تجارت شمال - جنوب و نابرابری درآمد
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|7335||2007||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 4454 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||8 روز بعد از پرداخت||400,860 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||4 روز بعد از پرداخت||801,720 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Review of Economics & Finance, Volume 16, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 347–356
This paper investigates the effects of North–South trade on international income inequality. While empirical studies suggest that trade liberalization encourages income convergence and reduces the per capita income gap between poor and rich countries, North–South trade is shown to increase the income gap between the two regions. On the other hand, trade liberalization by either region increases the welfare of both regions, and does not necessarily reduce the gap in “real income” or utility.
A month following a ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar, China became an official member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on December 11, 2001. China's WTO accession is likely to boost both the US–China and EU–China bilateral trade volumes. Both China and its trading partners are expected to benefit from China's expanding role in world trade. For instance, Ianchovichina, Martin, and Fukase (2000) report that China's share of world exports will rise from 3.7% in 1995 to over 6.3% in 2005. However, little attention has been paid to the impact of North–South trade on the income gaps between high-income countries and low-income less-developed countries (LDCs). Will such unprecedented trade liberalization reduce the income gap between LDCs and industrial nations of Europe and North America? There are two schools of thought regarding the effect of trade liberalization on international income inequality. Some have asserted that trade will tend to cause greater income inequalities between countries (Myrdal, 1956, Prebisch, 1950 and Singer, 1950). In contrast, Adam Smith envisioned a situation in which trade between a rich country and a poor country leads to income convergence (Elmslie, 1994). Recent empirical studies also suggest that trade promotes income convergence. Rassekh and Thompson (1998) argued that since trade tends to equalize factor prices, per capita income can differ between countries primarily because of differences in capital-to-labor ratios.1Choi (2001) investigated the impact of neighbor-immiserizing growth in a model of three trading blocs. Chao and Yu (1997) also investigated the long run impacts of trade liberalization through relaxation of quantity restrictions. Chao, Chou, and Yu (2001) analyzed the effect of trade liberalization through export duty rebates. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether North–South trade will deepen or reduce international income inequality between the two trading blocs. Accordingly, this paper develops a two-country, two-good, two-factor general equilibrium model within the North–South framework, and analyzes the impacts of trade liberalization on the income gap between the two regions. The South is assumed to be abundant in labor and the North in capital. Two competing measures of national income are used to examine the effects of trade liberalization: national income and real income. Section 2 develops the basic model. Section 3 investigates how trade liberalization affects the terms of trade and trade volumes, while Section 4 deals with the effects of trade liberalization on national incomes and welfare. Section 5 contains concluding remarks.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper investigated the impacts of trade liberalization within the North–South framework. Comparative static results are summarized in Table 1. National income, measured by factor income Θ = WN + RK, often is used for international comparison of living standards because it is readily available. However, this measure is easily manipulated by protectionist policies, because the terms of trade can be adjusted easily by tariffs or export taxes. At any rate, it is shown that unilateral trade liberalization by either trading bloc widens the income gap between the rich (North America and EU) and the poor regions (China). In some ways, utility is a better measure for international comparison of “real” income gaps between countries. Unilateral trade liberalization by either the South or the North benefits both regions, and hence does not necessarily narrow the “real income” gap between the two regions. However, it often is argued that trade expansion between the two regions will tend to equalize factor prices. If trade causes factor prices to move toward equalization, then from (14), the income gap between the two regions depends entirely on the capital–labor ratios (K/N). If increased trade induces LDCs to accumulate more capital per person, then trade will generate income convergence. If not, expanding trade may perpetuate international income inequality as Krueger (1968) had argued earlier. The key to success or rising productivity for China and other newly industrializing countries may be found in capital accumulation afforded by their export-oriented policies. For instance, Owen (1999) found that countries with low human capital stocks tend to increase their accumulation of human capital with increased trade.