国际经济学(克鲁格曼)教材答案

Chapter 31. Home has 1200 units of labor available. It can produce two goods, apples and bananas.The un it labor requireme nt in apple product ion is 3, while in banana producti on it is 2.a. Graph out the product ion possibilities fron tier:appleb. What is the opport unity cost of apples in terms of banan as?c. In the absenee of trade, what would the price of apples in terms of bananas be?In the abse nee of trade, since labor is the only factor of product ion and supply decisi ons are determined by the attempts of individuals to maximize their earnings in a competitiveeconomy, only whe n P a/P b a La /a Lb will both goods be produced. So P a/P b 1.52. Home is as described in problem 1. There is now also another country, Foreign, with a laborforce of 800. Foreig n ' un it labor requireme nt in apple product ion is 5, while in bananaproduct ion it is 1.a. Graph Foreign ' production possibilities frontier:b. Con struct the world relative supply curve.a Laa Lb1.5Q* banana3. Now suppose world relative dema nd takes the followi ng form: Dema nd for apples/dema ndfor bananas = price of banan as/price of apples.a . Graph the relative dema nd curve along with the relative supplycurve:D a ■/ When the market achieves its equilibrium, we haveD b IT kNb . What is the equilibrium relative price of apples?The equilibrium relative price of apples is determined by the intersection of the RD and RScurves.1 RD: x yx [0,0.5) y 1.5RS: x 0.5 y [1.5,5]x (0.5,] y 5••• x 0.5Q a Q aQ b Q b1 /• RD is a hyperbola y xPl/Pb a / d —乍D a /D b 诃rhe World Relative Supply Cuive••• P e a/P e b 2c. Describe the pattern of trade.•/ P a /P b P e a /P e b P a/ P b• I n this two-co untry world, Home will specialize in the apple product ion, export applesand import banan as. Foreig n will specialize in the banana product ion, export bananasand import apples.d . Show that both Home and Foreign gain from trade.RD: x 1 yx [0,1) y 1.5RS: x 1 y [1.5,5]x (1,] y 5• x 2y1.53• P e a/P e b 1.5Intern ati onal trade allows Home and Foreig n to con sume any where with in the colored lin es, which lie outside the coun tries' product ion possibility fron tiers. And the in directmethod, specializ ing in produci ng only one producti on the n trade with other coun try, is a more efficient method than direct production. In the absence of trade, Home could gain three bananas by foregoing two apples, and Foreign could gain by one foregoing five banan as.Trade allows each country to trade two bananas for one apple. Home could the n gain fourbananas by foregoing two apples while Foreign could gain one apple by forego ing only two banan as. So both Home and Foreig n gain from trade.4. Suppose that in stead of 1200 workers, Home had 2400. Find the equilibrium relative price. What can you say about the efficie ncy of world product ion and the divisio n of the gains from trade betwee n Home and Foreig n in this case?~n.iiumECO400Foreign^ PPF□百度文库-让每个人平等地提升自我Thg World R 吕就盹 S LI 叩ly Cuwe zr/oNIn this case, Foreig n will specialize in the banana product ion, export bananasand importapples. But Home will produce bananasand apples at the same time. And the opport unity cost of bananas in terms of apples for Home rema ins the same. So Home n either gains nor loses but Foreig n gains from trade.5. Suppose that Home has 2400 workers, but they are only half as production in both in dustries as we have bee n assu ming, Con struct the world relative supply curve and determine the equilibrium relative price. How do the gains from trade compare with those in the case described in problem 4?In this case, the labor is doubled while the productivity of labor is halved, so the " effectivelabor " remains the same. So the answer is similar to that in 3. And both Home and Foreigncan gain from trade. But Foreign gains lesser compare with that in the case 4.Pi/Pb 6. ” Korean workers earn only $ an hour; if we allow Korea to export as much as it likes to the Un ited States, our workers will be forced dow n to the same level. You can'import a $5 shirt without importing the $ wage that goes with it. ” Discuss.In fact, relative wage rate is determ ined by comparative productivity and the relative dema nd for goods. Korea ' low wage reflects the fact that Korea is less productive than the UnitedStates in most in dustries. Actually, trade with a less productive, low wage country can raise the P 3/Pb注* d & *心=5 a Za 山於=The World Mupply 匕口◎J ◎功=Uwelfare and sta ndard of liv ing of coun tries with high productivity, such as Un ited States. So this pauper labor argume nt is wrong.7. Japanese labor productivity is roughly the same as that of the United States in the manufacturing sector (higher in some industries, lower in others), while the United States, isstill considerably more productive in the service sector. But most services are non-traded. Some analysts have argued that this poses a problem for the United States, because our comparative advantage lies in things we cannot sell on world markets. What is wrong with this argume nt?The competitive adva ntage of any in dustry depe nds on both the relative productivities of the in dustries and the relative wages across in dustries. So there are four aspects should be take n into acco unt before we reach con clusi on: both the in dustries and service sectors of Japa n and U.S., not just the two service sectors. So this stateme nt does not bade on the reas on able logic.8. Anyone who has visited Japa n knows it is an in credibly expe nsive place; although Japa nese workers earn about the same as their . coun terparts, the purchas ing power of theirin comes is about on e-third less. Exte nd your discuss ing from questio n 7 to expla in this observation. (Hint: Think about wages and the implied prices of non-trade goods.) The relative higher purchasing power of U.S. is sustained and maintained by its considerably higher productivity in services. Because most of those services are non-traded, Japa nese could n ot ben efit from those lower service costs. And U.S. does not have to face a lower international price of services. So the purchasing power of Japanese is just one-third of their U.S. counterparts.9. How does the fact that many goods are non-traded affect the extent of possible gains from trade?Actually the gains from trade depe nded on the proporti on of non-traded goods. The gains will in crease as the proport ion of non-traded goods decrease.10. We have focused on the case of trade involving only two countries. Suppose that there are manycountries capable of producing two goods, and that each country has only one factor of product ion, labor. What could we say about the patter n of product ion and inthis case? (Hi nt: Try con struct ing the world relative supply curve.)Any coun tries to the left of the in tersectio n of the relative dema nd and relative supply curves export the good in which they have a comparative adva ntage relative to any country to the right of the in tersecti on. If the in tersect ion occurs in a horiz on tal porti on the n the country with that price ratio produces both goods.Chapter 41. In the United States where land is cheap, the ratio of land to labor used in cattle rising is highertha n that of land used in wheat grow ing. But i n more crowded coun tries, where land is expe nsive and labor is cheap, it is com mon to raise cows by using less land and more labor tha n America ns use to grow wheat. Can we still say that raisi ng cattle is land inten sive compared with farming wheat? Why or why not?The definition of cattle growing as land intensive depends on the ratio of land to labor used in production, 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 too if the ratio of land to labor in cattle producti onexceeds the ratio in wheat product ion in that coun try. The comparis on betwee n ano thercountry and the Un ited States is less releva nt for an sweri ng the questi on.2. Suppose that at curre nt factor prices cloth is produced using 20 hours of labor for each acre ofland, and food is produced using only 5 hours of labor per acre of land.a. Suppose that the economy 'total resources are 600 hours of labor and 60 acres of land.Using a diagram determine the allocation of resources.aLC / aTC (LC /QC) / (TC /QC) LC /TC LC 20TCaLF / aTF (LF /QF) / (TF /QF) LF /TF LF 5TFWe can solve this algebraically si nee L=LC+LF=600 and T=TC+TF=60.The solution is LC=400, TC=20, LF=200 and TF=40.b. Now suppose that the labor supply in crease first to 800, then 1000, then 1200 hours. Usi nga diagram like Figure4-6, trace out the cha nging allocati on of resources.L 800:TC 33.33,LC 666.67,TF 26.67, LF 133.33L 1000:TC 46.67, LC 933.33,TF 13.33丄F 66.67L 1200:TC 60, LC 1200,TF 0, LF 0.(completespecialization).Laborc. What would happe n if the labor supply were to in crease even further?At con sta nt factor prices, some labor would be unu sed, so factor prices would have tocha nge, or there would be un employme nt.3. The world ' poorest countries cannot find anything to export. There is no resource that isabundant —certa inly not capital or land, and in small poor n ati ons not even labor isabundant. ” Discuss.The gains from trade depend on comparative rather than absolute advantage. As to poor coun tries, what matters is not the absolute abundance of factors, but their relative abundan ce. Poor countries have an abundance of labor relative to capital when compared to more developed coun tries.4. The U.S. labor moveme nt —which mostly represe nts blue-collar workers rather tha nprofessi on als and highly educated workers —has traditi on ally favored limits on imports form less-affluent countries. Is this a shortsighted policy of a rational one in view of the in terests of union members? How does the an swer depe nd on the model of trade?In the Ricardo ' model, labor gains from trade through an in crease in its purchas ing power.This result does not support labor union dema nds for limits on imports from less afflue nt coun tries.In the Immobile Factors model labor may gain or lose from trade. Purchas ing power in terms of one good will rise, but in terms of the other good it will decline.The Heckscher-Ohli n model directly discusses distributi on by con sideri ng the effects of trade on the owners of factors of product ion. In the con text of this model, un skilled U.S. labor loses from trade si nee this group represe nts the relatively scarce factors in this coun try. The results from the Heckscher-Ohli n model support labor union dema nds for import limits.5. There is substa ntial in equality of wage levels betwee n regi ons with in the Un ited States.For example, wages of manu facturi ng workers in equivale nt jobs are about 20 perce nt lower in the Southeast than they are in the Far West. Which of the explanations of failure of factor price equalization might account for this? How is this case different from the diverge nee ofwages betwee n the Un ited States and Mexico (which is geographically closer to both the .Southeast and the Far West tha n the Southeast and Far West are to each other)?When we employ factor price equalization, we should pay attention to its conditions: both coun tries/regi ons produce both goods; both coun tries have the same tech no logy of producti on, and the abse nee of barriers to trade. In equality of wage levels betwee n regi ons within the Un ited States may caused by some or all of these reas ons.Actually, the barriers to trade always exist in the real world due to transportation costs. And the trade between U.S. and Mexico, by contrast, is subject to legal limits; together with culturaldiffere nces that in hibit the flow of tech no logy, this may expla in why the differe nee in wage rates is so much larger.6. Explain why the Leontief paradox and the more recent Bowen, Leamer, and Sveikauskasresults reported in the text con tradict the factor-proport ions theory.The factor proport ions theory states that coun tries export those goods whose product ion is in te nsive in factors with which they are abundan tly en dowed. One would expect the Un ited States, which has a high capital/labor ratio relative to the rest of the world, to export capital-inten sive goods if the Heckscher-Ohli n theory holds. Leon tief found that the Un ited States exported labor-intensive goods. Bowen, Leamer and Sveikauskas found that the correlati on betwee n factor en dowme nt and trade patter ns is weak for the world as a whole.The data do not support the predictions of the theory that countries' exports and imports reflect the relative en dowme nts of factors.7. In the discussi on of empirical results on the Heckscher-Ohli n model, we no ted that recentwork suggests that the efficie ncy of factors of product ion seems to differ intern ati on ally.Expla in how this would affect the con cept of factor price equalizati on.If the efficie ncy of the factors of producti on differs intern ati on ally, the less ons of theHeckscher-Ohlin theory would be applied to “ effective factors which adjust for the differences in tech no logy or worker skills or land quality (for example). The adjusted model has bee n found to be more successful tha n the un adjusted model at expla ining the patter n 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 tech no logy could be con sidered to be equal to two workers in ano ther coun try. Thus, the si ngle pers on would be two effective units of labor. Thus, the one high-skilled worker could earn twice what lower skilled workers do and the price of one effective unit of labor would still be equalized.chapter 81. The import dema nd equati on, MD, is found by subtract ing the home supply equati on from the home dema nd equati on. This results in MD = 80 - 40 x P. Without trade, domestic prices and qua ntities adjust such that import dema nd is zero. Thus, the price in the abse nce of trade is2.2. a. Foreign's export supply curve, XS, is XS = -40 + 40 x P. In the absence of trade, the price is 1.b. Whe n trade occurs export supply is equal to import dema nd, XS = MD. Thus, using theequatio ns from problems 1 and 2a, P = , and the volume of trade is 20.3. a. The new MD curve is 80 - 40 x (P+t) where t is the specific tariff rate, equal to . (Note: in solving these problems you should be careful about whether a specific tariff or ad valorem tariff is imposed. With an ad valorem tariff, the MD equation would be expressed as MD =80-40 x(1+t)P). The equati on for the export supply curve by the foreig n country is un cha nged. Solvi ng, we find that the world price is $, and thus the internal price at home is $. The volume of trade has been reduced to 10, and the total dema nd for wheat at home has falle n to 65 (from the free trade level of70). The total dema nd for wheat in Foreig n has gone up from 50 to 55.b. andc. The welfare of the home country is best studied using the comb ined nu merical andgraphical soluti ons prese nted below in Figure 8-1.PriceP T=1.75P W=1.50P T* =1.25where the areas in the figure are:a: 55 (55-50) .5(55-50) (65-55) .5(70-65) (65-55) surplus change: -(a+b+c+d)=. Producer surplus cha nge: a=. Government revenue cha nge: c+e=5. Efficie ncy losses b+d are exceeded by terms of trade gain e. [Note: in the calculations for the a, b, and d areas a figure of .5 shows up. This is because we are measuring the area of a triangle, which is one-half of the area of the rectangle defined by the product of the horizontal and vertical sides.]4. Using the same solution methodology as in problem 3, when the home country is very small relative to the foreig n coun try, its effects on the terms of trade are expected to be much less. The small country is much more likely to be hurt by its impositi on of a tariff .In deed, this in tuiti on is shown in this problem. The free trade equilibrium is now at the price $ and the trade volume is now $. With the impositi on of a tar肝of by Home, the new world price is $, the internal home price is $, home dema nd is un its, home supply is and the volume of trade is . When Home is relatively small, the effect of a tariff on world price is smaller than when Home is relatively large. When Foreign and Home were closer in size, a tariff of .5 by home lowered world price by 25 percent, whereas in this case the same tariff lowers world price by about 5 percent. The internal Home price is now closer to the free trade price plus t than when Home was relatively large. In this case, the gover nment revenues from the tariff equal , the con sumer surplus loss is , and the producer surplus gain is . The distortionary losses associated with the tariff (areas b+d) sum to and the terms of trade gai n (e) is . Clearly, in this small country example the distorti onary losses from the tar肝swamp the terms of trade gains. The gen eral less on is the smaller the economy, the larger the losses from a tariff since the terms of trade gains are smaller.5. The effective rate of protect ion takes into con siderati on the costs of imported in termediate goods. In this example, half of the cost of an aircraft represe nts comp onents purchased from other coun tries. Without the subsidy the aircraft would cost $60 millio n. The Europea n value addedto the aircraft is $30 milli on. The subsidy cuts the cost of the value added to purchasers of the airplane to $20 million. Thus, the effective rate of protection is (30 - 20)/20 = 50%.6. We first use the foreig n export supply and domestic import dema nd curves to determ ine the new world price. The foreig n supply of exports curve, with a foreig n subsidy of 50 perce nt per unit, becomes XS = -40 + 40(1+ x P. The equilibrium world price is and the internal foreign price is . The volume of trade is 32. The foreig n dema nd and supply curves are used to determ ine the costs and ben efits of the subsidy. Con struct a diagram similar to that in the text and calculate the area of the various polygo ns. The gover nment must provide - x 32 = un its of output to support the subsidy. Foreign producers surplus rises due to the subsidy by the amount of un its of output. Foreig n con sumers surplus falls due to the higher price by un its of the good. Thus, the net loss to Foreig n due to the subsidy is + - = un its of output. Home con sumers and producers face an internal price of as a result of the subsidy. Home con sumers surplus rises by 70 x .3 + .5 (6 = while Home producers surplus falls by 44 x .3 + .5(6 x .3)=,for a net gain of un its of output.7. At a price of $10 per bag of peanuts, Acirema imports 200 bags of peanuts. A quota limiti ng the import of pea nuts to 50 bags has the follow ing effects:a. The price of pea nuts rises to $20 per bag.b. The quota rents are ($20 - $10) x 50 = $500.c. The consumption distortion loss is .5 x 100 bags x $10 per bag = $500.d. The product ion distorti on loss is .5 x 50 bags x $10 per bag = $250.。