IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v146y2011i4p1631-1663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shadow pricing market access: A trade benefit function approach

Author

Listed:
  • Chau, Nancy H.
  • Färe, Rolf

Abstract

Appropriate assessment of the social value of market access is at the core of a broad range of inquiries in trade research. We propose a new approach based on a trade benefit function to obtain the shadow value of net imports. Our approach is in keeping with well-established trade welfare measurement techniques, for the trade benefit function is dual to the standard trade expenditure function. This dual relation further allows for a direct retrieval of the shadow values of net imports from the trade benefit function. The operationality of our approach is demonstrated in a series of applications and simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Chau, Nancy H. & Färe, Rolf, 2011. "Shadow pricing market access: A trade benefit function approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1631-1663, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:146:y:2011:i:4:p:1631-1663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022053111000779
    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. Luenberger, David G., 1992. "Benefit functions and duality," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 461-481.
    2. Robert W. Staiger & Kyle Bagwell, 1999. "An Economic Theory of GATT," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 215-248, March.
    3. Nancy H. Chau & Rolf F”re & Shawna Grosskopf, 2003. "Trade restrictiveness and efficiency," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(3), pages 1079-1095, August.
    4. Anderson, Kym, 2002. "Peculiarities of retaliation in WTO dispute settlement," World Trade Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(02), pages 123-134, July.
    5. J. Christophe Bureau & Nancy H. Chau & Rolf F”re & Shawna Grosskopf, 2003. "Economic Performance, Trade Restrictiveness, and Efficiency," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), pages 527-542, November.
    6. Kawamata, Kunio, 1974. "Price Distortion and Potential Welfare," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(3), pages 435-460, May.
    7. Balassa, Bela, 1985. "Exports, policy choices, and economic growth in developing countries after the 1973 oil shock," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 23-35.
    8. John Kennan & Raymond Riezman, 2013. "Do Big Countries Win Tariff Wars?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: International Trade Agreements and Political Economy, chapter 4, pages 45-51 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Edward E. Leamer, 1988. "Measures of Openness," NBER Chapters,in: Trade Policy Issues and Empirical Analysis, pages 145-204 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Butler, Monika & Hauser, Heinz, 2000. "The WTO Dispute Settlement System: First Assessment from an Economic Perspective," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 503-533, October.
    11. Maria Cipollina & Luca Salvatici, 2008. "Measuring Protection: Mission Impossible?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 577-616, July.
    12. Chad P. Bown, 2005. "Participation in," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 19(2), pages 287-310.
    13. Robert E. Baldwin, 1989. "Measuring Nontariff Trade Policies," NBER Working Papers 2978, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Michael, Michael S. & Hatzipanayotou, Panos & Miller, Stephen M., 1993. "Integrated reforms of tariffs and consumption taxes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 417-428, October.
    15. A. D. Woodland, 1980. "Direct and Indirect Trade Utility Functions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(5), pages 907-926.
    16. 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.
    17. Mayer, Wolfgang, 1981. "Theoretical Considerations on Negotiated Tariff Adjustments," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 135-153, March.
    18. R. G. Lipsey & Kelvin Lancaster, 1956. "The General Theory of Second Best," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 11-32.
    19. Chad P . Bown, 2002. "The Economics of Trade Disputes, the GATT's Article XXIII, and the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 283-323, November.
    20. Rolf Färe & Shawna Grosskopf, 2000. "Theory and Application of Directional Distance Functions," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 93-103, March.
    21. Chipman, John S. & Moore, James C., 1972. "Social utility and the gains from trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 157-172, May.
    22. Keen, Michael & Ligthart, Jenny E., 2002. "Coordinating tariff reduction and domestic tax reform," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 489-507, March.
    23. Chambers, Robert G. & Chung, Yangho & Fare, Rolf, 1996. "Benefit and Distance Functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 407-419, August.
    24. W. Erwin Diewert & Alan D. Woodland, 2004. "The Gains from Trade and Policy Reform Revisited," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(4), pages 591-608, September.
    25. Horn, Henrik & Mavroidis, Petros C & Nordström, Håkan, 1999. "Is The Use Of The WTO Dispute Settlement System Biased?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2340, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    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. Valentin Zelenyuk, 2011. "A Scale Elasticity Measure for Directional Distance Function and its Dual," CEPA Working Papers Series WP062011, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.

    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:jetheo:v:146:y:2011:i:4:p:1631-1663. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    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.