IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tsa/wpaper/0144eco.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On Smart SanctionsAbstract: In this paper, we develop a North-South endogenous growth model to examine three phases of development in the South: imitation of Northern products, imitation and innovation and finally, innovation only. In particular, the model has the features of catching up (and potentially overtaking) which are of particular relevance to the Pacific Rim economies. We show that the possible equilibria depend on cross-country assimilation effects and the ease of imitation. We then apply the model to analyse the impact of R&D subsidies. There are some clear global policy implications which emerge from our analysis. Firstly, because subsidies to Southern innovation benefit the North as well, it is beneficial to the North to pay for some of these subsidies. Secondly, because the ability of the South to assimilate Northern knowledge and innovate depends on Southern skills levels, the consequent spillover benefits on growth make the subsidising of Southern education by the North particularly attractive

Author

Listed:
  • Hamid Beladi
  • Peter Reza Oladi

    (Utah State University)

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamid Beladi & Peter Reza Oladi, 2014. "On Smart SanctionsAbstract: In this paper, we develop a North-South endogenous growth model to examine three phases of development in the South: imitation of Northern products, imitation and innovatio," Working Papers 0144eco, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    • Handle: RePEc:tsa:wpaper:0144eco
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://interim.business.utsa.edu/wps/eco/0002ECO-414-2015.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaemfer, William H & Lowenberg, Anton D, 1988. "The Theory of International Economic Sanctions: A Public Choice Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 786-793, September.
    2. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Kimberly Ann Elliott, 1999. "Same Song, Same Refrain? Economic Sanctions in the 1990's," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 403-408, May.
    3. Krugman, Paul R., 1979. "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 469-479, November.
    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. Beladi, Hamid & Oladi, Reza, 2015. "On smart sanctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 24-27.
    2. Hamid Beladi & Reza Oladi, 2009. "Partial Compliance with Economic Sanctions," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 125-133, February.
    3. Paolo Epifani & Gino Gancia, 2008. "The Skill Bias of World Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(530), pages 927-960, July.
    4. Geoffrey Barrows & Hélène Ollivier & Ariell Reshef, 2023. "Production Function Estimation with Multi-Destination Firms," CESifo Working Paper Series 10716, CESifo.
    5. Charlotte Emlinger & Viola Lamani, 2020. "International trade, quality sorting and trade costs: the case of Cognac," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(3), pages 579-609, August.
    6. Tybout, James R. & Westbrook, M. Daniel, 1995. "Trade liberalization and the dimensions of efficiency change in Mexican manufacturing industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1-2), pages 53-78, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Ralph E. Gomory, 1996. "Panel discussion: inherent conflict in international trade," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 40(Jun), pages 279-285.
    9. Bryan McCannon, 2004. "The impact of a trade embargo on quality," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 6(14), pages 1-7.
    10. Peter Egger & Douglas Nelson, 2011. "How Bad Is Antidumping? Evidence from Panel Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(4), pages 1374-1390, November.
    11. Anwar, Sajid, 2005. "Variable labour supply, specialisation-based external economies, and capital inflow," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 427-437.
    12. Jani Bekő, 2003. "Causality between exports and economic growth: empirical estimates for slovenia," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2003(2), pages 169-186.
    13. Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jensen & Samuel Kortum, 2003. "Plants and Productivity in International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1268-1290, September.
    14. Giuntella, Osea & Rieger, Matthias & Rotunno, Lorenzo, 2020. "Weight gains from trade in foods: Evidence from Mexico," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    15. Suga, Nobuhito, 2007. "A monopolistic-competition model of international trade with external economies of scale," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 77-91, February.
    16. Fontagné, Lionel & Martin, Philippe & Orefice, Gianluca, 2018. "The international elasticity puzzle is worse than you think," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 115-129.
    17. Gao, Yue & Whalley, John & Ren, Yonglei, 2014. "Decomposing China's export growth into extensive margin, export quality and quantity effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 19-26.
    18. Lucian Cernat, 2016. "Toward “Trade Policy Analysis 2.0”: From National Comparative Advantage to Firm-Level Trade Data," ADB Institute Series on Development Economics, in: Ganeshan Wignaraja (ed.), Production Networks and Enterprises in East Asia, edition 1, chapter 0, pages 21-31, Springer.
    19. Baldwin, Richard, 1993. "A Domino Theory of Regionalism," CEPR Discussion Papers 857, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Bogang Jun & Aamena Alshamsi & Jian Gao & Cesar A Hidalgo, 2017. "Relatedness, Knowledge Diffusion, and the Evolution of Bilateral Trade," Papers 1709.05392, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic sanctions; oligarchic economies;

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • F5 - International Economics - - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy

    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:tsa:wpaper:0144eco. 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: Wendy Frost (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cbutsus.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.