This paper points out that the different definitions of factor abundance in the empirical trade literature are weaker than in the Heckscher-Ohlin model, which compares endowments of two factors across two countries. These different definitions in practice lead to different factor abundance rankings when there are three or more countries or factors. A lack of correlation between a weak measure of factor abundance and the factor content of trade provides no ground to claim that factor proportions trade theory fails. A working definition of factor abundance more in line with the traditional one is proposed. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 10 (1999) Issue (Month): 4 (October) Pages: 385-393 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)