IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v92y2002i2p175-179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost of Protection: Where Do We Stand?

Author

Listed:
  • Arvind Panagariya

Abstract

Economists measure the cost of protection in terms of static efficiency, growth rates and firm- or industry-level productivity effects. This survey is devoted exclusively to the literature on the static efficiency. A key preliminary point to note is that estimates in this literature are not derived econometrically from pre- and post- liberalization data. Instead, they are based on simulations of partial- or general-equilibrium models that are parameterized using estimates from the literature and calibrated around a pre-liberalization base year. This paper explores alternate measures of protection and thei welfare costs.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Arvind Panagariya, 2002. "Cost of Protection: Where Do We Stand?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 175-179, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:92:y:2002:i:2:p:175-179
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/000282802320189203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/000282802320189203
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arvind Panagariya, 2003. "Alternative Approaches to Measuring the Cost of Protection," International Trade 0308002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Douglas A. Irwin, 2001. "The Welfare Cost of Autarky: Evidence from the Jeffersonian Trade Embargo, 1807-1809," NBER Working Papers 8692, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Harris, Richard, 1984. "Applied General Equilibrium Analysis of Small Open Economies with Scale Economies and Imperfect Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1016-1032, December.
    4. Joel Bergsman, 1974. "Commercial Policy, Allocative Efficiency, and "X-Efficiency"," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 409-433.
    5. Bhagwati, Jagdish N, 1982. "Directly Unproductive, Profit-seeking (DUP) Activities," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(5), pages 988-1002, October.
    6. Harry G. Johnson, 1960. "The Cost of Protection and the Scientific Tariff," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68, pages 327-327.
    7. Krueger, Anne O, 1974. "The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(3), pages 291-303, June.
    8. Romer, Paul, 1994. "New goods, old theory, and the welfare costs of trade restrictions," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 5-38, February.
    9. Robert C. Feenstra, 1992. "How Costly Is Protectionism?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 159-178, Summer.
    10. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Arvind Panagariya, 2004. "India’s Trade Reform: Progress, Impact and Future Strategy:," International Trade 0403004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Idrisov, Georgy & Ponomareva, Ekaterina, 2016. "Analysis of the Efficiency of Natural Monopolies in Russia," Working Papers 2041, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    3. Georgy Idrisov, 2016. "Towards modern industrial policy for Russia," Research Paper Series, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, issue 169P, pages 157-157.
    4. Douglas A. Irwin, 2007. "Trade Restrictiveness and Deadweight Losses from U.S. Tariffs, 1859-1961," NBER Working Papers 13450, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • F2 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business

    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:aea:aecrev:v:92:y:2002:i:2:p:175-179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael P. Albert). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.