IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sap/wpaper/wp223.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparative Advantages in the Digital Era: A Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Dario Guarascio
  • Roman Stoellinger

Abstract

This paper revisits the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek (HOV) theorem and investigates its fit for digital tasks and ICT capital, which both represent endowment factors that are expected to shape the digital transformation. We use a theory-consistent methodology for calculating the measured net factor content of trade (Trefler and Zhu, 2010) and apply it to a unique dataset on digital and non-digital tasks performed in detailed occupations, as well as recent data on ICT capital stocks. Equipped with these data we provide new evidence on the factor-based trade patterns for 25 EU countries and use it to test the HOV theorem. Overall, the performance of the sign test and the rank test is good if not impressive. In 83% of the cases countries are net exporters of those factors with which they are abundantly endowed, with a higher score achieved for digital tasks than for ICT capital. We conclude that the fit of the HOV theorem for highly relevant endowments of the digital era is as good as that of traditional endowment factors

Suggested Citation

  • Dario Guarascio & Roman Stoellinger, 2022. "Comparative Advantages in the Digital Era: A Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Approach," Working Papers in Public Economics 223, University of Rome La Sapienza, Department of Economics and Law.
  • Handle: RePEc:sap:wpaper:wp223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://web.uniroma1.it/dip_ecodir/sites/default/files/wpapers/wp223.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timmer, Marcel P. & O'Mahony, Mary & van Ark, Bart, 2007. "Growth and Productivity Accounts from EU KLEMS: An Overview," National Institute Economic Review, National Institute of Economic and Social Research, vol. 200, pages 64-78, April.
    2. Robert Stehrer, 2014. "Does the Home Bias Explain Missing Trade in Factors?," wiiw Working Papers 110, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    3. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    4. Maarten Goos & Alan Manning & Anna Salomons, 2009. "Job Polarization in Europe," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 58-63, May.
    5. Tadashi Ito & Lorenzo Rotunno & Pierre-Louis Vézina, 2017. "Heckscher–Ohlin: Evidence from Virtual Trade in Value Added," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 427-446, August.
    6. Marcel P. Timmer & Mary O’Mahony & Bart van Ark, 2007. "EU KLEMS Growth and Productivity Accounts: An Overview," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 14, pages 71-85, Spring.
    7. Andreas Dür & Leonardo Baccini & Manfred Elsig, 2014. "The design of international trade agreements: Introducing a new dataset," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 353-375, September.
    8. Matilde Mas & Juan Fernandez de Guevara & Juan Carlos Robledo & Montserrat Lopez-Cobo, 2017. "The 2017 PREDICT Key Facts Report. An analysis of ICT R&D in the EU and beyond," JRC Research Reports JRC106658, Joint Research Centre.
    9. Leamer, Edward E, 1980. "The Leontief Paradox, Reconsidered," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(3), pages 495-503, June.
    10. Dosi, Giovanni & Grazzi, Marco & Moschella, Daniele, 2015. "Technology and costs in international competitiveness: From countries and sectors to firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1795-1814.
    11. Armanda Cetrulo & Dario Guarascio & Maria Enrica Virgillito, 2020. "Anatomy of the Italian occupational structure: concentrated power and distributed knowledge [How Europe’s economies learn: a comparison of work organization and innovation mode for the EU-15]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(6), pages 1345-1379.
    12. Lorenz Gschwent & Dario Guarascio & Stefan Jestl & Alireza Sabouniha & Roman Stöllinger, 2023. "Digital Tasks and ICT Capital: Methodologies and Data," wiiw Statistical Reports 11, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    13. Trefler, Daniel & Zhu, Susan Chun, 2010. "The structure of factor content predictions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 195-207, November.
    14. Nicola Cassandro & Marco Centra & Dario Guarascio & Piero Esposito, 2021. "What drives employment–unemployment transitions? Evidence from Italian task-based data," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 38(3), pages 1109-1147, October.
    15. Dario Guarascio & Mario Pianta & Francesco Bogliacino, 2017. "Export, R&D and New Products: A Model and a Test on European Industries," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 393-432, Springer.
    16. Cirillo, Valeria & Evangelista, Rinaldo & Guarascio, Dario & Sostero, Matteo, 2021. "Digitalization, routineness and employment: An exploration on Italian task-based data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    17. Chor, Davin, 2010. "Unpacking sources of comparative advantage: A quantitative approach," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 152-167, November.
    18. J. M. C. Santos Silva & Silvana Tenreyro, 2006. "The Log of Gravity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 641-658, November.
    19. Amat Adarov & Dimitrios Exadaktylos & Mahdi Ghodsi & Robert Stehrer & Roman Stöllinger, 2021. "Production and Trade of ICT from an EU Perspective," wiiw Research Reports 456, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    20. Giovanni Dosi & Keith Pavitt & Luc Soete, 1990. "The Economics of Technical Change and International Trade," LEM Book Series, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, number dosietal-1990, April.
    21. Hakura, Dalia S., 2001. "Why does HOV fail?: The role of technological differences within the EC," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 361-382, August.
    22. Marcel P. Timmer & Erik Dietzenbacher & Bart Los & Robert Stehrer & Gaaitzen J. Vries, 2015. "An Illustrated User Guide to the World Input–Output Database: the Case of Global Automotive Production," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 575-605, August.
    23. A. Cetrulo & D. Guarascio & M. E. Virgillito, 2022. "Working from home and the explosion of enduring divides: income, employment and safety risks," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(2), pages 345-402, July.
    24. Bowen, Harry P & Leamer, Edward E & Sveikauskas, Leo, 1987. "Multicountry, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 791-809, December.
    25. Amat Adarov & Robert Stehrer, 2019. "Tangible and Intangible Assets in the Growth Performance of the EU, Japan and the US," wiiw Research Reports 442, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    26. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
    27. Anderson, James E, 1979. "A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(1), pages 106-116, March.
    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. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi, 2015. "European enlargement policy, technological capabilities and sectoral export dynamics," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 25-69, February.
    2. Dario Guarascio & Philipp Heimberger & Ambre Maucorps & Bernhard Moshammer & Roman Stöllinger, 2022. "Monthly Report No. 06/2022," wiiw Monthly Reports 2022-06, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    3. Harald Oberhofer & Michael Pfaffermayr & Yvonne Wolfmayr, 2021. "Die Auswirkungen des Brexit auf Österreichs Wirtschaft," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 66782, Juni.
    4. Anderson, James E. & Yotov, Yoto V., 2020. "Short run gravity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    5. Morrow, Peter M. & Trefler, Daniel, 2022. "How do endowments determine trade? quantifying the output mix, factor price, and skill-biased technology channels," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    6. Pamela Smith & Xiangwen Kong, 2022. "Intellectual property rights and trade: The exceptional case of GMOs," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 763-811, March.
    7. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Yotov, Yoto V., 2021. "From theory to policy with gravitas: A solution to the mystery of the excess trade balances," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    8. Heid, Benedikt & Stähler, Frank, 2024. "Structural gravity and the gains from trade under imperfect competition: Quantifying the effects of the European Single Market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Santiago Chelala, 2021. "Trade agreements and international technology transfer," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 157(3), pages 631-665, August.
    10. Hausmann, Ricardo & Stock, Daniel P. & Yıldırım, Muhammed A., 2022. "Implied comparative advantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    11. Alonso de Gortari, 2019. "Disentangling Global Value Chains," NBER Working Papers 25868, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Ayman El Dahrawy Sánchez‐Albornoz & Jacopo Timini, 2021. "Trade agreements and Latin American trade (creation and diversion) and welfare," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(7), pages 2004-2040, July.
    13. Andreas Reinstaller & Elisabeth Christen & Harald Oberhofer & Peter Reschenhofer, 2016. "Eine Analyse der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Österreichs im bilateralen Handel mit den USA (TTIP)," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58723, February.
    14. Elhanan Helpman & Marc Melitz & Yona Rubinstein, 2008. "Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(2), pages 441-487.
    15. Anderson, James E. & Vesselovsky, Mykyta & Yotov, Yoto V., 2016. "Gravity with scale effects," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 174-193.
    16. Head, Keith & Mayer, Thierry, 2014. "Gravity Equations: Workhorse,Toolkit, and Cookbook," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 131-195, Elsevier.
    17. Justin Caron & Thibault Fally & James Markusen, 2021. "Per capita income and the demand for skills," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: BROADENING TRADE THEORY Incorporating Market Realities into Traditional Models, chapter 12, pages 251-268, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Gregory Corcos & Massimo Del Gatto & Giordano Mion & Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, 2012. "Productivity and Firm Selection: Quantifying the ‘New’ Gains from Trade," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(561), pages 754-798, June.
    19. Clougherty, Joseph A. & Grajek, Michał, 2014. "International standards and international trade: Empirical evidence from ISO 9000 diffusion," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 70-82.
    20. Mulabdic, Alen & Rotunno, Lorenzo, 2022. "Trade barriers in government procurement," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek theorem; factor content of trade; comparative advantages; digital tasks; ICT capital;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F11 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Neoclassical Models of Trade
    • F14 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Empirical Studies of Trade
    • D57 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Input-Output Tables and Analysis

    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:sap:wpaper:wp223. 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: Luisa Giuriato (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dprosit.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.