IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v63y1999i1p77-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Appropriation possibilities in a simple exchange economy

Author

Listed:
  • Anderton, Charles H.

Abstract

When appropriation possibilities are overlooked, the predictions of standard trade models can be misleading. Trade theorists need a new class of models designed to investigate the effects of appropriation possibilities on exchange. Toward this end we incorporate appropriation possibilities into the simplest model of trade: the Edgeworth box model o f pure exchange. The model predicts that exchange will occur between a Defender and an Attacker, but the terms and volume of trade will be considerably different from the standard Edgeworth box. We also discover that when the power of attack is low, a tariff designed to punish Attacker's appropriation causes welfare of both countries to increase and the volume of trade to expand. When the power of attack is high, however, a tariff penalty against appropriation causes the piracy rate to increase and the security of property to fall due to the terms-of-trade effect of the tariff. The model has applications to classical piracy, present-day software piracy, and other markets where exchange, defense, and appropriation are intertwined.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Anderton, Charles H., 1999. "Appropriation possibilities in a simple exchange economy," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 77-83, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:63:y:1999:i:1:p:77-83
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-1765(99)00011-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Charles Anderton & Roxane Anderton & John Carter, 1996. "A Predator-Prey Model of Appropriation, Production, and Exchange," Working Papers 9602, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    2. Rider, Robert, 1993. "War, Pillage, and Markets," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 149-156, February.
    3. Anderson, James E. & Marcouiller, S.J. Douglas, 1997. "Trade and Security, I: Anarchy," Working Paper Series 477, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    4. Garfinkel,Michelle R. & Skaperdas,Stergios (ed.), 1996. "The Political Economy of Conflict and Appropriation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521560634.
    5. Anderton, Charles H & Anderton, Roxane A & Carter, John R, 1999. "Economic Activity in the Shadow of Conflict," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 37(1), pages 166-179, January.
    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. Charles Anderton & John Carter, 2004. "Vulnerable Trade: The Dark Side of an Edgeworth Box," Working Papers 0411, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    2. Charles H. Anderton, 2000. "An Insecure Economy under Ratio and Logistic Conflict Technologies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(6), pages 823-838, December.
    3. Raul Caruso, 2005. "A Very Simple Model of Conflict with Asymmetric Evaluations and Institutional Constraint," Public Economics 0510011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Caruso Raul, 2006. "Conflict and Conflict Management with Interdependent Instruments and Asymmetric Stakes, (The Good-Cop and the Bad-Cop Game)," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-55, September.
    5. Martin Mcguire, 2002. "Property distribution and configurations of sovereign states: A rational economic model," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 251-270.
    6. Caruso Raul, 2011. "On the Nature of Peace Economics," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, January.
    7. Anderton, Charles H. & Carter, John R., 2008. "Vulnerable trade: The dark side of an Edgeworth box," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 422-432, November.
    8. Kjell Hausken, 2013. "Exchange of goods while investing into production and safety," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 23(1), pages 29-35.
    9. Antoine Pietri, 2017. "Les modèles de « rivalité coercitive » dans l’analyse économique des conflits," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 127(3), pages 307-352.
    10. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370, January.

    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. Stergios Skaperdas, 2003. "Restraining the Genuine Homo Economicus: Why the Economy Cannot Be Divorced from Its Governance," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 135-162, July.
    2. Stergios Skaperdas & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2001. "Guns, Butter, and Openness: On the Relationship between Security and Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 353-357, May.
    3. Stergios Skaperdas & Constantinos Syropoulos, 2002. "Insecure Property and the Efficiency of Exchange," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(476), pages 133-146, January.
    4. Mehrdad Vahabi, 2011. "The Economics of Destructive Power," Chapters, in: Derek L. Braddon & Keith Hartley (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Conflict, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Charles Anderton & John Carter, 1996. "An Experimental Test of a Predator-Prey Model of Conflict," Working Papers 9603, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    6. Raul Caruso, 2005. "A Very Simple Model of Conflict with Asymmetric Evaluations and Institutional Constraint," Public Economics 0510011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. James E. Anderson & Douglas Marcouiller, 2005. "Anarchy And Autarky: Endogenous Predation As A Barrier To Trade," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(1), pages 189-213, February.
    8. Vahabi,Mehrdad, 2019. "The Political Economy of Predation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107591370, January.
    9. Carlos Seiglie, 2016. "Openness of the economy, terms of trade, and arms," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(3), pages 748-759, January.
    10. Marianna Belloc, 2006. "Institutions and International Trade: A Reconsideration of Comparative Advantage," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 3-26, February.
    11. Mehrdad Vahabi, 2009. "A Critical Review of Strategic Conflict Theory and Socio-political Instability Models," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 119(6), pages 817-858.
    12. Carter, John R. & Anderton, Charles H., 2001. "An experimental test of a predator-prey model of appropriation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 83-97, May.
    13. Emmanuel Athanassiou, 2003. "The internal control constraint on compliance," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(6), pages 413-424.
    14. Zsolt Becsi and Sajal Lahiri, 2007. "Bilateral war in a multilateral world: carrots and sticks for conflict resolution," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 1168-1187, November.
    15. Charles Anderton & John Carter, 2004. "Vulnerable Trade: The Dark Side of an Edgeworth Box," Working Papers 0411, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    16. Charles Anderton, 2000. "An Insecure Economy under Ratio and Logistic Conflict Technologies," Working Papers 0008, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    17. Charles H. Anderton, 2000. "An Insecure Economy under Ratio and Logistic Conflict Technologies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(6), pages 823-838, December.
    18. Reuveny Rafael, 2000. "The Trade and Conflict Debate: A Survey of Theory, Evidence and Future Research," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-29, January.
    19. Anderton, Charles H. & Carter, John R., 2008. "Vulnerable trade: The dark side of an Edgeworth box," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 422-432, November.
    20. Kjell Hausken, 2005. "Production and Conflict Models Versus Rent-Seeking Models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 59-93, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D51 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Exchange and Production Economies
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - 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:eee:ecolet:v:63:y:1999:i:1:p:77-83. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.