



In the factor-proportions model, there are
typically losers as well as winners from trade.
In what sense can we even talk about gains from trade when
some people lose?
Given the fact that some people loose from trade, what
should the government do?
What are governments likely to do in practice?

Do the gains from trade outweigh the losses?
◦ Sum up the gains of the winners and the losses of
the losers and compare them.
 Problem with this procedure is that we are comparing welfare.
Before trade, economy's production
and consumption were at point 2
on its production possibilities
frontier (PP).
After trade, the economy can
consume at any point on its budget
constraint.
The portion of the budget
constraint in the colored region
consists of feasible posttrade
consumption of both goods higher
than at the pretrade point 2.


The consumption of the economy in the absence of trade would
have to be a point on the production possibility frontier.
It is possible for a trading economy to consume more of both
goods than it would have in the absence of trade. Part of that
budget constraint - the part in the colored region - represents
situations in which the economy consumes more of both cloth
and food than it could in the absence of trade.
 When production was at point 1, then trade has no effect on production.

Finally, it is possible to ensure that everyone is better off as a
result of trade. Of course, everyone might be still better off if
they had less of one good and more of the other, but this only
reinforces the conclusion that everyone can potentially gain from
trade.


The government must somehow weigh one
person’s gain against another person’s loss.
There are many reasons why one group might
matter more than another, but one of the
most compelling reasons is that some groups
need special treatment because they are
already relatively poor.




Does this mean that trade should be allowed
only if it doesn’t hurt lower-income people?
1. Income distribution effects are not specific to international
trade
2. It is always better to allow trade and compensate those
who are hurt by it than to prohibit the trade.
3.Those ho stand to lose from increased trade are typically
better organized than those who stand to gain.



You might expect that those who gain from
trade would lobby as strongly as those who
lose from it, but this is rarely the case.
For example: Sugar in USA
Typically, those who gain from trade in any
particular product are a much less
concentrated, informed and organized group
than those who lose.

Testing the Heckscher-Ohlin Model
◦ Tests on U.S. Data
The United States was until a few year ago much
wealthier than other countries and U.S. workers visibly
worked with more capital per person than their
counterparts in other countries.
One would expect, that the United states would be an
exporter of capital-intensive goods and an importer of
labor-intensive goods.
Wassily Leontief found in his study that U.S. exports
were less capital-intensive than U.S. imports.
This result is known as the Leontief paradox.
Factor Content of U.S. Exports and Imports for 1962
Imports
Exports
Capital per million dollars
2,132,000
1,876,000
Labor (person-years) per million dollars
119
131
Capital-labor ratio (dollars per worker)
17,916
14,321
Average years of education per worker
9.9
10.1
Proportion of engineers and scientists in work force
0.0189
0.0255





As the first two lines in the table show, Leontief´s paradox
was still present in 1962: U.S. exports were produced with
a lower ratio of capital to labor than U.S. imports.
The U.S. exported products that were more skilled laborintensive than its imports as measured by average years of
education.
We also tended to export products that were “technologyintensive”.
The United states has a special advantage in producing
new products or goods made with innovative technologies
such as aircraft and sophisticated computer chips...
The United States may be exporting goods that heavily use
skilled labor and innovative entrepreneurship
◦ Tests on Global Data:
Economists have also attempted to test the HeckscherOhlin model using data for a large number of countries.
Trading goods is actually an indirect way of trading factors
of production.
Thus if we were to calculate the factors of production
embodied in a country's exports and imports, we should
find that a country is a net exporter of the factors of
production with which it is relatively abundantly endowed,
a net importer of those with it is relatively poorly endowed.
Table shows one of the
key tests of Bowen et al.
For a sample of 27 countries
and 12 factors of production,
the authors calculated the
ratio of each country’s
endowment of each factor
to the world supply. They
then compared these ratios
with each country’s share of
world income.
Predictive Success = Fraction of countries for which net exports
of factor runs in predicted direction


Implications of the Tests:
◦ The mixed results of tests of the factor-proportion theory
place international economist in a difficult postion because
both of models (Ricaridan model and Factor-proportion
theory) give us successful results but in the different cases.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION