IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hok/dpaper/342.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trade Policy with Intermediate Inputs Trade

Author

Listed:
  • Qasim, Ahmed Waqar
  • Itaya, Jun-ichi

Abstract

The paper aims to characterize the tariff policy for final goods as well as for intermediate inputs in the model of heterogeneous firms. We developed a theoretical model to show how the tariff on final goods and intermediate inputs affect the welfare, productivity, and the entry of firms in a country. We formulate the tariff level selection choice available to the policymaker with respect to four policy experiments. These policy experiments include; unilateral tariff selection, cooperative tariff selection, non-cooperative tariff selection, and political tariff selection. Our results show that at the Stackelberg equilibrium, which results from the unilateral tariff selection, the policy level selected by the leader is higher compared to the rest of the experiments. While, in the case of cooperation, free trade will be the equilibrium outcome. Since, the welfare gains of one country come at the cost of others, therefore, zero tariffs are the optimal strategy for both countries. At Nash equilibrium, which results of non-cooperative tariff policy selection, both countries select policy level simultaneously and applied positive tariff rates for both intermediate inputs and final goods. Lastly, at political equilibrium, which results after considering lobby by the heterogeneous firms, the policy level selection diverges from benchmark unilateral level. To illustrate our tariff policy formulations quantitively, we use the US import data to estimate the policy levels. These estimates are then compared the factual tariff rates to evaluate the degree of political interference of lobbying firms in the policy level selection.

Suggested Citation

  • Qasim, Ahmed Waqar & Itaya, Jun-ichi, 2019. "Trade Policy with Intermediate Inputs Trade," Discussion paper series. A 342, Graduate School of Economics and Business Administration, Hokkaido University.
  • Handle: RePEc:hok:dpaper:342
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2115/76156
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/76156/1/DPA342.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    2. Elhanan Helpman & Oleg Itskhoki, 2010. "Labour Market Rigidities, Trade and Unemployment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(3), pages 1100-1137.
    3. Ruffin, Roy J, 1969. "Tariffs, Intermediate Goods, and Domestic Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 261-269, June.
    4. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    5. Yoshitomo Ogawa, 2012. "The structure of Nash equilibrium tariffs," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 139-161, September.
    6. László Halpern & Miklós Koren & Adam Szeidl, 2015. "Imported Inputs and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(12), pages 3660-3703, December.
    7. Demidova, Svetlana & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2009. "Trade policy under firm-level heterogeneity in a small economy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 100-112, June.
    8. Kasahara, Hiroyuki & Lapham, Beverly, 2013. "Productivity and the decision to import and export: Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 297-316.
    9. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Jung, Benjamin & Larch, Mario, 2013. "Optimal tariffs, retaliation, and the welfare loss from tariff wars in the Melitz model," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 13-25.
    10. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    11. Bombardini, Matilde, 2008. "Firm heterogeneity and lobby participation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 329-348, July.
    12. Stoyanov, Andrey, 2009. "Trade policy of a free trade agreement in the presence of foreign lobbying," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 37-49, February.
    13. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen, 1999. "Exporting and Productivity," NBER Working Papers 7135, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg & Amit Kumar Khandelwal & Nina Pavcnik & Petia Topalova, 2010. "Imported Intermediate Inputs and Domestic Product Growth: Evidence from India," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(4), pages 1727-1767.
    15. Devashish Mitra, 2016. "Endogenous Lobby Formation and Endogenous Protection: A Long-Run Model of Trade Policy Determination," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Trade Policy Theory, Evidence and Applications, chapter 1, pages 3-21, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Feenstra, Robert C, 1994. "New Product Varieties and the Measurement of International Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 157-177, March.
    17. Ralph Ossa, 2014. "Trade Wars and Trade Talks with Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(12), pages 4104-4146, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Facundo Albornoz & Ezequiel García Lembergman, 2015. "Importing After Exporting," Working Papers 122, Universidad de San Andres, Departamento de Economia, revised Jul 2015.
    2. Maria Bas & Vanessa Strauss-Kahn, 2014. "Does importing more inputs raise exports? Firm-level evidence from France," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(2), pages 241-275, May.
    3. Pavcnik, Nina & Goldberg, Pinelopi, 2016. "The Effects of Trade Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 11104, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Mary Amiti & Mi Dai & Robert C. Feenstra & John Romalis, 2017. "How did China’s WTO entry benefit U.S. prices?," Staff Reports 817, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    5. Michael Blanga-Gubbay & Paola Conconi & Mathieu Parenti, 2020. "Globalization for Sale," CESifo Working Paper Series 8239, CESifo.
    6. Amiti, Mary & Dai, Mi & Feenstra, Robert & Romalis, John, 2017. "How Did China's WTO Entry Benefit U.S. Consumers?," CEPR Discussion Papers 12076, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Amiti, Mary & Dai, Mi & Feenstra, Robert C. & Romalis, John, 2020. "How did China's WTO entry affect U.S. prices?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    8. Pol Antràs & Davin Chor, 2021. "Global Value Chains," NBER Working Papers 28549, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Viegelahn, Christian, 2018. "Input reallocation within multi-product firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 63-79.
    10. Kammerer, Hannes, 2013. "Lobbying for Subsidies with Heterogeneous Firms," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79767, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    11. Colantone, Italo & Crinò, Rosario, 2014. "New imported inputs, new domestic products," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 147-165.
    12. Uysal, Pinar & Yotov, Yoto V. & Zylkin, Thomas, 2015. "Firm heterogeneity and trade-induced layoffs: An empirical investigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 80-97.
    13. Costinot, Arnaud & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2014. "Trade Theory with Numbers: Quantifying the Consequences of Globalization," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 197-261, Elsevier.
    14. Ahmed Waqar Qasim & Jun-ichi Itaya, 2019. "Heterogeneous Firms and Lobby Participation Decision," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(4), pages 2415-2422.
    15. Torres Mazzi, Caio & Foster-McGregor, Neil, 2021. "Imported intermediates, technological capabilities and exports: Evidence from Brazilian firm-level data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    16. Gouel, Christophe & Jean, Sébastien, 2023. "Love of variety and gains from trade," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    17. Vandenbussche, Hylke & Viegelahn, Christian, 2016. "Input Reallocation Within Firms," CEPR Discussion Papers 11395, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Kichun Kang, 2022. "Import Variety and Productivity: Positive or Negative?," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 38, pages 43-72.
    19. Nucci, Francesco & Pietrovito, Filomena & Pozzolo, Alberto Franco, 2023. "Intermediated trade and credit constraints: The case of firm’s imports," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 201-220.
    20. Xavier Cirera & Daniel Lederman & Juan A. Máñez Castillejo & María E. Rochina Barrachina & Juan A. Sanchis-Llopis, 2021. "Firm productivity gains in a period of slow trade liberalization: evidence from Brazil," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(1), pages 57-87, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    intermediate inputs; heterogeneous firms; trade policy; lobbying firms;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hok:dpaper:342. 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: Hokkaido University Library (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fehokjp.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.