IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

What does the eclectic trade model say about the Samuelson conundrum?

Can growth of a trading partner harm a country? This paper seeks to answer this question through the use of an eclectic trade model which is similar in flavour to Markusen (1986). This paper makes two contributions. First, it develops a simple and tractable model of international trade based on a combination of imperfectcompetition, comparative advantage, and identical but non-homothetic preferences in a three country framework. Second, it uses this framework to consider the possibility of losses from partner-country growth in a free-trading environment. We find that the presence of nonhomothetic preferences in particular, leads to a home bias in consumption which dampens any negative welfare effects when a country's trading partners grow.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department in its series Working Papers with number 578283.

in new window

Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:lan:wpaper:578283
Contact details of provider: Postal:

Phone: +44 (1524) 594601
Fax: +44 (1524) 594244
Web page:

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. Krugman, Paul R., 1979. "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 469-479, November.
  2. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1975. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 64, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  3. Kiminori Matsuyama, 2000. "A Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods under Nonhomothetic Preferences: Demand Complementarities, Income Distribution, and North-South Trade," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(6), pages 1093-1120, December.
  4. Devashish Mitra & Vitor Trindade, 2005. "Inequality and trade," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(4), pages 1253-1271, November.
  5. Jagdish Bhagwati, 1958. "Immiserizing Growth: A Geometrical Note," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 201-205.
  6. Markusen, James R, 1986. "Explaining the Volume of Trade: An Eclectic Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1002-11, December.
  7. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-16, March.
  8. Wacziarg, Romain & Seddon, Jessica, 2000. "Trade Liberalization and Intersectoral Labor Movements," Research Papers 1652, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  9. Donghoon Lee & Kenneth I. Wolpin, 2006. "Intersectoral Labor Mobility and the Growth of the Service Sector," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 1-46, 01.
  10. Krugman, Paul R, 1981. "Intraindustry Specialization and the Gains from Trade," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 959-73, October.
  11. Jagdish Bhagwati & Arvind Panagariya & T. N. Srinivasan, 1998. "Lectures on International Trade, 2nd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262522470, December.
  12. Hunter, Linda, 1991. "The contribution of nonhomothetic preferences to trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3-4), pages 345-358, May.
  13. Paul A. Samuelson, 2001. "A Ricardo-Sraffa Paradigm Comparing Gains from Trade in Inputs and Finished Goods," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(4), pages 1204-1214, December.
  14. Nancy L. Stokey, 1991. "The Volume and Composition of Trade Between Rich and Poor Countries," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(1), pages 63-80.
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:lan:wpaper:578283. 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: (Giorgio Motta)

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.