario
collection DSpace
language Español (Spanish)
topic Comercio internacional (Comercio exterior)
Producción (Teoría Económica)
Consumo (Economía)
Comercio internacional
International Trade
Non-homothetic Preferences
Home Market Effect
Monopolistic Competition.
F10
F12
F17
spellingShingle Comercio internacional (Comercio exterior)
Producción (Teoría Económica)
Consumo (Economía)
Comercio internacional
International Trade
Non-homothetic Preferences
Home Market Effect
Monopolistic Competition.
F10
F12
F17
Giraldo, Lader
Jaramillo, Fernando
Productivity, demand and the home market effect
description The causality between international trade and industrialization is still ambiguous. We consider a model of international trade with the Home Market Effect - with differences in income and productivity between sectors and between countries - in order to identify additional channels for determining the effects of international trade on industrialization. Introducing non-homothetic preferences and differences in productivity aids in the interpretation of any apparent paradoxes within international trade, such as the commercial relations between more populated countries like China and India and large economies such as the U.S. Population size, demand composition and productivity levels constitute the three main channels for determining the effects of international trade. Interactions among these channels define the results obtained in terms of industrialization, while welfare levels are always higher in relation to autarky.
format Documento de trabajo (Working Paper)
author Giraldo, Lader
Jaramillo, Fernando
author_facet Giraldo, Lader
Jaramillo, Fernando
author_sort Giraldo, Lader
title Productivity, demand and the home market effect
title_short Productivity, demand and the home market effect
title_full Productivity, demand and the home market effect
title_fullStr Productivity, demand and the home market effect
title_full_unstemmed Productivity, demand and the home market effect
title_sort productivity, demand and the home market effect
publisher Universidad del Rosario
publishDate 2016
url http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/11931
_version_ 1645141778189254656
spelling ir-10336-119312019-09-19T12:37:01Z Productivity, demand and the home market effect Giraldo, Lader Jaramillo, Fernando Comercio internacional (Comercio exterior) Producción (Teoría Económica) Consumo (Economía) Comercio internacional International Trade Non-homothetic Preferences Home Market Effect Monopolistic Competition. F10 F12 F17 The causality between international trade and industrialization is still ambiguous. We consider a model of international trade with the Home Market Effect - with differences in income and productivity between sectors and between countries - in order to identify additional channels for determining the effects of international trade on industrialization. Introducing non-homothetic preferences and differences in productivity aids in the interpretation of any apparent paradoxes within international trade, such as the commercial relations between more populated countries like China and India and large economies such as the U.S. Population size, demand composition and productivity levels constitute the three main channels for determining the effects of international trade. Interactions among these channels define the results obtained in terms of industrialization, while welfare levels are always higher in relation to autarky. 2016-04-15 2016-04-18T20:42:27Z info:eu-repo/semantics/workingPaper info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/11931 spa http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess application/pdf Universidad del Rosario Facultad de Economía reponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR instname:Universidad del Rosario Antweiler, W., & Treáer, D. (2002). Increasing Returns and All That: A View from Trade. American Economic Review, 93-119 Bohman, H., & Nilsson, D. (2007). Income Inequality as a Determinant of Trade Flows. International Journal of Applied Economics, 40-59. Chung, C. (2006). Non-homothetic Preferences and the Home Market E§ect: Does Relative Mar- ket Size Matter? Georgia Institute of Technology. Corden, W. (1970). A Note on Economies of Scale, the Size of the Domestic Market and the Pattern of Trade. Studies in International Economics. Corsetti, G., Martin, P., & Pesenti, P. (2007). Productivity, terms of trade and the "home market e§ect". Journal of International Economics, 99-127. Crozet, M., & Trionfetti, F. (2008). Trade Costs and the Home Market E§ect. Journal of Inter- national Economics, 309-321. Dalgin, M., Mitra, D., & Trindade, V. (2008). Inequality, Non-homothetic Preferences, and Trade: A Gravity Approach. Southern Economic Journal, 747-774. Davis, D. (1998). The Home Market, Trade, and Industrial Structure. American Economic Review, 1264-1276. Davis, D., & Weinstein, D. (1996). Does Economic Geography Matter For International Special- ization? NBER Working Paper. avis, D., & Weinstein, D. (2003). Market Access, Economic Geography and Comparative Ad- vantage: An Empirical Assessment. Journal of International Economics, 1-23. Desdoigts, A., & Jaramillo, F. (2009). Trade, Demand Spillovers, and Industralization: The emerging global middle class in perspective. Journal of International Economics, 248-258. Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. (2000). EconomÌa Espacial. Las ciudades, las regiones y el comercio internacional. Barcelona: Ariel S.A. Hanson, G., & Xiang, C. (2004). The Home Market E§ect and Bilateral Trade Patterns. American Economic Review, 1108-1129. Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. (1985). Market Structure and Foreing Trade. Cambridge: MIT Press. Huang, D.-S., & Huang, Y.-Y. (2011). Technology Advantage and Home Market E§ect: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Economic Integration, 81-109. Krugman, P. (1980). Scale Economies, Product Di§erentiation, and the Pattern of Trade. Amer- ican Economic Review, 950-959. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. The Journal of Political Econ- omy, 483-499. Linder, B. (1961). An Essay on Trade and Transformation. Markusen, J. (1986). Explaining the Volume of Trade: An eclectic approach. American Economic Review, 1002-1011 Martin, P., & Ottaviano, G. (1999). Growing locations: Industry location in a model of endogenous growth. European Economic Review, 281-302. Melitz, M. J. (2005). When and How should Infant Industries be Protected? Journal of Interna- tional Economics, 177-196. Mitra, D., & Trindade, V. (2005). Inequality and Trade. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 1253-1271. Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. Journal of Political Economy, 71-102. Young, A. (1991). Learning by Doing and the Dynamic E§ects of International Trade. The Quar- terly Journal of Economics, 369-405. Yu, Z. (2005). Trade, Market Size, and Industrial Structure: Revisiting the Home Market E§ect. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 255-272.
score 12,131701