RESOURCE ENDOWMENT AS A BASIS FOR F

RESOURCE ENDOWMENT AS A BASIS FOR FREE TRADE DOCTRINES
The balancing act between forces of supply and demand was carried forward by the Austrian school with their notion of opportunity cost, defined in terms of the utility of foregone consumption. This provided the base for the Heckscher-Ohlin version of free trade doctrine that followed. Use of the marginal rates as in this theory turned the Classical theory on its head. Simultaneously, a basis was laid for the defense of free trade as Pareto-optimum, rather than on grounds of comparative supply costs alone, thus ensuring optimization of production, consumption, and exchange (trade) for the two trading nations at equilibrium. This version of neo-classical trade theory has continued to have a special appeal to economists championing the cause of free trade on the grounds of optimization at a global level, of productive efficiency, consumption (and as such welfare), and the automatic utilization of factors of production at full capacity. Returns to the two factors of production that included labor and capital were at levels that were in proportion to their respective material contribution valued at market prices. Unlike in the Ricardian paradigm where the supply cost measured in labor hours was the determining factor of trade advantages, consumer preferences (ordinal rankings) for goods was as important as the supply factors in determining price competitiveness of goods for the trading nations. 4 However, the Heckscher-Ohlin (and later Samuelson), in short HOS, version of free trade doctrine played down the otherwise overwhelming role of demand on market prices in order to bring resource endowments of nations to the center stage as the determining factor for mutually gainful trade. With this device, free trade theory moved away from the skill- or technology-based interpretations of the Ricardian comparative cost doctrine to an endowment based explanation for nations having similar access to technology. It was a Herculean job for the neo-classical economists in setting the stage to arrive at the factor-endowment based theory of free trade. Thus consumer preferences (or demand) in either country had its role in determining both commodity and factor prices (including those of labor) in the pretrade stage, reflecting the disparities in factor endowments. With identical consumer preferences between the trading partners, factor endowments determine the price competitiveness of the traded goods. The common world price was settled at a level that was within the boundaries set by the pretrade prices in the two countries. While factors of production were assumed to be immobile (as in the Classical comparative cost theory), equalization of commodity prices was supposed to bring about the equalization of factor prices across countries. Problems in arriving at uniform prices in absolute terms with different national currencies were carefully avoided by ignoring, altogether, the possibility of different currencies across nations. Justifications as were implicit in such assumptions probably came from the branding of this kind of theory as “pure,” as distinct from a monetary theory of trade! Theorems that follow from the HOS theory of free trade doctrine include (apart from factor-price equalization) a corollary, named after Stolper and Samuelson, which relates protection and real wages. In terms of above, the scarce factor in trading nations, are to lose under free trade under factor price equalization. Thus labor, considered as the scarce factor of production in United States, was considered to benefit from protection and not from free trade (Stolper and Samuelson 1941). Attempts have been made by different theorists to try models of the old trade theories (both comparative cost and the HOS models) for multi-commodity, multi-factor, and multicountry situations. The innovated models, dealing with “Higher Dimensional Issues in Trade Theory” (Ethier 1984), did not contribute much in terms of their relevance in terms of the observed facts. 5

Результаты (русский) 1:

ОБЕСПЕЧЕННОСТЬ РЕСУРСАМИ КАК ОСНОВА ДЛЯ ДОКТРИНЫ СВОБОДНОЙ ТОРГОВЛИ The balancing act between forces of supply and demand was carried forward by the Austrian school with their notion of opportunity cost, defined in terms of the utility of foregone consumption. This provided the base for the Heckscher-Ohlin version of free trade doctrine that followed. Use of the marginal rates as in this theory turned the Classical theory on its head. Simultaneously, a basis was laid for the defense of free trade as Pareto-optimum, rather than on grounds of comparative supply costs alone, thus ensuring optimization of production, consumption, and exchange (trade) for the two trading nations at equilibrium. This version of neo-classical trade theory has continued to have a special appeal to economists championing the cause of free trade on the grounds of optimization at a global level, of productive efficiency, consumption (and as such welfare), and the automatic utilization of factors of production at full capacity. Returns to the two factors of production that included labor and capital were at levels that were in proportion to their respective material contribution valued at market prices. Unlike in the Ricardian paradigm where the supply cost measured in labor hours was the determining factor of trade advantages, consumer preferences (ordinal rankings) for goods was as important as the supply factors in determining price competitiveness of goods for the trading nations. 4 However, the Heckscher-Ohlin (and later Samuelson), in short HOS, version of free trade doctrine played down the otherwise overwhelming role of demand on market prices in order to bring resource endowments of nations to the center stage as the determining factor for mutually gainful trade. With this device, free trade theory moved away from the skill- or technology-based interpretations of the Ricardian comparative cost doctrine to an endowment based explanation for nations having similar access to technology. It was a Herculean job for the neo-classical economists in setting the stage to arrive at the factor-endowment based theory of free trade. Thus consumer preferences (or demand) in either country had its role in determining both commodity and factor prices (including those of labor) in the pretrade stage, reflecting the disparities in factor endowments. With identical consumer preferences between the trading partners, factor endowments determine the price competitiveness of the traded goods. The common world price was settled at a level that was within the boundaries set by the pretrade prices in the two countries. While factors of production were assumed to be immobile (as in the Classical comparative cost theory), equalization of commodity prices was supposed to bring about the equalization of factor prices across countries. Problems in arriving at uniform prices in absolute terms with different national currencies were carefully avoided by ignoring, altogether, the possibility of different currencies across nations. Justifications as were implicit in such assumptions probably came from the branding of this kind of theory as “pure,” as distinct from a monetary theory of trade! Theorems that follow from the HOS theory of free trade doctrine include (apart from factor-price equalization) a corollary, named after Stolper and Samuelson, which relates protection and real wages. In terms of above, the scarce factor in trading nations, are to lose under free trade under factor price equalization. Thus labor, considered as the scarce factor of production in United States, was considered to benefit from protection and not from free trade (Stolper and Samuelson 1941). Attempts have been made by different theorists to try models of the old trade theories (both comparative cost and the HOS models) for multi-commodity, multi-factor, and multicountry situations. The innovated models, dealing with “Higher Dimensional Issues in Trade Theory” (Ethier 1984), did not contribute much in terms of their relevance in terms of the observed facts. 5

Результаты (русский) 2:

РЕСУРС ФОНД КАК ОСНОВА ДЛЯ СВОБОДНОЙ ТОРГОВЛЕ доктрины
балансирования сил акт между спросом и предложением, были перенесены на австрийской школы с их понятием альтернативной стоимости, определенной с точки зрения полезности упущенного потребления. Это при условии, что основание для версии Хекшера-Олина учения о свободной торговле, которые последовали. Использование предельных ставок, как в этой теории оказалось классической теории с ног на голову. Одновременно была заложена основа для защиты свободной торговли, как Парето-оптимум, а не на основании только сравнительных издержек поставок, обеспечивая тем самым оптимизацию производства, потребления и обмена (торговли) для двух торговых наций в равновесии. Эта версия нео-классической теории торговли продолжает иметь особую привлекательность для экономистов отстаивая дело свободной торговли на основании оптимизации на глобальном уровне, эффективности производства, потребления (и как такой благосостояния), и автоматическое использование факторы производства на полную мощность. Возврат к двум факторам производства, включенных труд и капитал были на уровнях, которые были пропорционально их соответствующего взноса, материальной стоимостью по рыночным ценам. В отличие от Рикардо парадигмы, где стоимость питания измеряется в трудовых часов был определяющим фактором торговых преимуществ, потребительских предпочтений (порядковые рейтингах) на товары был так важен, как факторов предложения в определении ценовой конкурентоспособности товаров для торговых наций. 4 Тем не менее, Хекшера-Олина (и позже Самуэльсон), в короткий поиска предметов, версия свободной торговли доктрины преуменьшить иначе подавляющее роль спроса на рыночные цены для того, чтобы принести обеспеченности ресурсами наций в центре внимания в качестве определяющего фактора для взаимно выгодный торговли. С помощью этого устройства, теория свободной торговли отошли от скилл или технологических интерпретаций Рикардо сравнительных издержек доктрины пожертвований на основе объяснения народов, имеющих аналогичный доступ к технологии. Это было сложнейшая работа для неоклассических экономистов в почву, чтобы прийти к фактор-пожертвований основе теории свободной торговли. Таким образом, потребительские предпочтения (или спрос) в обеих странах были его роль в определении как товар и цены факторов (в том числе труда) в стадии pretrade, отражая различия в обеспеченности факторами производства. С одинаковыми потребительских предпочтений между торговыми партнерами, обеспеченности факторами определения ценовой конкурентоспособности торгуемых товаров. Общая мировая цена была заселена на уровне, который был в пределах, установленных цен pretrade в двух странах. В то время как факторы производства считались неподвижными (как в классической теории сравнительного стоимости), выравнивание цен на сырьевые товары должен был привести к выравниванию цен на факторы производства в разных странах. Проблемы в достижении единых цен в абсолютном выражении с различными национальными валютами были тщательно избегать игнорируя, в целом, возможность разных валютах между странами. Обоснования, как были неявно в таких предположениях, вероятно, пришли из брендинга такого рода теории, как "чистый", в отличие от денежной теории торговли! Теоремы, которые следуют из теории ХОС учения о свободной торговле включают в себя (помимо фактора выравнивания цен) следствия, им Столпером и Самуэльсона, который относится защиту и реальную заработную плату. С точки зрения выше, дефицитного фактора в торговых наций, являются потерять при свободной торговле в рамках ценового фактора выравнивания. Таким образом, труд, рассматриваются как дефицитного фактора производства в Соединенных Штатах, считалось выгоду от защиты, а не от свободной торговли (Столпера- и Самуэльсон, 1941). Попытки были сделаны разными теоретиками, чтобы попытаться модели старых теорий торговли (как сравнительная стоимость и модели HOS) для мульти-товар, мульти-фактора, и межстрановой ситуациях. В инновационные модели, имея дело с "высших измерений вопросам теории торговли» (1984) Этье, не способствуют много в плане их актуальности с точки зрения наблюдаемых фактов. 5

Результаты (русский) 3:

РЕСУРСОВ В качестве основы для свободной торговли доктрин
на балансирование между силами безопасности предложения и спроса, в австрийской школе с их понятия, определяется с точки зрения полезности отказались от потребления. Это при условии, что базы для Heckscher-Ohlin версии свободной торговли доктрины.