克鲁格曼国际经济学第八版上册课后答案
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》第8版笔记和课后习题详解(宏观经济政策和浮动汇率制下的国际协调)【圣才出品】
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》第8版笔记和课后习题详解第19章宏观经济政策和浮动汇率制下的国际协调19.1复习笔记1．支持浮动汇率制的观点（1）货币政策自主性在布雷顿森林体系的固定汇率制度下，除美国以外的其他国家极少有机会运用货币政策来达到内部平衡和外部平衡。
由于要抵消资本流动的影响，货币政策的作用被弱化了。
但是，如果各国中央银行不再为固定汇率而被迫干预货币市场，各国政府就能够运用货币政策来达到内部平衡和外部平衡，并且各国不再会因为外部因素导致本国出现通货膨胀或通货紧缩。
浮动汇率制的提倡者认为，如果中央银行不必再承担稳定其币值的义务，那么它们将恢复对货币的控制。
货币贬值会降低本国产品的相对价格，从而使外国对本国产品的需求增加，进而减少本国的失业。
同样，在经济过热的国家中，中央银行可以通过压缩货币供给来抑制过热的经济活动，而不必担心过多的国际储备流入会破坏其稳定币值的努力。
通过加强对货币政策的控制，各国可以排除那些扭曲国际支付的障碍。
浮动汇率制的提倡者还认为，各国如果使用浮动汇率，就能够选择自己愿意接受的长期通货膨胀率，而不再会被动地引进国外的通货膨胀率。
支持浮动汇率最为有力的理论之一就是认为它能够通过汇率的自动调整来隔绝国外持续性通货膨胀带来的影响。
产生这种隔绝的机制是购买力平价。
（2）对称性浮动汇率制的支持者认为：浮动汇率制可以消除类似布雷顿森林体系所造成的不对称。
由于各国不再将本国货币钉住对美元的汇率，也就不必因此而持有美元作储备。
所以，各国都可以自主决定本国的货币状况。
同样，美国在运用货币政策或财政政策改变美元汇率时，不会再遇到特别的阻碍。
最后，在全球范围内，所有国家的汇率都将由市场而不是由政府决定。
（3）汇率自动稳定器功能与固定汇率相比，浮动汇率相对减少了需求冲击对就业的影响，从而有利于经济稳定。
当对本国产品和劳务的需求下降时，浮动汇率下的货币贬值，会使本国产品和劳务的价格下降，部分地减轻了这种需求下降的不利影响。
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15章 长期价格水平和汇率)【圣才出品】
第15章 长期价格水平和汇率一、概念题1．费雪效应（Fisher effect ）答：费雪效应是指通货膨胀率和利率在长期中同比例变化的关系。
美国经济学家费雪在其《利息理论》一书中阐述了这一关系。
这一关系假定，在长期中通货膨胀率等于预期通货膨胀率。
在其他条件不变的情况下，如果一国的预期通货膨胀率上升，最终会导致该国货币存款利率的同比例上升；反之，如果预期通货膨胀率下降，最终会导致货币存款利率的同比例下降。
从国际资本流动来看，费雪效应体现了通货膨胀率、利率和汇率变化的关系。
当其他条件不变时，若一国的预期通货膨胀率上升，在外汇市场上将导致该种货币的贬值；根据利率平价理论，这最终将导致该国货币存款利率的上升。
这一关系还可以用相对购买力平价理论和利率平价理论的结合来说明。
相对购买力平价表明，在一定时期内两国货币汇率变动的百分比等于两国通货膨胀率之差。
利率平价表明，两国货币汇率预期变动的百分比等于两国货币存款的预期收益率之差，即两国货币存款未来的利率之差。
在长期中，两国货币的汇率变动即为两国货币汇率的预期变动。
这样，两国货币存款未来利率之差就等于两国通货膨胀率之差，用公式表示：G F G F R R ππ-=-G R 和F R 分别代表两国货币存款的利率，G π和F π分别代表两国的通货膨胀率。
该公式表明，在其他条件不变时，一国通货膨胀率的上升最终将导致该国货币存款利率同比例上升。
2．购买力平价（purchasing power parity ，PPP ）答：购买力平价是指不同国家商品和服务的价格水平的比率。
一国的价格水平以一个基准的商品和服务“篮子”的价格来表示，它反映该国货币的国内购买力。
对购买同一个基准的商品和服务“篮子”来说，在本国以本国货币支付的价格与其在外国以外国货币支付的价格之比，便是购买力平价。
具体计算方法为：在两国（或多国）选择同质的“一篮子”商品和服务，收集价格、数量和支出额资料，分别核算各组、各类商品和服务价格的比率，最终获得一个综合的价格比率。
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》第8版笔记和课后习题详解(规模经济、不完全竞争和国际贸易)【圣才出品】
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》第8版笔记和课后习题详解第6章规模经济、不完全竞争和国际贸易6.1复习笔记1．规模经济（1）规模经济和国际贸易①规模经济的表现规模经济表现为生产规模越大，生产效率越高，产出的增长大于投入的增长。
表6-1列出了某一行业的投入产出关系，且该产品的生产只需要劳动这一种投入。
从表中可以看出，生产10件产品需要15小时的劳动，而生产25件产品只需要30个小时的劳动。
规模经济表现为：劳动投入增加1倍（从15小时增加到30小时），产出却增加了1.5倍（从10件增加到25件）。
表6-1某一假定行业的投入产出关系②规模经济是国际贸易的动因之一假定世界上只有A和B两个国家，二者都具有生产这种产品的同样技术，最初都生产10个单位。
根据表6-1，该产量在每个国家均要15小时的劳动投入，即全世界用30个小时来生产20单位产品。
但是，现在假定该新产品的生产集中到一个国家，比如说A国，且A国在这一行业也投入30个小时的劳动。
然而，在一个国家内投入30个小时的劳动，却能生产出25件产品。
显然，生产集中到A国可以使得世界以同样的劳动投入多产出25%的产品。
可见，各国可以用比以往更有效的规模专业化地生产有限类别的产品；同时，它们之间的相互贸易又使得消费所有产品成为可能。
（2）规模经济和市场结构①规模经济的分类a．外部规模经济，指单位产品成本取决于整个行业规模而非单个厂商规模的规模经济类型。
b．内部规模经济，指单位产品成本取决于单个厂商的规模而不是其所在的行业规模的规模经济类型。
②规模经济对市场结构的影响外部的和内部的规模经济对市场结构具有不同的影响。
一个只存在外部规模经济的行业（即大厂商没有优势）一般由许多相对较小的厂商构成，且处于完全竞争的状态；相反，存在内部规模经济的行业中，大厂商比小厂商更具有成本优势，就形成了不完全竞争的市场结构。
外部规模经济和内部规模经济都是国际贸易的重要原因。
但是，由于它们对市场结构的影响不同，下面将对它们进行分别讨论。
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》(第8版)课后习题详解
克鲁格曼《国际经济学》（第8版）课后习题详解克鲁格曼《国际经济学》(第8版)课后习题详解第1章绪论本章不是考试的重点章节，建议读者对本章内容只作大致了解即可，本章没有相关的课后习题。
第1篇国际贸易理论第2章世界贸易概览一、概念题1>(发展中国家(developing countries)答:发展中国家是与发达国家相对的经济上比较落后的国家，又称“欠发达国家”或“落后国家”。
通常指第三世界国家，包括亚洲、非洲、拉丁美洲及其他地区的130多个国家。
衡量一国是否为发展中国家的具体标准有很多种，如经济学家刘易斯和世界银行均提出过界定发展中国家的标准。
一般而言，凡人均收入低于美国人均收入的五分之一的国家就被定义为发展中国家。
比较贫困和落后是发展中国家的共同特点。
2>(服务外包(service outsourcing)答:服务外包是指企业将其非核心的业务外包出去，利用外部最优秀的专业化团队来承接其业务，从而使其专注于核心业务，达到降低成本、提高效率、增强企业核心竞争力和对环境应变能力的一种管理模式。
20世纪90年代以来，随着信息技术的迅速发展，特别是互联网的普遍存在及广泛应用，服务外包得到蓬勃发展。
从美国到英国，从欧洲到亚洲，无论是中小企业还是跨国公司，都把自己有限的资源集中于公司的核心能力上而将其余业务交给外部专业公司，服务外包成为“发达经济中不断成长的现象”。
3>(引力模型(gravity model)答:丁伯根和波伊赫能的引力模型基本表达式为:其中，是国与国的贸易额，为常量，是国的国内生产总值，是国的国内生产总值，是两国的距离。
、、三个参数是用来拟合实际的经济数据。
引力模型方程式表明:其他条件不变的情况下，两国间的贸易规模与两国的GDP成正比，与两国间的距离成反比。
把整个世界贸易看成整体，可利用引力模型来预测任意两国之间的贸易规模。
另外，引力模型也可以用来明确国际贸易中的异常现象。
4>(第三世界(third world)答:第三世界这个名词原本是指法国大革命中的Third Estate(第三阶级)。
- 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)。
Chapter 3Labor Productivity and Comparative Advantage: The Ricardian ModelChapter OrganizationThe Concept of Comparative AdvantageA One-Factor EconomyProduction PossibilitiesRelative Prices and SupplyTrade in a One-Factor WorldBox: Comparative Advantage in Practice: The Case of Babe Ruth Determining the Relative Price after TradeThe Gains from TradeA Numerical ExampleBox: The Losses from Non-TradeRelative WagesMisconceptions about Comparative AdvantageProductivity and CompetitivenessThe Pauper Labor ArgumentExploitationBox: Do Wages Reflect Productivity?Comparative Advantage with Many GoodsSetting Up the ModelRelative Wages and SpecializationDetermining the Relative Wage with a Multigood Model Adding Transport Costs and Non-Traded GoodsEmpirical Evidence on the Ricardian ModelSummary⏹Chapter OverviewThe 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 labor productivity across countries give rise to international trade. This Ricardian model, simple as it is, generates important insights concerning comparative advantage and the gains from trade. These insights are necessary foundations for the more complex models presented in later chapters.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.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 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 w hich 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.While the initial intuitions are developed in the context of a two good model, it is straightforward to extend the model to describe trade patterns when there are N goods. This analysis can be used to explain why a small country specializes in the production of a few goods while a large country specializes in the production of many goods. The chapter ends by discussing the role that transport costs play in making some goods non-traded.⏹Answers to Textbook Problems1. a. The production possibility curve is a straight line that intercepts the apple axis at 400(1200/3) andthe banana axis at 600(1200/2).b. The opportunity cost of apples in terms of bananas is 3/2. It takes three units of labor to harvestan apple but only two units of labor to harvest a banana. If one foregoes harvesting an apple, this frees up three units of labor. These 3 units of labor could then be used to harvest 1.5 bananas.c. Labor mobility ensures a common wage in each sector and competition ensures the price ofgoods equals their cost of production. Thus, the relative price equals the relative costs, whichequals the wage times the unit labor requirement for apples divided by the wage times the unitlabor requirement for bananas. Since wages are equal across sectors, the price ratio equals theratio of the unit labor requirement, which is 3 apples per 2 bananas.2. a. The production possibility curve is linear, with the intercept on the apple axis equal to 160(800/5)and the intercept on the banana axis equal to 800(800/1).b. The world relative supply curve is constructed by determining the supply of apples relative to thesupply of bananas at each relative price. The lowest relative price at which apples are harvestedis 3 apples per 2 bananas. The relative supply curve is flat at this price. The maximum number of apples supplied at the price of 3/2 is 400 supplied by Home while, at this price, Foreign harvests800 bananas and no apples, giving a maximum relative supply at this price of 1/2. This relativesupply holds for any price between 3/2 and 5. At the price of 5, both countries would harvestapples. The relative supply curve is again flat at 5. Thus, the relative supply curve is step shaped, flat at the price 3/2 from the relative supply of 0 to 1/2, vertical at the relative quantity 1/2 rising from 3/2 to 5, and then flat again from 1/2 to infinity.3. a. The relative demand curve includes the Points (1/5, 5), (1/2, 2), (1, 1), (2, 1/2).b. The equilibrium relative price of apples is found at the intersection of the relative demand andrelative supply curves. This is the Point (1/2, 2), where the relative demand curve intersects thevertical section of the relative supply curve. Thus the equilibrium relative price is 2.c. Home produces only apples, Foreign produces only bananas, and each country trades some of itsproduct for the product of the other country.d. In the absence of trade, Home could gain three bananas by foregoing two apples, and Foreigncould gain by one apple foregoing five bananas. Trade allows each country to trade two bananas for one apple. Home could then gain four bananas by foregoing two apples while Foreign couldgain one apple by foregoing only two bananas. Each country is better off with trade.4. The increase in the number of workers at Home shifts out the relative supply schedule such that thecorner Points are at (1, 3/2) and (1, 5), instead of (1/2, 3/2) and (1/2, 5). The intersection of the relative demand and relative supply curves is now in the lower horizontal section, at the Point (2/3, 3/2). In this case, Foreign still gains from trade but the opportunity cost of bananas in terms of apples for Home is the same whether or not there is trade, so Home neither gains nor loses from trade.5. This answer is identical to that in 3. The amount of “effective labor” has not c hanged since thedoubling of the labor force is accompanied by a halving of the productivity of labor.6. This statement is just an example of the pauper labor argument discussed in the chapter. The point isthat relative wage rates do not come out of thin air; they are determined by comparative productivity and the relative demand for goods. The box in the chapter provides data which shows the strong connection between wages and productivity. China’s low wage presumably reflects the fact that China is less productive than the United States in most industries. As the test example illustrated, a highly productive country that trades with a less productive, low-wage country will raise, not lower, its standard of living.7. The problem with this argument is that it does not use all the information needed for determining comparative advantage in production: this calculation involves the four unit labor requirements (for both the industry and service sectors, not just the two for the service sector). It is not enough tocompare only service’s unit labor requirements. If *,ls ls a a <Home labor is more efficient than Foreign labor in services. While this demonstrates that the United States has an absolute advantage in services, this is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for determining comparative advantage. For this determination, the industry ratios are also required. The competitive advantage of any industry depends on both the relative productivities of the industries and the relative wages across industries.8. While Japanese workers may earn the equivalent wages of U.S. workers, the purchasing power of their income is one-third less. This implies that although w = w * (more or less), p < p * (since 3p = p *). Since the United States is considerably more productive in services, service prices are relatively low. This benefits and enhances U.S. purchasing power. However, many of these services cannot be transported and hence, are not traded. This implies that the Japanese may not benefit from the lower U.S. services costs, and do not face an international price which is lower than their domestic price. Likewise, the price of services in United States does not increase with the opening of trade since these services are non-traded. Consequently, U.S. purchasing power is higher than that of Japan due to its lower prices on non-traded goods.9. Gains from trade still exist in the presence of non-traded goods. The gains from trade decline as theshare of non-traded goods increases. In other words, the higher the portion of goods which do not enter the international marketplace, the lower the potential gains from trade. If transport costs were high enough so that no goods were traded, then, obviously, there would be no gains from trade. 10. T he world relative supply curve in this case consists of a step function, with as many “steps” (horizontalportions) as there are countries with different unit labor requirement ratios. Any countries to the left of the intersection of the relative demand and relative supply curves export the good in which they have a comparative advantage relative to any country to the right of the intersection. If the intersection occurs in a horizontal portion then the country with that price ratio produces both goods.。