Tema 3 (FT)

Gains and Losses from Trade in the Specific-
Factors Model
Chapter 3
© 2021 Worth Publishers

International Economics, 5e | Feenstra/Taylor 1
Questions to Consider
1. Do you personally gain from inexpensive

imported goods?
2. Besides you, who gains and who loses from
trade?
3. What government policies can help firms and
workers that lose from trade?

Introduction (part 1)
• In December 2005, Evo Morales became the first

Aymara Indian elected as president in Bolivia’s
180-year history.
– The new constitution (2009) gave indigenous people
control over natural resources in their territories.
– The export of natural gas generated gains for the
foreign-owned and state-owned companies that sold
the resources, but the indigenous peoples did not
historically share in those gains.
– A key lesson from this chapter is that in most cases,
opening a country to trade generates winners and
losers.

Introduction (part 2)
• The argument from the Ricardian model that trade generates

gains for all workers is too simple because labor is the only
factor of production in that model.
• We relax that assumption with the specific-factors model,
where land can be used only in the agriculture sector and
capital can be used only in the manufacturing sector; labor is
used in both sectors.
• From the Ricardian model, we learned that free trade affects
relative prices, and this in turn affects the earnings of factors
of production.
• The question addressed by the specific-factors model is how
trade, through changes in relative prices, affects the earnings
of labor, land, and capital.
1) Specific-Factors Model (part 1)
• The specific-factors model we will develop has

the following features:
– Once again there are two countries: Home and
Foreign.
– Manufacturing uses labor and capital, and
agriculture uses labor and land.
– In each industry, increases in the amount of labor
used are subject to diminishing returns; that is, the
marginal product of labor declines as the amount of
labor used in the industry increases.
– For now let’s focus on the Home country.

• The Home Country FIGURE 3-1
Panel (a) Manufacturing Output As Panel (b) Diminishing Marginal

more labor is used, manufacturing output Product of Labor An increase in the
increases, but it does so at a diminishing amount of labor used in manufacturing
rate. lowers the marginal product of labor.

• The Home Country

• Production Possibilities Frontier
FIGURE 3-2
Production Possibilities
Frontier
The production
possibilities frontier
shows the amount of
agricultural and
manufacturing outputs
that can be produced in
the economy with labor.


• Opportunity Cost and Prices
– As in the Ricardian model, the slope of the PPF
equals the opportunity cost or relative price of the
good on the horizontal axis; here it is manufacturing.
– Firms hire labor up to the point where the cost of one
more hour of labor (the wage) equals the value of
one more hour of labor in production.
𝑊 = 𝑃! $ 𝑀𝑃𝐿!
𝑊 = 𝑃" $ 𝑀𝑃𝐿"


• Opportunity Cost and Prices
FIGURE 3-3 In the absence of international trade, the
economy produces and consumes at
point A.
The relative price of manufactures, PM/PA,
is the slope of the line tangent to the PPF
and indifference curve U1, at point A.
With international trade, the economy is
able to produce at point B and consume
at point C.
The world relative price of manufactures,
(PM/PA)W, is the slope of the line BC.
The rise in utility from U1 to U2 is a
measure of the gains from trade for the
economy.

• The Foreign Country

– Let us assume that the Home no-trade relative
price of manufacturing is lower than the Foreign
relative price.
𝑃! ⁄𝑃" < 𝑃∗! ⁄𝑃∗"
– This means that Home can produce
manufactured goods relatively cheaper than
Foreign.
– Put another way, Home has a comparative
advantage in manufacturing.
• Overall Gains from Trade

– The good whose relative price goes up
(manufacturing, for Home) is exported.
– The good whose relative price goes down
(agriculture, for Home) is imported.
– By exporting manufactured goods at a higher
price and importing food at a lower price, Home
is better off than it was in the absence of trade.

APPLICATION: How Large Are the Gains
from Trade? (part 1)
• There are a few historical examples of countries that have
moved from autarky (i.e., no trade) to free trade, or vice
versa, quickly enough to estimate the gains from trade.
• One episode occurred in the United States between
December 1807 and March 1809.
• The U.S. Congress imposed a nearly complete halt on
international trade at the request of President Thomas
Jefferson.
• A complete stop of all trade is called an embargo. As you
might expect, U.S. trade fell dramatically during this period. It
is estimated that U.S. GDP was 5% lower than it would have
been without the trade embargo.

APPLICATION: How Large Are the Gains
from Trade? (part 2)
• There are a few historical examples of countries

that have moved from autarky (i.e., no trade) to free
trade, or vice versa, quickly enough to estimate the
gains from trade.
– Another historical case was Japan’s rapid opening to
the world economy in 1854, after 200 years of self-
imposed autarky.
– The gains were not one-sided, however; Japan’s
trading partners—such as the United States—also
gained from being able to trade in the newly opened
markets.

Country Trade/GDP (%) Gains from Trade (%) Adjusted Gains (%)
Malaysia 116% 74% 219%

Hungary 81 87 166
Thailand 75 51 89
Switzerland 65 135 111
Austria 56 104 96
Denmark 54 79 75
Sweden 50 58 55
Germany 44 46 40
APPLICATION:
Norway 38 63 51
South Africa 37 31 42
Canada 33 54 44
How Large Are China

United Kingdom
33
30
13
45
30
32
the Gains from

Indonesia 29 25 36
Italy 29 33 38
Mexico 29 45 34
Trade? (part 3) Spain
Greece
29
28
52
73
53
122
France 28 39 35
Turkey 26 38 41
Russian Federation 26 25 35
Venezuela 25 28 41
India 25 14 21
Argentina 23 28 32
Pakistan 18 37 62
Japan 16 26 21
United States 15 19 14
Brazil 14 10 10
Average 38 48 59

2) Earnings of Labor (part 1)
• Determination of Wages FIGURE 3-4 (1 of 2)
The amount of labor used in manufacturing is measured from left to

right along the horizontal axis, and the amount of labor used in
agriculture is measured from right to left.
• Determination of Wages FIGURE 3-4 (2 of 2)
Labor market equilibrium is at point A. At the equilibrium wage of W,

manufacturing uses 0ML units of labor and agriculture uses 0AL units.

• Change in Relative Price of Manufactures

• Now consider an increase in the price of the
manufactured good (PM).
– With an increase in the price of the
manufactured good the curve PM • MPLM shifts
up.
– Therefore, the labor used in manufacturing rises,
and labor used in agriculture falls.
– The wages also increase, but this increase is
less than the upward shift ∆𝑃! % 𝑀𝑃𝐿!


FIGURE 3-5
Increase in the Price of Manufactured
Goods
With an increase in the price of the
manufactured good, the curve PM • MPLM
shifts up to PM¢ • MPLM and the
equilibrium shifts from point A to B.
The labor used in manufacturing rises
from 0ML to 0ML¢, and labor used in
agriculture falls from 0AL to 0AL¢.
The wage increases from W to W¢, but
this increase is less than the upward shift
DPM • MPLM.


• Effect on Real Wages
– As we can see from Figure 3-5, the increase in the wage
from W to W′ is less than the vertical increase ΔPM • MPLM
– Since ΔW/W < ΔPM /PM , the percentage increase in the
wage is less than the percentage increase in the price of
the manufactured good.
– This inequality means that the amount of the manufactured
good that can be purchased with the wage has fallen.
– Therefore, the real wage in terms of the manufactured good
W/PM has decreased.


• Effect on Real Wages
FIGURE 3-5 Once again, since ΔW/W < ΔPM /PM,
the percentage increase in the wage is
less than the percentage increase in
the price of the manufactured good.
The manufactured good that can be
purchased with the wage has fallen.
Therefore, the real wage in terms of
the manufactured good W/PM has
decreased.


• Overall Impact on Labor
– In the specific-factors model, the increase in the price of the
manufactured good has an ambiguous effect on the real wage
and therefore an ambiguous effect on the well-being of
workers. Although ambiguous, this conclusion is important.
– The result is different from what was found in the Ricardian
model, where labor unambiguously earned a higher real wage.
– This warns us that one cannot make unqualified statements
about the effects of trade on workers.
– The effect of trade on real wages can be complex.

SIDE BAR: Do Poor or Rich Consumers
Gain the Most from Trade?
• There are two channels by which changes in prices due to
international trade affect individuals: through the change in the
prices of goods that they buy (the spending channel) and through
the change in the income that they earn (the earnings channel).
• Considering the spending channel, if the prices of food and
necessities tend to fall due to international trade, then that will
benefit poor consumers the most, because they spend a greater
share of their income on food. It follows that the spending channel
tends to benefit poor consumers the most.
• What about the earnings channel? As we will discuss in Chapter 7,
international trade has tended to raise the incomes of higher-skilled
individuals in the United States as compared to those with fewer
skills. Thus the earnings channel tends to favor richer individuals in
the United States.


• Unemployment in the Specific-Factors Model
– It is hard to combine business cycle models with international
trade models to isolate the effects of trade on workers.
– Once we recognize that workers can find new jobs—possibly in
export industries that are expanding—we still cannot conclude
that trade is necessarily good or bad for workers.
– Next we look at some evidence from the United States on the
amount of time it takes to find new jobs and on the wages
earned; we also look at attempts by governments to
compensate workers who lose their jobs because of import
competition. This type of compensation is called Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in the United States.

APPLICATION: Manufacturing and Services in the
United States: Employment and Wages Across Sectors
(part 1)
FIGURE 3-6 U.S. Manufacturing Sector Employment, 1973–2018
Employment in the U.S. manufacturing sector is shown on the left axis,

and the share of manufacturing employment in total U.S. employment
is shown on the right axis. Both manufacturing employment and its
share in total employment have been falling over time, indicating that
the service sector has been growing.
(part 2)
FIGURE 3-7 (1 of 2) Real Hourly Earnings of Production Workers
This chart shows the real wages

(in constant 2018 dollars)
earned by production workers in
U.S. manufacturing, in all
private services, and in
information services (a subset of
all private services).
Services includes wholesale
and retail trade, finance, law,
education, information
technology, software
engineering, consulting, and
medical and government
services.
(part 3)
FIGURE 3-7 (2 of 2) Real Hourly Earnings of Production Workers (continued)
Although wages were slightly

higher in manufacturing than in
all private services from 1974
through 2007, all private service
wages have been higher since
2008.
This change is due in part to the
effect of wages in the
information service industry,
which are substantially higher
than those in manufacturing.

(part 4)
TABLE 3-2
Job Losses in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 2015–2017
This table shows the number of displaced (or laid-off) workers in manufacturing
and service industries from 2015 to 2017.
Industry Total Displaced PERCENTAGES: PERCENTAGES: Of the PERCENTAGES: Of
Workers (thousands) Workers Reemployed by Workers the Workers
Jan 2015–Dec 2017 Jan 2018 Reemployed: Earn Reemployed: Earn
Less in New Job Same or More in New
Job
Total 2,981 66% 51% 49%
Manufacturing 479 65% 53% 47%
industries
Service 2,239 69% 53% 47%

industries
In the three years from January 2015 to December 2017, about 479,000 workers were displaced in
manufacturing and 2.2 million in all service industries. In manufacturing, 65% were reemployed by
January 2018, and slightly more than one-half (53%) earned less in their new jobs, while slightly less
than one-half (47%) earned the same or more. For services, 69% of workers were reemployed by
January 2018, with the same percentages earning less or more in their new jobs.

APPLICATION: The “China Shock” and
Employment in the United States (part 1)
• In the specific-factors model we assumed that workers leaving one
industry could be absorbed freely into the other.
• After China joined the WTO in 2001, U.S. imports from China grew
rapidly, from 10% of total imports in 2001 to 23% in 2009.
• The large increase in the share of U.S. imports coming from China
and its impact on employment in manufacturing are called the
“China shock.”
• Studies have found that 2 million jobs or more were lost in U.S.
manufacturing industries.
• In reality, we see that with a very large change in prices (as
occurred with the “China shock”), it takes more than one decade for
enough jobs to be created in export industries to balance the losses
in import industries.

FIGURE 3-8 Real U.S. Imports and Exports and the China Share, 1992–2018
Real values (in 2018 dollars) of U.S. nonpetroleum imports (the red line) and
exports (the green line) to the world are shown on the left axis. The share of
U.S. imports coming from China (the orange line) and the share of U.S. exports
going to China (the light green line) are shown on the right axis.

FIGURE 3-9 Decrease in the Price of Manufactured Goods
With a decrease in the

price of manufactured
goods, the curve PM •
MPLM shifts down to
P'M • MPLM and the
equilibrium shifts from
point A to point B. The
amount of labor in
manufacturing falls to
0ML' and the amount
of labor in agriculture
rises to 0AL'. The
wage falls to W'.

FIGURE 3-10 Job Gains and Job Losses in U.S. Manufacturing
Industries,1991–1999, 1999–2011
For the period 1991–1999, estimated job gains due to rising U.S. exports are
shown in green, and the estimated job losses due to rising U.S. imports are
shown in orange. For the period 1999–2011, estimated job gains due to rising
U.S. exports are shown in blue, and the estimated job losses due to rising U.S.
imports are shown in red.

3) Earnings of Capital and Land (part 1)
• Determining the Payments to Capital and Land

• If QM is the output in manufacturing and QA is the
output in agriculture, the revenue earned in each
industry is PM • QM and PA • QA, and the payments
to capital and to land are:
• Payment to capital = 𝑃! % 𝑄! − 𝑊 % 𝐿!
Payments to land = 𝑃" % 𝑄" − 𝑊 % 𝐿"


• The earnings of one unit of capital (a machine, for
instance), which we call RK, and the earnings of an acre
of land, which we call RT, are calculated as:
Payments to capital 𝑃! $ 𝑄! − 𝑊 $ 𝐿!
𝑅# = =
𝐾 𝐾
Payments to land 𝑃" $ 𝑄" − 𝑊 $ 𝐿"
𝑅$ = =
𝑇 𝑇
• Economists call RK the rental on capital and RT the

rental on land.

• Change in the Real Rental on Capital
• As more labor is used in manufacturing, the marginal
product of capital will rise because each machine has
more labor to work it.
• In addition, as labor leaves agriculture, the marginal
product of land will fall because each acre of land has
fewer laborers to work it.
• The general conclusion is that an increase in the quantity
of labor used in an industry will raise the marginal product
of the factor specific to that industry, and a decrease in
labor will lower the marginal product of the specific factor.


• With labor leaving agriculture, the marginal product
of each acre falls, so RT /PA also falls.
• The fact that RT /PA falls means that the real rental
on land in terms of food has gone down, so
landowners cannot afford to buy as much food.
• Thus, landowners are clearly worse off from the rise
in the price of the manufactured good because they
can afford to buy less of both goods.


• Summary
– An increase in the relative price of an industry’s output will
increase the real rental earned by the factor specific to that
industry but will decrease the real rental of factors specific to
other industries.
– This conclusion means that:
• The specific factors used in export industries will generally gain as
trade is opened.
• The relative price of exports rises.
• The specific factors used in import industries will generally lose as
trade is opened and the relative price of imports falls.

𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔: Sales revenue = 𝑃! 7 𝑄! = $100

Payments to labor = 𝑊 7 𝐿! = $60
Payments to capital = 𝑅" 7 𝐾 = $40
𝐴𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒: Sales revenue = 𝑃# 7 𝑄# = $100
Payments to labor = 𝑊 7 𝐿# = $50
Payments to land = 𝑅$ 7 𝑇 = $50
𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔: Percentage increase in price = ∆𝑃! ⁄𝑃! = 10%
𝐴𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒: Percentage increase in price = ∆𝑃# ⁄𝑃# = 0%
𝐵𝑜𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠: Percentage increase in the wage = ∆𝑊 ⁄𝑊 = 5%
Change in the Rental on Capital Change in the Rental on Land

∆𝑃" % 𝑄" − ∆𝑊 % 𝐿" 0 % 𝑄$ − ∆𝑊 % 𝐿$
∆𝑅! = ∆𝑅# =
𝐾 𝑇
∆𝑅! (∆𝑃" /𝑃" ) % 𝑃" % 𝑄" − (∆ 𝑊 ⁄𝑊) % 𝑊 % 𝐿" ∆𝑅# ∆𝑊 𝑊 % 𝐿$
= =−
𝑅! 𝑅! % 𝐾 𝑅# 𝑊 𝑅# % 𝑇
∆𝑅! 10% % 100 − 5% % 60 ∆𝑅# 50

= = 17.5% = −5% = −5%
𝑅! 40 𝑅# 50

General Equation for the Change in Factor Prices

These equations summarize the response of all three factor prices in the
short run, when capital and land are specific to each sector but labor is
mobile.
∆𝑅! /𝑅! < 0 < ∆𝑊 ⁄𝑊 < ∆𝑃- / 𝑃- < ∆ 𝑅6 ⁄𝑅6 , for an increase in 𝑃-
"#$% &#'($% ./$'0# 1' (/# &#$% "#$% &#'($%

)' %$'* +$%%, 2$0# 1, $34105)5, )' 7$81($% &1,#,
∆𝑅6 /𝑅6 < ∆𝑃- /𝑃- < ∆ 𝑊 ⁄𝑊 < 0 < ∆ 𝑅! ⁄𝑅! , for a decrease in 𝑃-
9:;< =:>?;< FG;>H: C> ?G: =:;< 9:;< =:>?;<

@> A;BC?;< D;<<E I;H: CE ;JKCHL@LE @> <;>M =CE:E
∆𝑅6 /𝑅6 < 0 < ∆ 𝑊 ⁄𝑊 < ∆𝑃N / 𝑃N < ∆ 𝑅! ⁄𝑅!, for an increase in 𝑃N
"#$% &#'($% ./$'0# 1' (/# &#$% "#$% &#'($%

)' 7$81($% +$%%, 2$0# 1, $34105)5, )' %$'* &1,#,

APPLICATION: Can Losses to Factors of
Production Be Offset? (part 1)
• Earnings of Labor
– Started in 1962, the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
program provides additional unemployment insurance
payments and health insurance to workers who are laid off
because of import competition.
• Earnings of Capital
– The United States has a TAA program for firms that face strong
competition from imports, providing funds to hire consultants,
engineers, and other industry experts to become more
competitive.
• Earnings of Land
– Governments take action to prevent incomes of farmers from
falling.

FIGURE 3-12 (1 of 2) World Coffee Market, 1984–2017
Real wholesale prices for

coffee fluctuate greatly on
world markets.
Prices (in 2018 dollars)
reached a high of $3.39
per pound in 1986, a low
of $0.63 per pound in
2001, and in 2007 were at
$1.30.

FIGURE 3-12 (2 of 2) World Coffee Market, 1984–2017 (continued)
These erratic price

movements are due to
short-term fluctuations
in the weather and
longer-term
fluctuations in supply
as countries expand
their production.

• Coffee Prices
– Dramatic fluctuations in coffee prices create equally large
movements in the real incomes of farmers, making it difficult for
them to sustain a living.
– One idea that is gaining appeal as a way to help coffee farmers
weather the kind of boom-and-bust cycles that occur regularly
in coffee markets is to sell coffee from developing countries
directly to consumers in developed countries to help ensure a
more stable price for farmers.
– Fair Trade USA is an example of a nongovernmental
organization that is trying to help farmers by raising prices and
allowing the consumer to choose whether to purchase this
higher-priced product.

HEADLINES: Rise in Coffee Prices—
Great for Farmers, Tough on Co-ops
• During the winter and spring of the 2005 harvest, Fairtrade
cooperative managers found it increasingly difficult to get
members to deliver coffee to their own organization at fair-
trade prices.
• Growers were seeing some of the highest prices paid in five
years, and the temptation was great for farmers to sell their
coffee to the highest local bidder, instead of delivering it as
promised to their own co-ops.
• “This price rise, in conjunction with the impact fair trade was
already having, increased the income and living standards of
coffee farmers around the world,” says Christopher Himes,
TransFair USA’s director of certification and finance.

Conclusions (part 1)
• As long as the relative price with international trade differs

from the no-trade relative price, a country will gain from
international trade.
• The change in relative prices due to the opening of trade
creates winners and losers. Some factors of production gain
in real terms, and other factors of production lose.
• The factor that is specific to the importing-competing industry
will lose. That industry suffers a drop in its relative price due
to international trade, which leads to a fall in the real rental
on the specific factor in that industry.
• The specific factor in the export industry, whose relative price
rises with the opening of trade, enjoys an increase in real
rental.
Conclusions (part 2)
• Labor is mobile between the two industries, which

allows it to avoid such extreme changes in wages. Real
wages rise in terms of one good but fall in terms of the
other good, so we cannot tell whether workers are
better off or worse off after a country opens to trade.
• In theory, the gains of individuals as a result of the
opening of trade exceed the losses. That means, in
principle, that the government could tax the winners and
compensate the losers in such a way that everyone
would be better off. This has proven to be very
challenging in practice.

KEY POINTS (part 1)
1. Opening a country to international trade leads

to overall gains, but in a model with several
factors of production, some factors of
production will lose.

KEY POINTS (part 2)
2. The fact that some people are harmed because

of trade sometimes creates social tensions that
may be strong enough to topple governments.
A recent example is Bolivia, where the citizens
in the early 2000s could not agree on how to
share the gains from exporting natural gas.

KEY POINTS (part 3)
3. In the specific-factors model, factors of

production that cannot move between
industries will gain or lose the most from
opening a country to trade. The factor of
production that is specific to the import industry
will lose in real terms, as the relative price of
the import good falls. The factor of production
that is specific to the export industry will gain in
real terms, as the relative price of the export
good rises.

KEY POINTS (part 4)
4. In the specific-factors model, labor can move

between the industries and earns the same
wage in each. When the relative price of either
good changes, then the real wage rises when
measured in terms of one good but falls when
measured in terms of the other good. Without
knowing how much of each good workers
prefer to consume, we cannot say whether
workers are better off or worse off because of
trade.

KEY POINTS (part 5)
5. Economists do not normally count the costs of

unemployment as a loss from trade because
people are often able to find new jobs. In the
United States, for example, about two-thirds of
people who are laid off from manufacturing or
services companies find new jobs within three
years, about one-half at lower wages and about
one-half at the same or higher wages.

KEY POINTS (part 6)
6. The “China shock” refers to the impact on the

U.S. labor market of China joining the World
Trade Organization in 2001. Over 1999–2011,
this shock led to a reduction in jobs within
import and related industries of about 1.7
million workers in the United States. But over
the longer period 1991–2011, the job losses in
imports are nearly balanced with job gains in
exports.

KEY POINTS (part 7)
7. Even when many people are employed in

export activities, such as those involved in
coffee exports from certain developing
countries, fluctuations in the world market price
can lead to large changes in income for
workers in that industry.

KEY TERMS
specific-factors model real wage rental on capital

diminishing returns Engel’s Law rental on land
autarky “China shock” Trade Adjustment
trade embargo services Assistance (TAA)

Clicker Question 1. In the specific-factors model,
labor:
a. can only be used in agriculture.

b. can only be used in manufacturing.
c. is used in both sectors.
d. is freely mobile between countries.

labor: (ANSWER)
a. can only be used in agriculture.

b. can only be used in manufacturing.
c. is used in both sectors. (correct answer)
d. is freely mobile between countries.

Clicker Question 2. Assume that the Home no-trade relative
price of manufacturing is lower than the Foreign relative
price. 𝑃! ⁄𝑃" < 𝑃∗! ⁄𝑃∗" What trade pattern would you
expect?
a. Foreign will import agriculture.

b. Foreign will import manufacturing.
c. Home will export agriculture.
d. There is not enough information to determine
the answer.

Clicker Question 2. Assume that the Home no-trade relative
price of manufacturing is lower than the Foreign relative
price. 𝑃! ⁄𝑃" < 𝑃∗! ⁄𝑃∗" What trade pattern would you
expect? (ANSWER)
a. Foreign will import agriculture.

b. Foreign will import manufacturing. (correct
answer)
c. Home will export agriculture.
the answer.

Clicker Question 3. According to the specific-
factors model, labor resources in each country will
_____ as a result of trade.
a. shift to the import industry

b. shift to the export industry
c. continue to have the same allocation among
industries
d. emigrate to the other country

factors model, labor resources in each country will
_____ as a result of trade. (ANSWER)
a. shift to the import industry

b. shift to the export industry (correct answer)
c. continue to have the same allocation among
industries
d. emigrate to the other country

factors model, the specific factor used in the import
industry will:
a. gain as trade is opened.

b. lose as trade is opened.
c. neither gain nor lose.
the answer.

factors model, the specific factor used in the import
industry will: (ANSWER)
a. gain as trade is opened.

b. lose as trade is opened. (correct answer)
c. neither gain nor lose.
the answer.

workers’ real wages _____ because of trade.
a. increase
b. decrease
c. neither increase nor decrease
d. change in an ambiguous manner

workers’ real wages _____ because of trade.
(ANSWER)
a. increase
b. decrease
c. neither increase nor decrease
d. change in an ambiguous manner (correct
answer)

Discovering Data
In this chapter we discussed the “China shock” and the

effect it had on manufacturing wages in the United States.
Using the data found at the FRED website,
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M08067USM325NNBR:
a. What was the trend in real manufacturing wages during
the period:
– 1991–2001
– 2001–2011
– 2011–2019
b. Does the wage pattern above support the “China shock”
hypothesis? Why or why not?


Tema 3 (FT)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tema 3 (FT)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tema 3 (FT)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gains and Losses from Trade in the Specific-

© 2021 Worth Publishers

1. Do you personally gain from inexpensive

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• In December 2005, Evo Morales became the first

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• The argument from the Ricardian model that trade generates

• The specific-factors model we will develop has

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• The Home Country FIGURE 3-1

Panel (a) Manufacturing Output As Panel (b) Diminishing Marginal

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• The Home Country

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• The Home Country

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• The Home Country

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• The Foreign Country

• Overall Gains from Trade

© 2021 Worth Publishers

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• There are a few historical examples of countries

© 2021 Worth Publishers

Malaysia 116% 74% 219%

How Large Are China

the Gains from

Trade? (part 3) Spain

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• Determination of Wages FIGURE 3-4 (1 of 2)

The amount of labor used in manufacturing is measured from left to

• Determination of Wages FIGURE 3-4 (2 of 2)

Labor market equilibrium is at point A. At the equilibrium wage of W,

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• Change in Relative Price of Manufactures

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• Change in Relative Price of Manufactures

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• Change in Relative Price of Manufactures

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• Change in Relative Price of Manufactures

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• Change in Relative Price of Manufactures

© 2021 Worth Publishers

© 2021 Worth Publishers

• Change in Relative Price of Manufactures

© 2021 Worth Publishers

FIGURE 3-6 U.S. Manufacturing Sector Employment, 1973–2018

Employment in the U.S. manufacturing sector is shown on the left axis,

FIGURE 3-7 (1 of 2) Real Hourly Earnings of Production Workers

This chart shows the real wages

FIGURE 3-7 (2 of 2) Real Hourly Earnings of Production Workers (continued)

Although wages were slightly

© 2021 Worth Publishers

Service 2,239 69% 53% 47%

© 2021 Worth Publishers

© 2021 Worth Publishers

© 2021 Worth Publishers

With a decrease in the

© 2021 Worth Publishers