IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A Utilitarian Welfare Analysis of Trade Liberalization

  • Robert Shelburne

    ()

    (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)

This paper provides a welfare analysis of trade liberalization based upon the moral principles of utilitarianism. The history of the moral philosophy of utilitarianism is described including its introduction into what became known as Cambridge welfare economics. The differences between this school of thought and what would later develop as modern welfare analysis are discussed. Essentially, the Cambridge economists were not particularly disturbed by the assumptions of cardinal utility and interpersonal comparisons and argued that these assumptions added more than they took away. Next the mathematical form of a utilitarian utility and social welfare function are described and the values of the parameters are assigned based upon the writings of moral philosophers. Next the distributional consequences of trade liberalization are developed and the social welfare implications are derived. Basically it is concluded that trade policy changes produce large distributional changes relative to efficiency gains, and the gains go to individuals with significantly higher income than the lossers (in the developed economies). With a realistic concave utility function underlying the social welfare function, the benefits of trade liberalization are quite small if not negative. The policy implication is that trade liberalization without sizable redistribution is unlikely to actually (as opposed to potentially) increase social welfare. It is argued that this approach to trade policy analysis is much more useful in formulating trade policy than the current use of modern welfare- trade policy analysis commonly used and taught in most universities.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/oes/disc_papers/ECE_DP_2006-4.pdf
File Function: First version, 2004
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by UNECE in its series ECE Discussion Papers Series with number 2006_4.

as
in new window

Length: 34 pages
Date of creation: Dec 2006
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in UNECE Discussion Paper Series, No. 2006_4
Handle: RePEc:ece:dispap:2006_4
Contact details of provider: Postal: Palais des Nations, CH - 1211 Geneva 10
Phone: +4122 917 44 44
Fax: +4122 917 05 05
Web page: http://www.unece.org/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Andreoni, James & Vesterlund, Lise, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," Staff General Research Papers 1951, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
  2. C. Shelburne, Robert, 2004. "Wage Differentials, Monopsony Labor Markets, and the Trade-Labor Standards Debate," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 19, pages 131-161.
  3. Stuart, Charles E, 1984. "Welfare Costs per Dollar of Additional Tax Revenue in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 352-62, June.
  4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
  5. Ballard, Charles L & Shoven, John B & Whalley, John, 1985. "General Equilibrium Computations of the Marginal Welfare Costs of Taxes in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 128-38, March.
  6. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1981. "Bentham or Nash? On the Acceptable Form of Social Welfare Functions," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 57(158), pages 238-50, September.
  7. Kelsey, David, 1994. "Maxmin Expected Utility and Weight of Evidence," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 425-44, July.
  8. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1950. "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 328.
  9. Wood, Adrian, 1997. "Openness and Wage Inequality in Developing Countries: The Latin American Challenge to East Asian Conventional Wisdom," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 11(1), pages 33-57, January.
  10. Waldman, Michael, 1994. "Systematic Errors and the Theory of Natural Selection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 482-97, June.
  11. Blackorby, Charles & Donaldson, David, 1978. "Measures of relative equality and their meaning in terms of social welfare," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 59-80, June.
  12. Browning, Edgar K & Johnson, William R, 1984. "The Trade-Off between Equality and Efficiency," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(2), pages 175-203, April.
  13. Kenneth Hanson & Kenneth Reinert, 1997. "The Distributional Effects of U.S. Textile and Apparel Protection," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12.
  14. Parks, Robert P, 1976. "An Impossibility Theorem for Fixed Preferences: A Dictatorial Bergson-Samuelson Welfare Function," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 447-50, October.
  15. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59, pages 371.
  16. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279.
  17. Kemp, Murray C & Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1976. "On the Existence of Social Welfare Functions, Social Orderings and Social Decision Functions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 43(169), pages 59-66, February.
  18. Ballard, Charles L, 1988. "The Marginal Efficiency Cost of Redistribution," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1019-33, December.
  19. Easterlin, Richard A, 2001. "Income and Happiness: Towards an Unified Theory," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 465-84, July.
  20. Fair, Ray C, 1971. "The Optimal Distribution of Income," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 551-79, November.
  21. Boskin, Michael J & Sheshinski, Eytan, 1978. "Optimal Redistributive Taxation when Individual Welfare Depends upon Relative Income," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 92(4), pages 589-601, November.
  22. David Dickinson & J. Tiefenthaler, . "What is fair? Experimental evidence," Working Papers 2000-04, Utah State University, Department of Economics.
  23. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1975. "Bentham or Bergson? Finite Sensibility, Utility Functions and Social Welfare Functions," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(4), pages 545-69, October.
  24. Adelman, Irma & Robinson, Sherman, 1988. "Macroeconomic adjustment and income distribution : Alternative models applied to two economies," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 23-44, July.
  25. Mussa, Michael, 1974. "Tariffs and the Distribution of Income: The Importance of Factor Specificity, Substitutability, and Intensity in the Short and Long Run," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(6), pages 1191-1203, Nov.-Dec..
  26. Clark, Colin, 1973. "The Marginal Utility of Income," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 145-59, July.
  27. Alexander, Sidney S, 1974. "Social Evaluation through Notional Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 597-624, November.
  28. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60, pages 151.
  29. John C. Harsanyi, 1953. "Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61, pages 434.
  30. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2001. "Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998 (series updated to 2000 available)," NBER Working Papers 8467, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  31. Hansson, Ingemar & Stuart, Charles, 1990. "Malthusian Selection of Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 529-44, June.
  32. Thurow, Lester C, 1971. "The Income Distribution as a Pure Public Good," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 327-36, May.
  33. Gary Burtless, 1986. "The work response to a guaranteed income: a survey of experimental evidence," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 30, pages 22-59.
  34. Deraniyagala, Sonali & Fine, Ben, 2001. "New Trade Theory versus Old Trade Policy: A Continuing Enigma," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(6), pages 809-25, November.
  35. Levy, Santiago & van Wijnbergen, Sweder, 1995. "Transition Problems in Economic Reform: Agriculture in the North American Free Trade Agreement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 738-54, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ece:dispap:2006_4. 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: (Robert Shelburne)

The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Robert Shelburne to update the entry or send us the correct address

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.