IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pewipo/v18y2017i1p32-55n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wie vorteilhaft ist internationaler Handel?: Ein neuer Ansatz zur Vermessung der Gewinne

Author

Listed:
  • Kohler Wilhelm

    () (Eberhard-Karls-Universität TübingenFachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaft, Internationale WirtschaftsbeziehungenD-72074 TübingenMohlstraße 36Germany)

  • Jung Benjamin

    () (Universität HohenheimFachgebiet VolkswirtschaftslehrD-70593 StuttgartSchloss 1CGermany)

Abstract

Die moderne Handelstheorie hat in den vergangenen fünf Jahren einen neuen Ansatz zur Quantifizierung der Vorteile aus internationalem Handel hervorgebracht, die „neue quantitative Handelstheorie“. Benjamin Jung und Wilhelm Kohler beleuchten die besonderen Vorteile, aber auch die Grenzen dieses neuen Ansatzes. Sie konzentrieren sich auf die darin verwendete neue Wohlfahrtsformel, erklären diese für verschiedene Modellvarianten intuitiv und wenden sie auf den Vergleich zwischen Autarkie und aktuell beobachteter Situation an. Dabei betonen sie den Unterschied zwischen tarifären Handelshemmnissen (Importzöllen) und realen Handelskosten, die zum Beispiel durch internationale Regulierungsunterschiede entstehen können. Jung und Kohler kontrastieren diesen Anwendungsfall mit dem Fall der Handelsliberalisierung, in dem ausgehend von einer historisch gegebenen Situation die Handelsbarrieren reduziert werden. Die Anwendung der Wohlfahrtsformel wird in diesem Fall durch das Erfordernis erschwert, die für den Wohlfahrtseffekt wichtigen endogenen Größen für einen nichttrivialen kontrafaktischen Zustand mit geringeren Handelsbarrieren zu berechnen. Die Autoren stellen dabei die unilaterale der multilateralen Liberalisierung gegenüber. Sie präsentieren Ergebnisse für hypothetische Szenarien und berichten über neue Literatur, in der die neue quantitative Handelstheorie auch zur Berechnung der Wohlfahrtswirkungen von tatsächlichen oder konkret geplanten Handelsliberalisierungen Anwendung gefunden hat.

Suggested Citation

  • Kohler Wilhelm & Jung Benjamin, 2017. "Wie vorteilhaft ist internationaler Handel?: Ein neuer Ansatz zur Vermessung der Gewinne," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 18(1), pages 32-55, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pewipo:v:18:y:2017:i:1:p:32-55:n:2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/pwp.2017.18.issue-1/pwp-2017-0002/pwp-2017-0002.xml?format=INT
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    2. Anderson, James & Larch, Mario & Yotov, Yoto, 2015. "Growth and Trade with Frictions: A Structural Estimation Framework," School of Economics Working Paper Series 2015-2, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University.
    3. Costinot, Arnaud & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2014. "Trade Theory with Numbers: Quantifying the Consequences of Globalization," Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier.
    4. Marcel P. Timmer & Erik Dietzenbacher & Bart Los & Robert Stehrer & Gaaitzen J. Vries, 2015. "An Illustrated User Guide to the World Input–Output Database: the Case of Global Automotive Production," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 575-605, August.
    5. Baldwin, Richard E, 1992. "Measurable Dynamic Gains from Trade," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(1), pages 162-174, February.
    6. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Jung, Benjamin & Larch, Mario, 2013. "Icebergs versus tariffs: A quantitative perspective on the gains from trade," University of Tuebingen Working Papers in Economics and Finance 53, University of Tuebingen, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences.
    7. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier.
    8. Thomas Chaney, 2008. "Distorted Gravity: The Intensive and Extensive Margins of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1707-1721, September.
    9. Luis A. Rivera-Batiz & Paul M. Romer, 1991. "Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 531-555.
    10. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2012. "Putting Ricardo to Work," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(2), pages 65-90, Spring.
    11. Ina Jäkel & Marcel Smolka, 2013. "Individual Attitudes Towards Trade: Stolper-Samuelson Revisited," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 731-761, September.
    12. Daniel Trefler, 2004. "The Long and Short of the Canada-U. S. Free Trade Agreement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 870-895, September.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Epifani, Paolo & Gancia, Gino, 2011. "Trade, markup heterogeneity and misallocations," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 1-13, January.
    16. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Jung, Benjamin & Larch, Mario, 2012. "Tariffs and welfare in new trade theory models," University of Tuebingen Working Papers in Economics and Finance 41, University of Tuebingen, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences.
    17. repec:anr:reveco:v:9:y:2017:p:295-325 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Gabriel Felbermayr & Rahel Aichele & Inga Heiland, 2016. "Going Deep: The Trade and Welfare Effects of TTIP Revised," ifo Working Paper Series 219, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    19. French, Scott, 2016. "The composition of trade flows and the aggregate effects of trade barriers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 114-137.
    20. Hertel, Thomas, 2013. "Global Applied General Equilibrium Analysis Using the Global Trade Analysis Project Framework," Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, Elsevier.
    21. Helpman, Elhanan, 2016. "Globalization and Wage Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 11701, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    22. repec:lmu:muenar:19542 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Gabriel Felbermayr & Benjamin Jung, 2012. "Unilateral Trade Liberalization in the Melitz Model: A Note," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(2), pages 1724-1730.
    24. Timothy J. Kehoe & Pau S. Pujolàs & Jack Rossbach, 2017. "Quantitative Trade Models: Developments and Challenges," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 295-325, September.
    25. Costas Arkolakis & Arnaud Costinot & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 2012. "New Trade Models, Same Old Gains?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 94-130, February.
    26. Daniel M. Bernhofen & John C. Brown, 2005. "An Empirical Assessment of the Comparative Advantage Gains from Trade: Evidence from Japan," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 208-225, March.
    27. Marc J. Melitz & Stephen J. Redding, 2015. "New Trade Models, New Welfare Implications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(3), pages 1105-1146, March.
    28. Deardorff, Alan V, 1982. "The General Validity of the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(4), pages 683-694, September.
    29. Keuschnigg, Christian & Kohler, Wilhelm, 1996. "Commercial policy and dynamic adjustment under monopolistic competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-4), pages 373-409, May.
    30. Ossa, Ralph, 2015. "Why trade matters after all," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 266-277.
    31. Paul R. Krugman, 1991. "The move toward free trade zones," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 7-58.
    32. Grossman, Gene, 2016. "The Purpose of Trade Agreements," CEPR Discussion Papers 11151, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    33. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    34. Lorenzo Caliendo & Fernando Parro, 2015. "Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 82(1), pages 1-44.
    35. Ralph Ossa, 2016. "Quantitative Models of Commercial Policy," NBER Working Papers 22062, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    36. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Jung, Benjamin & Larch, Mario, 2015. "The welfare consequences of import tariffs: A quantitative perspective," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 295-309.
    37. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
    38. Deardorff, Alan V, 1980. "The General Validity of the Law of Comparative Advantage," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(5), pages 941-957, October.
    39. Rivera-Batiz, Luis A. & Romer, Paul M., 1991. "International trade with endogenous technological change," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 971-1001, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    D58; D60; F11; F12; F14; F60; Internationaler Handel; Handelsliberalisierung; neue quantitative Handelstheorie;

    JEL classification:

    • D58 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Computable and Other Applied General Equilibrium Models
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • F11 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Neoclassical Models of Trade
    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • F60 - International Economics - - Economic Impacts of Globalization - - - General

    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:bpj:pewipo:v:18:y:2017:i:1:p:32-55:n:2. 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: (Peter Golla). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.