آیا توده در اقتصاد باز مهم است : مطالعه اقتصاد بین المللی با داده های منطقه ای
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|25337||2004||17 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6327 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of International Economics, Volume 64, Issue 2, December 2004, Pages 485–501
This paper addresses the empirical question whether the regional distribution of production factors within countries is ever so uneven that it triggers specialization of production that makes regions produce different sets of goods at different factor prices. Due to the different welfare effects of trade policy in a country with regional specialization, this is an important question. In addition, it is a question about the legitimacy of treating a country as a relatively homogenous unit. In answering these questions, I implement the concept of “lumpiness” as introduced by Courant and Deardorff [J. Polit. Econ. 100 (1992) 198]. I find that lumpiness or an uneven regional distribution of production factors that induces intranational specialization and different regional factor prices is not an issue for Japan, the United Kingdom and maybe not even for India.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In this paper, I have investigated whether the uneven distribution of endowments across the regions within a country triggers specialization of production and whether it makes regions produce different sets of goods at different factor prices. To study this question, I operationalized the concept of lumpiness that Courant and Deardorff (1992) developed. For Japan, the United Kingdom and even for India, I found that lumpiness should not give way to specialization and different factor prices across regions. This suggests that specialization due to lumpiness is not a regional phenomenon. This finding accords well with the empirical literature that argues that specialization due to endowment differences is an international phenomenon: All countries cannot produce the same set of goods. The results also suggest that regional specialization is most likely not a major explanation for why trade patterns do not conform to the basic predictions of the Heckscher–Ohlin model.18