IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pen/papers/04-035.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Size Does Matter: International Trade and Population Size

Author

Listed:
  • Yochanan Shachmurove

    (The City College of The City University of New York and the University of Pennsylvania)

  • Uriel Spiegel

    (Department of Economics, Bar Ilan University)

Abstract

Classical theory of international trade has long advocated trade liberalization and open borders. However, this process is not necessarily beneficial to all countries involved. This paper focuses on two modeled economies that initially share the same technology and per-capita income, but differ in population size. With trade, the profit of the large duopolist is reduced to the benefit of the duopoly in the smaller country, as the large country is no longer able to benefit from its larger population. This may explain why one country would want to open trade with high barriers while another country would prefer low barriers.

Suggested Citation

  • Yochanan Shachmurove & Uriel Spiegel, 2004. "Size Does Matter: International Trade and Population Size," PIER Working Paper Archive 04-035, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    • Handle: RePEc:pen:papers:04-035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/filevault/working-papers/04-035.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shachmurove, Yochanan & Spiegel, Uriel, 1995. "On Nations' Size and Transportation Costs," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 235-243, June.
    2. Collie, David R, 1997. "Bilateralism Is Good: Trade Blocs and Strategic Export Subsidies," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 504-520, October.
    3. Krugman, Paul R, 1987. "Is Free Trade Passe?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 131-144, Fall.
    4. Fujimoto, Hiroaki & Park, Eun-Soo, 1997. "Optimal export subsidy when demand is uncertain," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 383-390, September.
    5. Brander, James A., 1995. "Strategic trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1395-1455, Elsevier.
    6. Kanbur, Ravi & Keen, Michael, 1993. "Jeux Sans Frontieres: Tax Competition and Tax Coordination When Countries Differ in Size," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(4), pages 877-892, September.
    7. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    8. Rassekh, Farhad, 1994. "An Evaluation of Batra's "Fallacy of Free Trade."," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(1), pages 76-84, February.
    9. Krugman, Paul & Elizondo, Raul Livas, 1996. "Trade policy and the Third World metropolis," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 137-150, April.
    10. Krugman, Paul R., 1989. "Industrial organization and international trade," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 20, pages 1179-1223, Elsevier.
    11. Ohsawa, Yoshiaki, 1999. "Cross-border shopping and commodity tax competition among governments," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 33-51, January.
    12. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 83-100, February.
    13. Batra, Ravi, 1992. "The Fallacy of Free Trade," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 19-31, November.
    14. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yochanan Shachmurove & Uriel Spiegel, 2005. "A Monopoly Reason Why Autarky Might Be Best For A Large Country," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 73(3), pages 269-280, June.
    2. Mario Marazzi, 2002. "On the fragility of gains from trade under continuously differentiated bertrand competition," International Finance Discussion Papers 735, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    3. Kresimir Zigic, 2011. "Strategic Interactions in Markets with Innovative Activity: The Cases of Strategic Trade Policy and Market Leadership," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b06, May.
    4. Zhang, Anming & Zhang, Yimin, 1998. "An analysis of import protection as export promotion under economies of scale," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 199-219, April.
    5. Dewit, Gerda & Leahy, Dermot, 2004. "Rivalry in uncertain export markets: commitment versus flexibility," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 195-209, October.
    6. Fujimoto, Hiroaki & Park, Eun-Soo, 1997. "Optimal export subsidy when demand is uncertain," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 383-390, September.
    7. Neary, J Peter & Leahy, Dermot, 2000. "Strategic Trade and Industrial Policy towards Dynamic Oligopolies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 484-508, April.
    8. C. S. C. Sekhar, 2010. "Structure of the World Wheat Market: Some Implications for Strategic Trade Policy?," Journal of Quantitative Economics, The Indian Econometric Society, vol. 8(2), pages 142-158.
    9. Øystein Foros & Hans Kind & Lars Sørgard, 2009. "Domestic Regulation and International Trade," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Janeba, Eckhard, 1998. "Tax competition in imperfectly competitive markets," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 135-153, February.
    11. Brander, James A., 1995. "Strategic trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1395-1455, Elsevier.
    12. Stiegert, Kyle W. & Wang, Shinn-Shyr, 2003. "Imperfect Competition And Strategic Trade Theory: What Have We Learned," Working Papers 14589, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    13. Ian M. Sheldon, 2021. "Reflections on a Career as an Industrial Organization and International Economist," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 468-499, June.
    14. Haufler, Andreas & Pflüger, Michael, 2003. "Market structure and the taxation of international trade," Discussion Papers in Economics 106, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    15. Iñaki Aguirre, 1999. "Information transmission and incentives not to price discriminate," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 1(3), pages 283-299.
    16. Reimer, Jeffrey J. & Stiegert, Kyle W., 2006. "Evidence on Imperfect Competition and Strategic Trade Theory," Staff Paper Series 498, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    17. Sabien Dobbelaere & Jacques Mairesse, 2013. "Panel data estimates of the production function and product and labor market imperfections," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 1-46, January.
    18. Magnus Hoffmann & Grégoire Rota‐Graziosi, 2020. "Endogenous timing in the presence of non‐monotonicities," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 359-402, February.
    19. Abbassi, Abdessalem & Tamini, Lota D. & Dakhlaoui, Ahlem, 2013. "Production Cost Asymmetry, Minimum Access and Reciprocal Dumping," Working Papers 161214, University of Laval, Center for Research on the Economics of the Environment, Agri-food, Transports and Energy (CREATE).
    20. Hiroshi Aiura & Hikaru Ogawa, 2019. "Indirect taxes in a cross-border shopping model: a monopolistic competition approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 128(2), pages 147-175, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Duopoly; Free Trade; Protectionism; Population Size; Nash Equilibrium;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pen:papers:04-035. 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: Administrator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deupaus.html .

    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.