克鲁格曼国际经济学第八版上册课后答案Word版
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》第八版课后答案(英文)-Ch05
Chapter 5The Standard Trade ModelChapter OrganizationA Standard Model of a Trading EconomyProduction Possibilities and Relative SupplyRelative Prices and DemandThe Welfare Effect of Changes in the Terms of TradeDetermining Relative PricesEconomic Growth: A Shift of the RS CurveGrowth and the Production Possibility FrontierRelative Supply and the Terms of TradeInternational Effects of GrowthCase Study: Has the Growth of Newly Industrializing Countries Hurt Advanced Nations? International Transfers of Income: Shifting the RD CurveThe Transfer ProblemEffects of a Transfer on the Terms of TradePresumptions about the Terms of Trade Effects of TransfersCase Study: The Transfer Problem and the Asian CrisisTariffs and Export Subsidies: Simultaneous Shifts in RS and RDRelative Demand and Supply Effects of a TariffEffects of an Export SubsidyImplications of Terms of Trade Effects: Who Gains and Who Loses?SummaryAppendix: Representing International Equilibrium with Offer CurvesDeriving a Country’s Offer CurveInternational EquilibriumChapter 5 The Standard Trade Model 17Chapter OverviewPrevious chapters have highlighted specific sources of comparative advantage which give rise to international trade. This chapter presents a general model which admits previous models as special cases. This “standard trade model” is the workhorse of international trade theory and can be used to address a wide range of issues. Some of these issues, such as the welfare and distributional effects of economic growth, transfers between nations, and tariffs and subsidies on traded goods are considered in this chapter. The standard trade model is based upon four relationships. First, an economy will produce at the point where the production possibilities curve is tangent to the relative price line (called the isovalue line). Second, indifference curves describe the tastes of an economy, and the consumption point for that economy is found at the tangency of the budget line and the highest indifference curve. These two relationships yield the familiar general equilibrium trade diagram for a small economy (one which takes as given the terms of trade), where the consumption point and production point are the tangencies of the isovalue line with the highest indifference curve and the production possibilities frontier, respectively.You may want to work with this standard diagram to demonstrate a number of basic points. First, an autarkic economy must produce what it consumes, which determines the equilibrium price ratio; and second, opening an economy to trade shifts the price ratio line and unambiguously increases welfare. Third, an improvement in the terms of trade increases welfare in the economy. Fourth, it is straightforward to move from a small country analysis to a two country analysis by introducing a structure of world relative demand and supply curves which determine relative prices.These relationships can be used in conjunction with the Rybczynski and the Stolper-Samuelson Theorems from the previous chapter to address a range of issues. For example, you can consider whether the dramatic economic growth of countries like Japan and Korea has helped or hurt the United States as a whole, and also identify the classes of individuals within the United States who have been hurt by the particular growth biases of these countries. In teaching these points, it might be interesting and useful to relate them to current events. For example, you can lead a class discussion of the implications for the United States of the provision of forms of technical and economic assistance to the emerging economies around the world or the ways in which a world recession can lead to a fall in demand for U.S. export goods.The example provided in the text considers the popular arguments in the media that growth in Japan or Korea hurts the United States. The analysis presented in this chapter demonstrates that the bias of growth is important in determining welfare effects rather than the country in which growth occurs. The existence of biased growth, and the possibility of immiserizing growth is discussed. The Relative Supply (RS) and Relative Demand (RD) curves illustrate the effect of biased growth on the terms of trade. The new terms of trade line can be used with the general equilibrium analysis to find the welfare effects of growth. A general principle which emerges is that a country which experiences export-biased growth will have a deterioration in its terms of trade, while a country which experiences import-biased growth has an improvement in its terms of trade. A case study points out that growth in the rest of the world has made other countries more like the United States. This import-biased growth has worsened the terms of trade for the United States. The second issue addressed in the context of the standard trade model is the effect of international transfers. The salient point here is the direction, if any, in which the relative demand curve shifts in response to the redistribution of income from a transfer. A transfer worsens the donor’s ter ms of trade if it has a higher marginal propensity to consume its export good than the recipient. The presence of non-traded goods tends to reinforce the deterioration of terms of trade for the donor country. The case study attendant to this issue involves the deterioration of many Asian countries’ terms of trade due to the large capital withdrawals at the end of the 1990s.18 Krugman/Obstfeld •International Economics: Theory and Policy, Eighth EditionThe third area to which the standard trade model is applied are the effects of tariffs and export subsidies on welfare and terms of trade. The analysis proceeds by recognizing that tariffs or subsidies shift both the relative supply and relative demand curves. A tariff on imports improves the terms of trade, expressed in external prices, while a subsidy on exports worsens terms of trade. The size of the effect depends upon the size of the country in the world. Tariffs and subsidies also impose distortionary costs upon the economy. Thus, if a country is large enough, there may be an optimum, non-zero tariff. Export subsidies, however, only impose costs upon an economy. Intranationally, tariffs aid import-competing sectors and hurt export sectors while subsidies have the opposite effect. An appendix presents offer curve diagrams and explains this mode of analysis.Answers to Textbook Problems1.Note how welfare in both countries increases as the two countries move from productionpatterns governed by domestic prices (dashed line) to production patterns governed by worldprices (straight line).2.3. An increase in the terms of trade increases welfare when the PPF is right-angled. The production pointis the corner of the PPF. The consumption point is the tangency of the relative price line and the highest indifference curve. An improvement in the terms of trade rotates the relative price line about its intercept with the PPF rectangle (since there is no substitution of immobile factors, the production point stays fixed). The economy can then reach a higher indifference curve. Intuitively, although there is no supply response, the economy receives more for the exports it supplies and pays less for the imports it purchases.Chapter 5 The Standard Trade Model 19 4. The difference from the standard diagram is that the indifference curves are right angles rather thansmooth curves. Here, a terms of trade increase enables an economy to move to a higher indifference curve. The income expansion path for this economy is a ray from the origin. A terms of tradeimprovement moves the consumption point further out along the ray.5. The terms of trade of Japan, a manufactures (M) exporter and a raw materials (R) importer, is the worldrelative price of manufactures in terms of raw materials (p M/p R). The terms of trade change can be determined by the shifts in the world relative supply and demand (manufactures relative to raw materials) curves. Note that in the following answers, world relative supply (RS) and relative demand (RD) are always M relative to R. We consider all countries to be large, such that changes affect the world relative price.a. Oil supply disruption from the Middle East decreases the supply of raw materials, which increasesthe world relative supply. The world relative supply curve shifts out, decreasing the world relative price of manufactured goods and deteriorating Japan’s terms of t rade.b. Korea’s increased automobile production increases the supply of manufactures, which increasesthe world RS. The world relative supply curve shifts out, decreasing the world relative price ofmanufactured goods and deteriorating Japan’s terms of tr ade.c. U.S. development of a substitute for fossil fuel decreases the demand for raw materials. Thisincreases world RD, and the world relative demand curve shifts out, increasing the world relative price of manufactured goods and improving Japan’s terms of trade. This occurs even if no fusion reactors are installed in Japan since world demand for raw materials falls.d. A harvest failure in Russia decreases the supply of raw materials, which increases the world RS.The world relative supply curve shifts o ut. Also, Russia’s demand for manufactures decreases,which reduces world demand so that the world relative demand curve shifts in. These forcesdecrease the world relative price of manufactured goods and deteriorate Japan’s terms of trade.e. A reduction in Japan’s tariff on raw materials will raise its internal relative price of manufactures.This price change will increase Japan’s RS and decrease Japan’s RD, which increases the worldRS and decreases the world RD (i.e., world RS shifts out and world RD shifts in). The worldrelative price of manufactures declines and Japan’s terms of trade deteriorate.6. The declining price of services relative to manufactured goods shifts the isovalue line clockwise sothat relatively fewer services and more manufactured goods are produced in the United States, thus reducing U.S. welfare.20 Krugman/Obstfeld •International Economics: Theory and Policy, Eighth Edition7. These results acknowledge the biased growth which occurs when there is an increase in one factor ofproduction. An increase in the capital stock of either country favors production of Good X, while an increase in the labor supply favors production of Good Y. Also, recognize the Heckscher-Ohlin result that an economy will export that good which uses intensively the factor which that economy has in relative abundance. Country A exports Good X to Country B and imports Good Y from Country B.The possibility of immiserizing growth makes the welfare effects of a terms of trade improvement due to export-biased growth ambiguous. Import-biased growth unambiguously improves welfare for the growing country.a. A’s terms of trade worsen, A’s welfare may increase or, less likely, decrease, and B’s welfareincreases.b. A’s terms of trade improve, A’s welfare increases and B’s welfare decreases.c. B’s terms of trade improve, B’s welfare increases and A’s welfare decreases.d. B’s terms of trade worsen, B’s welfare may increase or, less likely, decrease, and A’s welfareincreases.8. Immiserizing growth occurs when the welfare deteriorating effects of a worsening in an economy’sterms of trade swamp the welfare improving effects of growth. For this to occur, an economy must undergo very biased growth, and the economy must be a large enough actor in the world economy such that its actions spill over to adversely alter the terms of trade to a large degree. This combination of events is unlikely to occur in practice.9. India opening should be good for the U.S. if it reduces the relative price of goods that China sends tothe U.S. and hence increases the relative price of goods that the U.S. exports. Obviously, any sector in the U.S. hurt by trade with China would be hurt again by India, but on net, the U.S. wins. Note that here we are making different assumptions about what India produces and what is tradable than we are in Question #6. Here we are assuming India exports products the U.S. currently imports and China currently exports. China will lose by having the relative price of its export good driven down by the increased production in India.10. Aid which must be spent on exports increases the demand for those export goods and raises their pricerelative to other goods. There will be a terms of trade deterioration for the recipient country. This can be viewed as a polar case of the effect of a transfer on the terms of trade. Here, the marginal propensity to consume the export good by the recipient country is 1. The donor benefits from a terms of trade improvement. As with immiserizing growth, it is theoretically possible that a transfer actuallyworsens the welfare of the recipient.11. When a country subsidizes its exports, the world relative supply and relative demand schedules shiftsuch that the terms of trade for the country worsen. A countervailing import tariff in a second country exacerbates this effect, moving the terms of trade even further against the first country. The firstcountry is worse off both because of the deterioration of the terms of trade and the distortionsintroduced by the new internal relative prices. The second country definitely gains from the firstcountry’s export su bsidy, and may gain further from its own tariff. If the second country retaliated with an export subsidy, then this would offset the initial improvement in the terms of trade; the“retaliatory” export subsidy definitely helps the first country and hurts th e second.。
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》(第8版)课后习题详解(第9章 贸易政策中的政治经济学)【圣才出品】
第9章贸易政策中的政治经济学一、概念题1．约束（binding）答：在国际贸易中，约束一般是指税率的约束，即“约束”关税的税率。
约束税率是指经过谈判达成协议而固定下来的关税税率。
按关贸总协定规定，缔约各国应该在互惠互利的基础上通过有选择的产品对产品的方式，或者为有关缔约国所接受的多边的程序进行谈判，谈判结果固定下来的各国税则商品的税率为约束税率，汇总起来形成减让表，作为总协定的一个附属部分付诸实施。
按关贸总协定规定，关税减让谈判有四种减让形式来约束关税的税率：①降低关税并约束在降低了的关税水平；②约束现行关税税率；③约束在现行关税水平以上的某个关税水平；④约束免税待遇。
2．支持自由贸易的政治依据（political argument for free trade）答：支持自由贸易的政治依据是指，尽管理论上可能还有比自由贸易更好的政策，但从政治上认可和支持自由贸易的原则更重要。
现实中的贸易政策经常会由具有特殊利益关系的集团所左右，而不考虑国家的成本与收益。
虽然从理论上可以证明某些选择性的关税和出口补贴政策能够增进整体社会福利，但现实中，任何一个政府机构在制定一套干预贸易的详细计划时都有可能被利益集团所控制，从而成为在有政治影响的部门中进行收入再分配的工具。
如果上述观点正确的话，那么倡导自由贸易无疑是最好的选择。
3．集体行动（collective action）答：集体行动是指关于经济活动中个人理性并不必然导致集体理性。
如果某项活动或者福利的获得需要两个或者两个以上的人的共同努力才能完成，集体行动问题就出现了，即决策集体的每个成员必须单方面决定是否参与提供某种集体产品。
因为集体产品具有非排他性和非竞争性的特征，所以使得不为集体产品的提供付出成本的集团成员也可以获得集体产品。
集团越大，分享收益的人越多，个人的行动对集团利益的影响越小，集团内的成员“搭便车”的动机就越强烈。
这就意味着仅仅依靠个人的自愿，集体产品的供给将是不足的，集体产品不可能依靠个人的自愿提供来解决。
国际经济学克鲁格曼课后习题答案章完整版
国际经济学克鲁格曼课后习题答案章集团标准化办公室：[VV986T-J682P28-JP266L8-68PNN]第一章练习与答案1．为什么说在决定生产和消费时，相对价格比绝对价格更重要？答案提示：当生产处于生产边界线上，资源则得到了充分利用，这时，要想增加某一产品的生产，必须降低另一产品的生产，也就是说，增加某一产品的生产是有机会机本（或社会成本）的。
生产可能性边界上任何一点都表示生产效率和充分就业得以实现，但究竟选择哪一点，则还要看两个商品的相对价格，即它们在市场上的交换比率。
相对价格等于机会成本时，生产点在生产可能性边界上的位置也就确定了。
所以，在决定生产和消费时，相对价格比绝对价格更重要。
2．仿效图1—6和图1—7，试推导出Y商品的国民供给曲线和国民需求曲线。
答案提示：3．在只有两种商品的情况下，当一个商品达到均衡时，另外一个商品是否也同时达到均衡？试解释原因。
答案提示：4．如果生产可能性边界是一条直线，试确定过剩供给（或需求）曲线。
答案提示：5．如果改用Y商品的过剩供给曲线（B国）和过剩需求曲线（A国）来确定国际均衡价格，那么所得出的结果与图1—13中的结果是否一致？6．答案提示：国际均衡价格将依旧处于贸易前两国相对价格的中间某点。
7．说明贸易条件变化如何影响国际贸易利益在两国间的分配。
答案提示：一国出口产品价格的相对上升意味着此国可以用较少的出口换得较多的进口产品，有利于此国贸易利益的获得，不过，出口价格上升将不利于出口数量的增加，有损于出口国的贸易利益；与此类似，出口商品价格的下降有利于出口商品数量的增加，但是这意味着此国用较多的出口换得较少的进口产品。
对于进口国来讲，贸易条件变化对国际贸易利益的影响是相反的。
8．如果国际贸易发生在一个大国和一个小国之间，那么贸易后，国际相对价格更接近于哪一个国家在封闭下的相对价格水平？答案提示：贸易后，国际相对价格将更接近于大国在封闭下的相对价格水平。
克鲁格曼国际经济学第八版上册课后答案
Chapter 4Resources, Comparative Advantage, and Income DistributionChapter OrganizationA Model of a Two-Factor EconomyPrices and ProductionChoosing the Mix of InputsFactor Prices and Goods PricesResources and OutputEffects of International Trade Between Two-Factor Economies Relative Prices and the Pattern of TradeTrade and the Distribution of IncomeFactor Price EqualizationTrade and Income Distribution in the Short RunCase Study: North-South Trade and Income InequalityThe Political Economy of Trade: A Preliminary ViewThe Gains from Trade, RevisitedOptimal Trade PolicyIncome Distribution and Trade PoliticsBox: Income Distribution and the Beginnings of Trade Theory Empirical Evidence on the Heckscher-Ohlin ModelTesting the Heckscher-Ohlin ModelImplications of the TestsSummaryAppendix: Factor Prices, Goods Prices, and Input Choices Choice of TechniqueGoods Prices and Factor PricesChapter OverviewIn Chapter 3, trade between nations was motivated by differences internationally in the relative productivity of workers when producing a range of products. In Chapter 4, this analysis goes a step further by introducing the Heckscher-Ohlin theory.The Heckscher-Ohlin theory considers the pattern of production and trade which will arise when countries have different endowments of factors of production, such as labor, capital, and land. The basic point is that countries tend to export goods that are intensive in the factors with which they are abundantly supplied. Trade has strong effects on the relative earnings of resources, and tends to lead to equalization across countries of prices of the factors of production. These theoretical results and related empirical findings are presented in this chapter.The chapter begins by developing a general equilibrium model of an economy with two goods which are each produced using two factors according to fixed coefficient production functions. The assumption of fixed coefficient production functions provides an unambiguous ranking of goods in terms of factor intensities. (The appendix develops the model when the production functions have variable coefficients.) Two important results are derived using this model. The first is known as the Rybczynski effect. Increasing the relative supply of one factor, holding relative goods prices constant, leads to a biased expansion of production possibilities favoring the relative supply of the good which uses that factor intensively.The second key result is known as the Stolper-Samuelson effect. Increasing the relative price of a good, holding factor supplies constant, increases the return to the factor used intensively in the production of that good by more than the price increase, while lowering the return to the other factor. This result has important income distribution implications.It can be quite instructive to think of the effects of demographic/labor force changes on the supply of different products. For example, how might the pattern of production during the productive years of the “Baby Boom” generation differ from the pattern of production for post Baby Boom generations? What does this imply for returns to factors and relative price behavior?The central message concerning trade patterns of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory is that countries tend to export goods whose production is intensive in factors with which they are relatively abundantly endowed. This is demonstrated by showing that, using the relative supply and relative demand analysis, the country relatively abundantly endowed with a certain factor will produce that factor more cheaply than the other country. International trade leads to a convergence of goods prices. Thus, the results from the Stolper-Samuelson effect demonstrate that owners of a country’s abundant factors gain from trade, but ownersof a country’s scarce factors lose. The extension of this result is the important Factor Price Equalization Theorem, which states that trade in (and thus price equalization of) goods leads to an equalization in the rewards to factors across countries. The political implications of factor price equalization should be interesting to students.The chapter also introduces some political economy considerations. First, it briefly notes that many of the results regarding trade and income distribution assume full and swift adjustment in the economy. In the short run, though, labor and capital that are currently in a particular industry may have sector-specific skills or knowledge and are being forced to move to another sector, and this involves costs. Thus, even if a shift in relative prices were to improve the lot of labor, for those laborers who must change jobs, there is a short run cost.The core of the political economy discussion focuses on the fact that when opening to trade, some may benefit and some may lose, but the expansion of economic opportunity should allow society to redistribute some of the gains towards those who lose, making sure everyone benefits on net. In practice, though, those who lose are often more concentrated and hence have more incentive to try to affect policy. Thus, trade policy is not always welfare maximizing, but may simply reflect the preferences of the loudest and best organized in society.Empirical results concerning the Heckscher-Ohlin theory, beginning with the Leontief paradox and extending to current research, do not support its predictions concerning resource endowments explaining overall patterns of trade, though some patterns do match the broad outlines of its theory (e.g., theUnited States imports more low-skill products from Bangladesh and more high-skill products from Germany). This observation has motivated many economists to consider motives for trade between nations that are not exclusively based on differences across countries. These concepts will be exploredin later chapters. Despite these shortcomings, important and relevant results concerning income distribution are obtained from the Heckscher-Ohlin theory.Answers to Textbook Problems1. The definition of cattle growing as land intensive depends on the ratio of land to labor used inproduction, not on the ratio of land or labor to output. The ratio of land to labor in cattle exceeds the ratio in wheat in the United States, implying cattle is land intensive in the United States. Cattle is land intensive in other countries as well if the ratio of land to labor in cattle production exceeds the ratio in wheat production in that country. Comparisons between another country and the United States is less relevant for this purpose.2. a. The box diagram has 600 as the length of two sides (representing labor) and 60 as the lengthof the other two sides (representing land). There will be a ray from each of the two cornersrepresenting the origins. To find the slopes of these rays we use the information from the questionconcerning the ratios of the production coefficients. The question states that a LC/a TC= 20 anda LF/a TF= 5.Since a LC/a TC= (L C/Q C)/(T C/Q C) =L C/T C we have L C= 20T C. Using the same reasoning,a LF/a TF= (L F/Q F)/(T F/Q F) =L F/T F and since this ratio equals 5, we have L F= 5T F. We cansolve this algebraically since L=L C+ L F= 600 and T=T C+ T F= 60.The solution is L C= 400, T C= 20, L F= 200 and T F= 40.b. The dimensions of the box change with each increase in available labor, but the slopes of the raysfrom the origins remain the same. The solutions in the different cases are as follows.L= 800: T C= 33.33, L C= 666.67, T F= 26.67, L F= 133.33L= 1000: T C= 46.67, L C= 933.33, T F= 13.33, L F= 66.67L= 1200: T C= 60, L C= 1200, T F= 0, L F= 0. (complete specialization).c. At constant factor prices, some labor would be unused, so factor prices would have to change, orthere would be unemployment.3. This question is similar to an issue discussed in Chapter 3. What matters is not the absolute abundanceof factors, but their relative abundance. Poor countries have an abundance of labor relative to capital when compared to more developed countries.4. In the Ricardian model, labor gains from trade through an increase in its purchasing power. Thisresult does not support labor union demands for limits on imports from less affluent countries. The Heckscher-Ohlin model directly addresses distribution by considering the effects of trade on theowners of factors of production. In the context of this model, unskilled U.S. labor loses fromtrade since this group represents the relatively scarce factors in this country. The results from theHeckscher-Ohlin model support labor union demands for import limits. In the short run, certainunskilled unions may gain or lose from trade depending on in which sector they work, but in theory, in the longer run, the conclusions of the Heckscher-Ohlin model will dominate.5. Specific programmers may face wage cuts due to the competition from India, but this is not inconsistentwith skilled labor wages rising. By making programming more efficient in general, this development may have increased wages for others in the software industry or lowered the prices of the goodsoverall. In the short run, though, it has clearly hurt those with sector specific skills who will facetransition costs. There are many reasons to not block the imports of computer programming services (or outsourcing of these jobs). First, by allowing programming to be done more cheaply, it expands the production possibilities frontier of the U.S., making the entire country better off on average.Necessary redistribution can be done, but we should not stop trade which is making the nation as a whole better off. In addition, no one trade policy action exists in a vacuum, and if the U.S. blocked the programming imports, it could lead to broader trade restrictions in other countries.6. The factor proportions theory states that countries export those goods whose production is intensivein factors with which they are abundantly endowed. One would expect the United States, whichhas a high capital/labor ratio relative to the rest of the world, to export capital-intensive goods if the Heckscher-Ohlin theory holds. Leontief found that the United States exported labor-intensive goods.Bowen, Leamer and Sveikauskas found for the world as a whole the correlation between factorendowment and trade patterns to be tenuous. The data do not support the predictions of the theory that countries’ e xports and imports reflect the relative endowments of factors.7. If the efficiency of the factors of production differs internationally, the lessons of the Heckscher-Ohlin theory would be applied to “effective factors” which adjust for the differences in technology or worker skills or land quality (for example). The adjusted model has been found to be moresuccessful than the unadjusted model at explaining the pattern of trade between countries. Factor-price equalization concepts would apply to the effective factors. A worker with more skills or in a country with better technology could be considered to be equal to two workers in another country. Thus, the single person would be two effective units of labor. Thus, the one high-skilled workercould earn twice what lower-skilled workers do, and the price of one effective unit of labor would still be equalized.。
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》(第8版)课后习题详解(第4章 资源、比较优势与收入分配)【圣才出品】
第4章资源、比较优势与收入分配一、概念题1．充裕要素（abundant factor）答：充裕要素是“稀缺要素”的对称，是指一国相对充裕的生产要素。
充裕要素的“充裕”是相对的，指的并不是一国所拥有的该生产要素的绝对数量的充裕，而是该生产要素相对于其他生产要素的相对充裕。
充裕要素是以资源禀赋解释国际贸易的赫克歇尔-俄林定理中的重要概念。
根据赫克歇尔-俄林定理，各国倾向于生产并出口国内充裕要素密集型的产品，一国充裕要素的所有者能够从国际贸易中获利。
2．要素价格（factor prices）答：要素价格即生产要素的价格，是指每一单位的生产要素在一定时期内给所有者带来的收入。
生产要素主要有四种：劳动力、土地、资本和企业家才能。
相应地，其价格分别称为工资、地租、利息和利润。
生产要素价格同产品的价格一样，主要是由生产要素市场上供求的相互作用决定的。
在市场经济中，工资主要由劳动力市场上的供求关系决定；地租主要由土地市场上的供求关系决定；利息主要由资本市场上的供求关系决定；利润作为企业家收入，主要由企业家市场上的供求关系决定。
3．生产可能性边界的偏向性扩张（biased expansion of production possibilities）答：生产可能性边界的偏向性扩张是指生产可能性边界在一个方向上扩张的幅度大于在另一方向上扩张的幅度，如图4-1所示。
图4-1（a）说明了生产可能性曲线偏向于X的扩张，图4-1（b）则说明了生产可能性曲线偏向Y的扩张。
图中的生产可能性边界都从1TT移到了2TT。
图4-1 生产可能性边界的偏向性扩张4．要素比例理论（factor-proportions theory）答：要素比例理论又称“赫克歇尔-俄林理论”、“生产要素禀赋理论”，是指从资源禀赋角度对国际贸易中生产成本和价格的差异做出解释的国际贸易理论。
要素比例理论的主要内容是：国际贸易源于不同国家之间商品的价格存在差异，而价格差异的原因在于不同国家生产成本有高有低，生产成本的高低又是因为各国生产要素价格有差别，生产要素价格的差别又与各国生产要素丰裕程度密切相关。
克鲁格曼国际经济学第八版上册课后答案-7
Chapter 7International Factor Movements⏹Chapter OrganizationInternational Labor MobilityA One-Good Model without Factor MobilityInternational Labor MovementExtending the AnalysisCase Study: Wage Convergence in the Age of Mass MigrationCase Study: Immigration and the U.S. EconomyInternational Borrowing and LendingIntertemporal Production Possibilities and TradeThe Real Interest RateIntertemporal Comparative AdvantageBox: Does Capital Movement to Developing Countries Hurt Workers in High-Wage Countries? Direct Foreign Investment and Multinational FirmsThe Theory of Multinational EnterpriseMultinational Firms in PracticeCase Study: Foreign Direct Investment in the United StatesBox: Taken for a RideSummaryAppendix I: Finding Total Output from the Marginal Product CurveAppendix II: More on Intertemporal Trade⏹Chapter OverviewThis chapter introduces an additional aspect of economic integration, international factor movements. Most notably, this refers to labor and financial capital mobility across countries. An important point emphasized in Chapter 7 is that many of the same forces which trigger international trade in goods between countries will, if permitted, trigger international flows of labor and finances. Students may find this analysis especially interesting in that it sheds light on issues which may involve them personally, such as motives for the 19th and early 20th century waves of emigration to land-abundant but labor-scarce America from land-scarce and labor-abundant Europe and China. Other, more current examples of international factor mobility include the international capital flows associated with the debt crisis of the 1980s, and intertemporal substitution motives behind United States borrowing and foreign direct investment inflows and outflows in the 1980s and 1990s.The chapter proceeds in three main sections. First, a simple model of international labor mobility is presented. Next, intertemporal production and consumption decisions are analyzed in the context of international borrowing and lending. Finally, the role of multinational corporations is discussed. To demonstrate the forces behind international labor mobility, the chapter begins with a model which is quite similar to that presented in Chapter 3. In each country of the world, the real return to labor equals its marginal product in perfectly competitive markets in each of two countries which produce one good using two factors of production. Labor relocates until the marginal products are equal across countries. While the redistribution of labor increases world output and provides overall gains, it also has important income distribution effects. Workers in the originally high wage country are made worse off since wages fall with the inflow of additional workers, and workers in the originally low wage country are made better off. One case study in the text helps illustrate the effects on both source and destination countries and another focuses on the American experience with immigration. It would be interesting for an instructor to discuss the resistance of groups within the United States to migrant farm workers from Mexico and immigration from other low wage countries such as Haiti. The case study notes that while immigration into the U.S. is a highly contentious political issue, on purely economic grounds, the aggregate impact on the U.S. economy is probably relatively small.An analysis of international capital movements involves the consideration of intertemporal trade. The important point here is that the real rate of interest differs across countries, and international factor movements provide gains to both borrowers and lenders. The analysis presented here is analogous to that in Chapter 5; instead of choosing between consumption of goods at any point in time, the analysis focuses on a one good world where the choice at a point in time is between future and present consumption. An intertemporal production possibilities frontier replaces the PPF and the intertemporal price line replaces the relative price line. Analysis of the gains from intertemporal trade, the size of borrowing and lending, and the effects of taxes on capital transfers follow. The appendix presents this model in greater detail. The final issue addressed in this chapter concerns direct foreign investment and multinational firms. Direct foreign investment differs from other capital transfers in that it involves the acquisition of control of a company. The theory of multinational firms is not well developed. Important points of existing theory are that decisions concerning multinationals are based upon concerns involving location and internalization. Location decisions are based upon barriers to trade and transportation costs. Internalization decisions focus on vertical integration and technology transfers. Multinationals facilitate shifts such that factor prices move in the direction which free trade would cause. The income distribution effects of direct foreign investment are politically charged and in other chapters are discussed in further detail.The political dimension of international factor movements differs from that of international trade. Class discussion on these distinctions could focus on who wins and who loses from each and, more specifically, issues such as the role of multinationals or the responsibility of host countries to guest workers. For example, one interesting topic for discussion is the effect of labor mobility as a component of integration within the European Union. (This topic is developed further in Chapter 20.)Answers to Textbook Problems1. The marginal product of labor in Home is 10 and in Foreign is 18. Wages are higher in Foreign, soworkers migrate there to the point where the marginal product in both Home and Foreign is equated.This occurs when there are 7 workers in each country, and the marginal product of labor in each country is 14.2. If immigration is limited, migration will still be from Home to Foreign, but now, instead of fourworkers moving, only two will be allowed to do so. Workers originally in Foreign do worse after the immigration since wages fall as the marginal product of labor falls due to the increase in the number of workers (though wages do not fall as much as they would have with unfettered immigration).Foreign landowners are better off as they have more workers at lower wages with the inflow ofimmigrants, though they are not as well off as they would have been with unfettered immigration.Home landowners see the opposite effect, fewer and more expensive workers; again, this effect is stronger with the movement of four workers rather than just two. Finally, workers who stayhome see their marginal product go up from 10 to 12, and hence their wages rise. Workers who move see their marginal product move from 10 to 16, suggesting an even larger increase in wages than the workers who stay (the two workers that move also do better than if four workers hadmoved as in Question 1). Part b suggests that workers who move are big winners in Mexico—U.S.immigration. That is consistent with the answer here. The workers moving from Home to Foreign see the largest impact on their wages since immigration is limited. If immigration were opened,following the logic of this question, wages in the U.S. would fall more. Thus, there would be a bigger (negative) impact on U.S. workers and a less positive impact on workers that move, but a morepositive impact on workers that stay behind in Mexico as the larger immigration flow from Mexico will cause the marginal product of labor of those left behind to rise more than when immigration is restricted.3. Direct foreign investment should reduce labor flows from Mexico into the United States becausedirect foreign investment causes a relative increase in the marginal productivity of labor in Mexico, which in turn causes an increase in Mexican wages and reduces the incentive for emigration to the United States.4. There is no incentive to migrate when there is factor price equalization. This occurs when bothcountries produce both goods and when there are no barriers to trade (the problem assumestechnology is the same in the two countries). A tariff by Country A increases the relative price of the protected good in that country and lowers its relative price in the Country B. If the protected good uses labor relatively intensively, the demand for labor in Country A rises, as does the return to labor, and the return to labor in the Country B falls. These results follow from the Stolper-Samuelsontheory, which states that an increase in the price of a good raises the return to the factor usedintensively in the production of that good by more than the price increase. These international wage differentials induce migration from Country B to Country A.5.a. From the diagram we see that the number of workers in Guatarica declines and the number ofworkers in Costamala increases.b. Wages in Guatarica and Costamala both increase.c. GDP increases in Costamala but decreases in Guatarica.d. Capital rents decline in Guatarica, but the change is ambiguous in Costamala.6. The analysis of intertemporal trade follows directly the analysis of trade of two goods. Substitute“future consumption” and “present consumption” for “cloth” and “food.” The relevant relativeprice is the cost of future consumption compared to present consumption, which is the inverse of the real interest rate. Countries in which present consumption is relatively cheap (which havelow real interest rates) will “export” present consumption (i.e., lend) to countries in which prese nt consumption is relatively dear (which have high real interest rates). The equilibrium real interest rate after borrowing and lending occur lies between that found in each country before borrowing and lending take place. Gains from borrowing and lending are analogous to gains from trade—there is greater efficiency in the production of goods intertemporally.7. Foregoing current consumption allows one to obtain future consumption. There will be a biastowards future consumption if the amount of future consumption which can be obtained by foregoing current consumption is high. In terms of the analysis presented in this chapter, there is a bias towards future consumption if the real interest rate in the economy is higher in the absence of international borrowing or lending than the world real interest rate.a. The large inflow of immigrants means that the marginal product of capital will rise as moreworkers enter the country. The real interest rate will be high, and there will be a bias towardsfuture consumption.b. The marginal product of capital is low, and thus, there is a bias towards current consumption.c. The direction of the bias depends upon the comparison of the increase in the price of oil andthe world real interest rate. Leaving the oil in the ground provides a return of the increase in the price of oil whereas the world real interest rate may be higher or lower than this increase.d. Foregoing current consumption allows exploitation of resources, and higher future consumption.Thus, there is a bias towards future consumption.e. The return to capital is higher than in the rest of the world (since the country’s rate of growthexceeds that of the rest of the world), and there is a bias toward future consumption.8. a. $10 million is not a controlling interest in IBM, so this does not qualify as direct foreigninvestment. It is international portfolio diversification.b. This is direct foreign investment if one considers the apartment building a business which paysreturns in terms of rents.c. Unless particular U.S. shareholders will not have control over the new French company, this willnot be direct foreign investment.d. This is not direct foreign investment since the Italian company is an “employee,” but not theones who ultimately control, the company.9. A company might prefer to set up its own plant as opposed to license it for a number of reasons,many of which relate to the discussion of location and internalization discussed in the chapter. In many cases it might be less expensive to carry out transactions within a firm than between twoindependent firms. Often, if proprietary technology is involved or if the quality reputation of a firm is particularly crucial, a firm may prefer to keep control over production rather than outsource.10. In terms of location, the Karma company has avoided Brazilian import restrictions. In terms ofinternalization, the firm has retained its control over the technology by not divulging its patents.。
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》（第8版）课后习题详解（第7章国际要素流动）【圣才出品】
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》（第8版）课后习题详解（第7章国际要素流动）【圣才出品】第7章国际要素流动⼀、概念题1．外国直接投资（direct foreign investment）答：外国直接投资⼜称“海外直接投资”，是指⼀个国家或地区的投资者对另⼀国家或地区所进⾏的、以控制或参与经营管理为特征的跨国投资⾏为，是国际资本流动的⼀种重要形式。
跨国公司是最主要的直接投资主体之⼀。
外国直接投资有多种具体形式，常见的有直接在国外投资设⽴⼦公司或分公司、购买国外某公司全部或⼀定⽐例的股份并获得⼀定的控制权、通过与东道国企业签订各种合约或合同取得对该企业的某种控制权等。
2．跨国公司的分布及内部化动机（location and internalization motives of multinationals）答：内部化是指在企业内部建⽴市场，以企业的内部市场代替外部市场，从⽽解决由于市场不完全⽽带来的不能保证供需交换正常进⾏的问题的⾏为过程。
内部化理论认为，由于市场存在不完全性和交易成本上升，因此企业通过外部市场的买卖关系不能保证企业获利，并导致许多附加成本。
因此，建⽴企业内部市场即通过跨国公司内部形成的公司内市场，就能克服外部市场和市场不完全所造成的风险和损失，给技术转移和垂直⼀体化带来好处。
3．要素流动（factor movements）答：要素流动是指⽣产要素在不同国家之间的流动。
具体包括劳动⼒流动、国际借贷和证券投资等形式的短期资本流动，以及跨国公司进⾏的长期投资等。
就经济本⾝⽽⾔，⽣产要素的国际流动和商品的国际流动（国际贸易）没有本质的不同，⼆者在⼀定程度上是可以相互替代的；但在现实⽣活中，由于社会、政治和⽂化传统等⽅⾯的差异，⽣产要素的国际流动远⽐商品的国际流动困难和复杂。
如今，商品的国际流动越来越便捷，但⽣产要素的国际流动还有很多限制：⼤多数国家仍对移民做出严格的限制，东道国对国际资本短期流动的投机性和冲击⼒提⾼了警惕，⼤多数国家对跨国公司进⾏直接投资的领域和股权⽐例做出了限制性规定等。
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》(第8版)课后习题详解(第3章 劳动生产率和比较优势：李嘉图模型)【圣才出品】
第3章劳动生产率和比较优势：李嘉图模型一、概念题1．绝对优势（absolute advantage）答：绝对优势论是指由英国古典经济学的奠基人亚当·斯密提出的贸易理论，即各国以生产成本的绝对差异为基础、发挥各自的优势进行国际分工，并通过自由贸易增进共同利益的国际贸易理论斯密认为，国际贸易和国际分工的原因及基础是各国间存在的劳动生产率和生产成本的绝对差别。
一国如果在某种产品上具有比别国高的劳动生产率，就称该国在这一产品上就具有绝对优势。
2．贫民劳动论（pauper labor argument）答：贫民劳动论是指在国际贸易中，如果来自外国的竞争是建立在低工资的基础上，那么这种竞争是不公平的，而且会损害其他参与竞争国家的利益。
因此，贫民劳动论认为，为了保护本国利益，国内产业没有必要与低效率低工资的外国产业展开贸易。
但是，克鲁格曼却认为，贫民劳动论是对李嘉图比较优势的误解，因为本国决定进行贸易还是自己生产，关键是用本国自己的劳动力来衡量，与外国的低工资率并没有多大关系。
3．比较优势（comparative advantage）答：比较优势理论认为，国际贸易的基础并不限于劳动生产率上的绝对差别。
只要各国之间存在着劳动生产率上的相对差别，就会出现生产成本和产品价格的相对差别，从而使各国在不同的产品上具有比较优势，使国际分工和国际贸易成为可能。
根据李嘉图的比较优势贸易理论，每个国家都应集中生产并出口其具有“比较优势”的产品，进口其具有“比较劣势”的产品。
4．生产可能性边界（production possibility frontier）答：生产可能性边界又称“生产可能性曲线”或“产品转换曲线”，是指在技术不变和资源充分利用的情况下，社会或单个厂商把全部资源充分地和有效率地用于生产商品所能获得的最大产量的各种组合的曲线。
生产可能性边界用于说明减少一种商品的产出量可以增加另一种商品的产出量的可能性。
在曲线之外的任何点都是不可能得到的，资源不可能实现这种配置，曲线内的点都可以得到，资源容易实现这种配置，只有曲线上的点代表资源充分利用下的最优效率。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
The Pauper Labor Argument
Exploitation
Box: Do Wages Reflect Productivity?
Comparative Advantage with Many Goods
Setting Up the Model
The text exposition begins with the examination of the production possibility frontier and the relative prices of goods for one country. The production possibility frontier is linear because of the assumption of constant returns to scale for labor, the sole factor of production. The opportunity cost of one good in terms of the other equals the price ratio since prices equal costs, costs equal unit labor requirements times wages, and wages are equal in each industry.
Relative Wages and Specialization
Determining the Relative Wage with a Multigood Model
Addinded Goods
Empirical Evidence on the Ricardian Model
are then demonstrated with a graph and a numerical example. The intuition of indirect production, that is “producing” a good by producing the good for which a country enjoys a comparative advantage and then trading for the other good, is an appealing concept to emphasize when presenting the gains from trade argument. Students are able to apply the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage to analyze three misconceptions about the advantages of free trade. Each of the three “myths” represents a common argument against free trade and the flaws of each can be demonstrated in the context of examples already developed in the chapter.
Summary
The Ricardian model provides an introduction to international trade theory. This most basic model of
trade involves two countries, two goods, and one factor of production, labor. Differences in relative laborproductivity across countries give rise to international trade. This Ricardian model, simple as it is, generatesimportant insights concerning comparative advantage and the gains from trade. These insights are necessaryfoundations for the more complex models presented in later chapters.
Determining the Relative Price after Trade
The Gains from Trade
A Numerical Example
Box: The Losses from Non-Trade
Relative Wages
Misconceptions about Comparative Advantage
After defining these concepts for a single country, a second country is introduced which has different relative unit labor requirements. General equilibrium relative supply and demand curves are developed. This analysis demonstrates that at least one country will specialize in production. The gains from trade
Chapter 3
1
The Concept of Comparative Advantage
A One-Factor Economy
Production Possibilities
Relative Prices and Supply
Trade in a One-Factor World
Box: Comparative Advantage in Practice: The Case of Babe Ruth