Abstract:We provide an empirical assessment of the comparative advantage gains from trade argument. We use Japan's nineteenth-century opening up to world commerce as a natural experiment to answer the following counterfactual: "By how much would real income have had to increase in Japan during its final autarky years of 1851-1853 to afford the consumption bundle the economy could have obtained if it were engaged in international trade during that period?" Using detailed historical data on trade flows, autarky prices, a… Show more
“…This is the approach followed by Bernhofen and Brown (2005). They exploit a unique quasi-natural experiment: the opening up of Japan in 1858.…”
Section: Other Structural Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under perfect competition, one can show that the gains from trade are weakly lower than the difference between the vector of consumption in the trade equilibrium and the vector of consumption in the autarky equilibrium, both evaluated at autarky prices, which is itself lower than the opposite of the vector of net exports in the trade equilibrium, also evaluated at autarky prices. Since Bernhofen and Brown (2005) have direct access to autarky prices in Japan in 1858 as well as net exports in subsequent years, they can compute an upper-bound of the gains from trade by assuming perfect competition, and nothing more. They find upper-bounds between 5.4% and 9.1% of Japan's GDP depending on the trade equilibrium they focus on.…”
We review a recent body of theoretical work that aims to put numbers on the consequences of globalization. A unifying theme of our survey is methodological. We rely on gravity models and demonstrate how they can be used for counterfactual analysis. We highlight how various economic considerations-market structure, firm-level heterogeneity, multiple sectors, intermediate goods, and multiple factors of production-affect the magnitude of the gains from trade liberalization. We conclude by discussing a number of outstanding issues in the literature as well as alternative approaches for quantifying the consequences of globalization.
“…This is the approach followed by Bernhofen and Brown (2005). They exploit a unique quasi-natural experiment: the opening up of Japan in 1858.…”
Section: Other Structural Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Under perfect competition, one can show that the gains from trade are weakly lower than the difference between the vector of consumption in the trade equilibrium and the vector of consumption in the autarky equilibrium, both evaluated at autarky prices, which is itself lower than the opposite of the vector of net exports in the trade equilibrium, also evaluated at autarky prices. Since Bernhofen and Brown (2005) have direct access to autarky prices in Japan in 1858 as well as net exports in subsequent years, they can compute an upper-bound of the gains from trade by assuming perfect competition, and nothing more. They find upper-bounds between 5.4% and 9.1% of Japan's GDP depending on the trade equilibrium they focus on.…”
We review a recent body of theoretical work that aims to put numbers on the consequences of globalization. A unifying theme of our survey is methodological. We rely on gravity models and demonstrate how they can be used for counterfactual analysis. We highlight how various economic considerations-market structure, firm-level heterogeneity, multiple sectors, intermediate goods, and multiple factors of production-affect the magnitude of the gains from trade liberalization. We conclude by discussing a number of outstanding issues in the literature as well as alternative approaches for quantifying the consequences of globalization.
“…Bernhofen and Brown (2010) revisit the natural experiment of Japan to test (14). Since Bernhofen and Brown (2005) have already provided evidence that Japan experienced gains from trade, as discussed in section 2, we already know that the data environment fulfils the critical assumption of the theory. As a result, there is something at stake in testing (14) since a rejection could not be explained by unmet assumptions.…”
“…A more rigorous treatment of the gains from trade relates the inner product to the Slutsky compensation measure of welfare, which is defined as the increase in income which would allow the economy to move from autarky to free trade consumption when both are valued at autarky prices. However, as stressed in Bernhofen and Brown (2005), since autarky and free trade are observed at different points in time, the comparison involves a counterfactual. In the case of Japan it involves a comparison between Japan"s actual consumption point C …”
Section: Comparative Advantage and The Gains From Tradementioning
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
Terms of use:
Documents in EconStor may
“…Das heißt nicht mehr und nicht weniger, als dass man von vornherein die Gültigkeit einer bestimmten Theorie unterstellt. Im Fall von Bernhofen und Brown (2005) ist es das verallgemeinerte Modell komparativer Vorteile von Deardorff (1980); ihr kontrafaktischer Vergleich für das "Autarkieexperiment" Japans ergibt Wohlfahrtsgewinne von 5 bis 9 Prozent des Autarkie-Inlandsprodukts.…”
Section: Die Neigung Zu Kontrafaktischen Vergleichen In Der Außenhandunclassified
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.