Post on 05-Jan-2016
Globalization, Growth, and Trade
Lectures 13-14: Specific Factors Model (SFM)
1
Overview - TodayMotivation: Bringing ‘structure’ of economy into
trade discussion, a quick look at global export shares and comparative advantage
Overview of the Specific Factors Model (SFM)Analytical pieces of the SFM
Production function Production possibility frontierProduction function and implied factor returns4 quadrant model (labor, 2 production functions, possibility
frontier)
Trade, production and factor payments in the SFMAnalysis: winners and losers from global market
shocks
2
3
Primary product export shares
Latin Am: 50% avg., but 85% for Andean countries60% of Mercosur inc. Bolivia and Chile; Over 65%: Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
Under 40% - Costa Rica and MexicoComparative advantage of most of LA is clear
S.S. Africa: most countries are mainly primary exporters4 countries with <70% (Togo, Senegal, South Africa, Mauritius)6 with 70-80% share (Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Niger, Zambia,
Zimbabwe)
The other 25 have > 80% primary export share
4
Comparative Advantage Comparisons
If export shares => comp advantage, then most of L Am & Africa have comparative advantage in primary products.
What implications might this have for development?
Why does it matter to poverty?Recall that Yh = wLh + rKh: how would expanding
primary products shape household incomes? What does your answer depend on?
Why might you be concerned about the poverty implications of comparative advantage in primary products versus manufacturing?
We can get more on this once we dig further into our next trade model
5
Political economy implicationsHO-SS predicts aggregate gains from trade,
but also losses for some groups--> Functional (self-interest) basis for some positions on trade: Owners of abundant factors in favorOwners of scarce factors opposedExamples?
6
Overview of Specific Factors Model (SFM)
2 good model (like H-O)But capital (or natural resource) is specific to
sectors (cannot be moved to other sector)Does this make sense? Can a coffee farm become a clothing factory in short term? In long term?
In SFM, only labor is mobile between sectorsUse SFM to study how changes in trade patterns,
FDI, and technology affect economic structure and incomes when factor-specificity limits adjustment
Helps us to see winners and losers from trade in a slightly different way.
Production function – 1 sectorFactors of productionProduction functionDiminishing returnsVMP and factor payments
8
9
Labor days
Rice (tons)
ƒx(L, K)
• Constant returns to scale in (L,K), so dim. returns to L when quantity of K is fixed
0 10 20 30 40
282725
20
Production Function
10
Labor days
Rice (tons)
ƒx(L, K)
• Constant returns to scale in (L,K), so dim. returns to L when quantity of K is fixed (irrigated paddy)
0 10 20 30 40
282725
20
ƒx(L, K+)
11
Lx0 Lx
X
X0
0
ƒx(K,L)
• Assume: wage = value of labor’s marginal product• Return on labor (= wage) = slope of tangent to function• Return on stock of sector-specific capital is height 0πx = (rx/px)Kx
slope = w/px
X = (w/px)Lx + πx
Revenue = costs
X*px = w*Lx + rx*Kx
or: X = (w/px)Lx + πx
where: πx = (rx/px)*Kx
πx
Calculating Factor Returns
(Derivation of factor returns) Total revenue of the firm: pxX = wL + rxKx
By assumption, the value of output is fully divided between workers and capital owners
Dividing both sides by px:
X = (w/px)L + (r/px)Kx
= (w/px)L + πxNote: w/px is known as the product wage in sector
X
Distribution between L and K: X – (w/px)L = πxHigher wage (steeper slope on w/px) implies lower
profit share. Flatter slope implies higher profit share12
The specific factors model
Assume 2 goods, X and MEach sector uses specific capital, Kx, Km
--> prod’n fns yj = ƒj(L, Kj), j = X, MLabor is ‘mobile’ (can be reallocated) between
X and M productionTotal labor force is fixed and fully employed:
L = Lx + Lm
In equilibrium, same wage offered in both sectorsFor given Kx and Km, when labor is fully employed,
can only increase output (create jobs) in one industry by reducing output (destroying jobs) in the other
13
14
ƒm(Lm,Km)
ƒx(Lx,Kx)
L 50
50 L
M
X
Labor constraint
Prod’n Poss. Frontier, Maps total production possible given PFs and labor
45o
0
General Equilibrium – Supply Side
Production function x
Production function M
15
L
L
M
X
LA
45o
MA
XA
uA
pA
Lm
Lx
0• •
•
•
Autarky (no trade)
16
L
L
M
XXT
MT
LT
p*
uT
0
LA
MA
XA
uA
pA
Lm
Lx
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
From Autarky to Tradep* > pA
MT < MA
LMT < LM
A
… uT = uA
LT = LA
Trade, income, distribution in SFM
Integration with world economy raises aggregate real income & cons. welfare
Structure of production and labor allocation change in predictable ways
What happens to returns to specific factors? (hint: Stolper-Samuelson - see notes from Week 1)
What happens to the real wage?
17
18
L
L
M
X
45o
LA
YT
LT
uA
pA
pT
uT
0
Compare old and new incomes at constant prices!
YA
Aggregate Income
(Aggregate income change)
YT = aggregate income from production of the combination (XT, MT) valued at world prices pT, measured in terms of good X (the value of X that could be bought with that much income)
Compare: YA = aggregate income from production of the combination (XA, MA), valued at world prices pT, measured in terms of good X
YT > YA says the economy is better off in aggregate
19
20
L
L
M
X
45o
LA
LT
pA
pT
0
MA
MT
XA
XT
slope = (w/pM)A
(w/pM)T
(Changes in factor payments)Moving from autarky to trade raises X output and
employment, lowers M output and employmentDemand for KX rises; πX
T > πXA
Demand for KM falls; πMT > πM
A
Demand for L in M falls; with KM fixed , law of diminishing returns says that productivity of remaining workers rises, so (w/pM)A < (w/pM)T
Demand for L in X rises; with KX fixed, (w/pX)A > (w/pX)T
Are workers better off or worse off?
21
22
Capitalists (Km)
Landowners (Kx)
Workers
(L)
Effect of rise in px on nominal inc.
Effect of rise in px on real inc.
(a) When consume mostly X
(b) When consume mostly M
Comparative Advantage in Agriculture
23
Capitalists (Km)
Landowners (Kx)
Workers
(L)
Effect of rise in px on nominal inc.
lose gain gain
Effect of rise in px on real inc.
(a) When consume mostly X
lose gain lose?
(b) When consume mostly M
lose gain gain?
Comparative Advantage in Agriculture
24
Capitalists (Kx)
Landowners (Km)
Workers
(L)
Effect of rise in px on nom. income
Effect of rise in px on real inc.
(a) When consume mostly X
(b) When consume mostly M
Comparative Advantage in Manufacturing
25
Capitalists (Kx)
Landowners (Km)
Workers
(L)
Effect of rise in px on nom. income
gain lose gain
Effect of rise in px on real inc.
(a) When consume mostly X
gain lose lose?
(b) When consume mostly M
gain lose gain?
Comparative Advantage in Manufacturing
Distributional & poverty effects
Real specific factor returns follow own prices: for a rise in px/pm, πx will rise, πm will fall
Real wage change is indeterminate:Wage rises rel. to pm, but falls rel. to px
H’hold welfare: aggregate has risen, but
Gains for owners of capital in XLosses for owners of capital in MWorkers’ welfare change is ambiguous
26
DiscussionIf we have data on asset ownership & cons.
patterns, can compute changes in Rh and poverty for groupsPoverty effects depend on distribution of assets as
well as on changes in payments such as wages and rents
Notice that we have assumed labor is mobile between sectors. Realistic? What if it is not?
SFM vs H-O: which is more realistic? When?
What about more complex models, for example with some endogenous product prices (nontradables?)See next class…
27