International economics

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  International economics asks a deceptively simple question: why do nations trade at all? The answer, it turns out, involves arguments about comparative advantage that David Ricardo first set out two centuries ago, theorems about wages that have rattled factory workers in rich countries, and a maze of tariffs, quotas, and voluntary restraint agreements that governments have used to protect their industries from the world market. Beneath all of it runs a tension that economists and policy-makers have never fully resolved: trade creates net benefits that are large and measurable, yet the losses fall unevenly, and the people who bear them are seldom the ones who pocket the gains. The field splits into several overlapping branches. International trade tracks the flow of goods and services across borders. International finance watches capital move between countries and reads the consequences in exchange rates. International monetary economics and macroeconomics study what happens to whole economies when money crosses frontiers. And international political economy examines the conflicts, sanctions, and negotiations that shape the rules under which all of it unfolds. Together, those branches map the most consequential economic relationships on earth, and the questions they ask have only grown more urgent as global integration has advanced.

• 2. Comparative Advantage

  ›

  Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage gave economists their first rigorous explanation for why nations trade even when one of them can produce everything more efficiently than the other. From that starting point, neo-classical economists built a succession of formal models, each resting on assumptions that grew steadily more restrictive. The best-known result is the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, which strips away differences in technology, productivity, and consumer preferences, removes all barriers to competition and free trade, and eliminates scale economies. On those bare assumptions, the model predicts that a country rich in capital will export capital-intensive goods and import labour-intensive ones. The prediction turned out to be badly wrong in practice. The economist Wassily Leontief showed that the United States, despite being one of the most capital-rich economies in the world, was exporting labour-intensive products and importing capital-intensive ones. That finding, known as the Leontief Paradox, undermined the H-O theorem's predictive power, though economists continued using its mathematical techniques to derive further results. Two of those results proved especially influential. The Stolper-Samuelson theorem, treated as a corollary of H-O, states that a rise in the price of a good will raise the return to the factor used most intensively in producing it, while the return to the other factor falls. In the context of international trade, that means open trade lowers the real wage of a country's scarce factor and raises it when trade is restricted. Samuelson's factor price equalisation theorem follows from the same logic: as trade pushes product prices toward equality across countries, it also pushes the prices paid to labour and capital toward equality. Those theorems fed anxieties in wealthy countries about trade with low-wage developing nations, even though the conclusions rest on the unlikely assumption that productivity is the same in both places.

• 3. Modern Trade Analysis

  ›

  Modern trade economics departed from the H-O framework by taking technology and scale economies seriously as drivers of trade patterns. Researchers turned to econometrics, mining statistics to isolate the contribution of individual factors among the many variables that shape trade. One instrument they reached for frequently was the gravity equation, which models trade volumes as a function of economic size and distance between countries. Studies using these methods found that research and development spending, patents, and the availability of skilled labour are reliable markers of technological leadership. Countries that lead in technology tend to export high-technology goods and receive imports of more standardised products in return. A separate econometric study linked country size to the share of exports composed of goods with strong scale economies. That same study sketched a three-part taxonomy of traded goods. First are what the study called Ricardo goods: commodities such as coal, oil, and wheat, extracted and processed from natural resources, in which developing countries often hold an advantage. Second are Heckscher-Ohlin goods, low-technology products such as textiles and steel, which tend to settle in countries whose factor endowments suit them. Third are high-technology and high-scale-economy goods, among them computers and aeroplanes, whose comparative advantage flows from proximity to R&D resources, specialised skills, and large sophisticated markets. Paul Samuelson proved, under assumptions of constant returns and competitive conditions, that the gains from trade are in principle large enough for the winners to compensate the losers. An OECD study added that further dynamic gains flow from better resource allocation, deeper specialisation, growing returns to R&D, and technology spillovers. The authors found that a one per cent increase in openness to trade raises GDP per capita by between 0.9 per cent and 2.0 per cent.

• 4. Trade Policies and Barriers

  ›

  Average tariff levels stood at around fifteen per cent in the late nineteenth century before climbing to about thirty per cent in the 1930s, partly driven by the passage in the United States of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Decades of multilateral negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and later the World Trade Organization, pulled those levels down to roughly seven per cent during the second half of the twentieth century. Yet the trade restrictions that remained were far from trivial. The World Bank estimated in 2004 that eliminating all trade restrictions would yield benefits of more than five hundred billion dollars a year by 2015. The most distorting policies concentrated in agriculture. In OECD countries, government payments accounted for thirty per cent of farmers' receipts, and tariffs above one hundred per cent were common. OECD economists calculated that cutting all agricultural tariffs and subsidies by fifty per cent would add twenty-six billion dollars to annual world income. When quotas were banned under GATT rules, the United States, Britain, and the European Union turned to voluntary restraint agreements and voluntary export restraints, negotiated mainly with Japan, until those arrangements were banned as well. Tariffs are generally considered less damaging than quotas, though the difference in welfare effects only becomes significant when import volumes are trending sharply up or down. The concept of infant industry protection sits at the heart of one longstanding debate. The term describes a new industry that could eventually gain comparative advantage but cannot survive early competition from imports. South Korea's automobile sector is cited as a case where initial import protection proved successful. A study of Turkey's experience, however, found no association between productivity gains and the degree of protection applied, undermining the argument that import substitution reliably works. Another study found that most attempts at import substitution industrialisation since the 1970s had failed, while the evidence remained contradictory overall.

• 5. Capital Flows and Exchange Rates

  ›

  At the end of the Second World War, the nations that signed the Bretton Woods Agreement committed to fixed exchange rates pegged to the United States dollar, and the American government undertook to buy gold on demand at thirty-five dollars per ounce. Most signatories maintained strict controls over their citizens' use of foreign exchange and access to international financial assets. That system collapsed in 1971 when the United States suspended the convertibility of the dollar, setting off a progressive transition to floating exchange rates. The consequences were profound. Exchange rates became highly volatile, and a long series of financial crises followed. One study counted 112 banking crises in 93 countries by the end of the twentieth century; another recorded 26 banking crises, 86 currency crises, and 27 episodes that combined both. Milton Friedman had argued in the 1950s that instability under flexible exchange rates would mainly reflect underlying macroeconomic instability, not the exchange rate regime itself. An empirical analysis from 1999 found no apparent connection between the two. The 1997 Asian financial crisis, the Russian government default of 1998 that brought down the Long-Term Capital Management hedge fund, and the 2007-8 sub-prime mortgages crisis all demonstrated how tightly interconnected the international financial system had become. A 2006 working paper from the International Monetary Fund surveyed the evidence on the liberalisation of capital movements and found little support either for its claimed benefits or for the argument that it caused the wave of crises. The authors suggested that countries meeting threshold conditions of financial competence could achieve net gains, while others faced delayed benefits and heightened vulnerability to sudden stops in capital flows.

• 6. Migration and Labour

  ›

  Wage differences between developed and developing countries turn out to be largely matched by corresponding differences in productivity. A 1999 study found that international wage disparities tracked productivity gaps fairly closely, with remaining discrepancies likely reflecting exchange rate misalignments or labour market inflexibilities. A Copenhagen Consensus study estimated that if the share of foreign workers grew to three per cent of the labour force in rich countries, global benefits would reach 675 billion dollars a year by 2025. Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom pointed in a more modest direction: economic benefits to receiving countries appeared relatively small, and the presence of immigrants produced only minor downward pressure on local wages. From the developing country side, the emigration of skilled workers drains human capital, a phenomenon known as brain drain. Remittances sent home by emigrants partly offset that loss, as does the education and skills that some migrants bring back on their return. One study introduced the idea of brain gain, arguing that the prospect of emigration encourages enrolment in education, potentially counteracting the human capital lost to emigration. Evidence from Armenia complicated that picture, suggesting that remittances can also act as a resource that makes the migration process easier for new emigrants, deepening rather than reducing outflows. In sectors where skilled emigration is concentrated, the damage can be severe: cases where roughly half of trained doctors have left their home country have had consequences the source describes as catastrophic. Since 1973, government policies have tried to restrict migration flows, often diverting them into illegal channels and false asylum claims. The OECD has identified the return of migrants and their reinvestment in home countries as a crucial variable, leading European governments to focus increasingly on facilitating temporary skilled migration alongside remittance flows.

• 7. Globalisation and Its Critics

  ›

  Globalisation, in economic terms, describes the movement toward complete mobility of capital, labour, and their products, with the world's economies converging toward full integration. The main forces driving it are reductions in politically imposed barriers and in the costs of transport. Financial markets moved fastest: globalisation of finance is estimated to have tripled since the mid-1970s. That integration improved risk-sharing, but only in developed countries; in developing countries it increased macroeconomic volatility. An IMF report on the period 1981 to 2004 found that the rise in inequality in developing countries over those years was due entirely to technological change, with globalisation making a partially offsetting negative contribution. In developed countries, the IMF found globalisation and technological change to be equally responsible for growing inequality. The process is far from complete. By some measures the world is less integrated today than it was before the First World War, and a number of Middle East countries are less globalised than they were twenty-five years ago. Professor Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University has criticised the conditions the IMF imposes on countries seeking its loans, and has argued the case for infant industry protection in developing countries. Professor Dani Rodrik of Harvard has pointed to the uneven distribution of globalisation's benefits and to the social capital losses it has caused in countries of origin and the social stresses it has generated in receiving countries. Martin Wolf has written an extensive critical analysis of those arguments. Professor Jagdish Bhagwati surveyed the broader debate among economists, a body of argument that remains unresolved on several fronts even as the IMF's 2006 capital-liberalisation findings gave new weight to the sceptics.