IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/colubu/93-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Traditional Comparative Advantages vs Economies of Scale: NAFTA and the GATT

Author

Listed:
  • Chichilnisky, G.

Abstract

Regional free trade zones have been unexpectedly successful in the last decade. Since 1980 the European Community enlarged significantly its membership and its scope. It now includes southern European countries, and market-integrating features allowing goods, people, services and capital to flow freely around an area accounting for about one fourth of world economic output. Based on economies of scale - we find a condition that determine whether trading blocks Such as NAFTA and the EU are complementary with and encourage global free trade - when this condition fails, instead, trading blocks undermine free trade. It is the purpose of this paper to re-examine the positive and negative aspects of trading blocs as they relate to gains from free trade. The paper is primarily a discussion of conceptual issues, although it is based on facts and on particular cases which are of interest to the trade liberalization in the Americas. We take a somewhat different approach to a familiar issue. Rather than asking the standard question of whether regional blocs help or hinder global free trade, we ask a more detailed question: what type of customs union is likely to lead to a trade war between the blocs, and what type of customs union is, instead, likely to lead to expanded global trade. In practical terms: what type of trade policies within the blocs will provide economic incentives for expanding free trade. We shall compare the impact on the world economy of free trade blocs which are organized around two alternative principles: one is traditional comparative advantages, the other is economies of scale. The aim is to determine how the patterns of trade inside the blocs determine the trade relations among the blocs.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Chichilnisky, G., 1992. "Traditional Comparative Advantages vs Economies of Scale: NAFTA and the GATT," Papers 93-13, Columbia - Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:colubu:93-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1993. "North-South trade and the dynamics of renewable resources," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 219-248, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1993. "The abatement of carbon emissions in industrial and developing countries," MPRA Paper 8390, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1998. "Sustainable development and North-South trade," MPRA Paper 8894, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1996. "Property rights and the dynamics of North-South trade, chapter 8," MPRA Paper 8514, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Ahmad Karnama & Ricardo Vinuesa, 2020. "Organic Growth Theory for Corporate Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-10, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1992. "Strategies for trade liberalization in the Americas," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 33919, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    2. Demeke, Bayou, 2004. "Is Globalization Bad For The Environment? International Trade And Land Degradation In Developing Countries:The Case Of Small Open Economy," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20376, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1996. "Trade regimes and Gatt: resource intensive vs. knowledge intensive growth, Chapter 10," MPRA Paper 8813, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Gardner Brown, 2000. "Renewable Natural Resource Management and Use Without Markets," Working Papers 0025, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    5. Jota Ishikawa & Kazuharu Kiyono, 2000. "International Trade and Global Warming," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-78, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    6. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1995. "The economic value of the Earth's resources," MPRA Paper 8491, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1993. "Property Rights on Biodiversity and the Pharmaceutical Industry," MPRA Paper 8330, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Gars, Johan & Spiro, Daniel, 2014. "Uninsurance through Trade," Memorandum 13/2014, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    9. Bergeron, Nancy, 2002. "International Trade and Conservation with Costly Natural Resource Management," Cahiers de recherche 0204, GREEN.
    10. Louis Dupuy & Matthew Agarwala, 2014. "International trade and sustainable development," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 25, pages 399-417, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1996. "An axiomatic approach to sustainable development," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(2), pages 231-257, April.
    12. Graciela Chichilnisky, 1998. "The knowledge revolution," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 39-54.
    13. Stéphane Gonzalez & Fatma Rostom, 2019. "Sharing the Global Benefits of Finite Natural Resource Exploitation: A Dynamic Coalitional Stability Perspective," Working Papers halshs-02430751, HAL.
    14. Karp, Larry & Sacheti, Sandeep & Zhao, Jinhua, 2001. "Common Ground between Free-Traders and Environmentalists," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 42(3), pages 617-647, August.
    15. Karp, Larry & Zhao, Jinhua & Sacheti, Sandeep, 2003. "The long-run effects of environmental reform in open economies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 246-264, March.
    16. Chichilnisky, Graciela & Heal, Geoffrey, 1994. "Who should abate carbon emissions? : An international viewpoint," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 443-449, April.
    17. Blecker, Robert A., 1996. "The new economic integration: Structuralist models of North-South trade and investment liberalization," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 321-345, September.
    18. Alemdar, Nedim M. & Ozyildirim, Suheyla, 1998. "A genetic game of trade, growth and externalities," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 811-832, June.
    19. Chichilnisky, Graciela, 1996. "Trade regimes and GATT: resource-intensive vs. knowledge intensive growth," MPRA Paper 8493, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. F. Cabo, 2001. "Towards an ecological technology for global growth in a North-South trade model," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 15-41.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    trade ; free trade;

    JEL classification:

    • F18 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade and Environment
    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • O19 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - International Linkages to Development; Role of International Organizations

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fth:colubu:93-13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsclbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.