New Trade Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Trade Theory (NTT) is the economic critique of international free trade from the perspective of increasing returns to scale and the network effect. Some economists have asked whether it might be effective for a nation to shelter infant industries until they had grown to sufficient size to compete internationally.
New Trade theorists challenge the assumption of diminishing returns to scale, and some argue that using protectionist measures to build up a huge industrial base in certain industries will then allow those sectors to dominate the world market (via a Network effect).
They wondered whether free trade would have prevented the development of the Japanese auto industries in the 1950s, when quotas and regulations prevented import competition. Japanese companies were encouraged to import foreign production technology but were required to produce 90 percent of parts domestically within five years. It is said that the short-term hardship of Japanese consumers (who were unable to buy the superior vehicles produced by the world market) was more than compensated for by the long-term benefits to producers, who gained time to out-compete their international rivals1.
Less quantitative forms of this "infant industry" argument against totally free trade have been advanced by trade theorists since at least 1848 (see: History of free trade.)
Contents |
[edit] The theory's impact
Although there was nothing particularly 'new' about the idea of protecting 'infant industries' (an idea offered in theory since the 18th century, and in trade policy since the 1880s) what was new in "New Trade Theory" was the rigour of the mathematical economics used to model the increasing returns to scale, and especially the use of the network effect to argue that the formation of important industries was path dependent in a way which industrial planning and judicious tariffs might control.
The model they developed was highly technical, and predicted the possibilities of national specialization-by-industry observed in the industrial world (movies in Hollywood, watches in Switzerland, etc). The story of path-dependent industrial concentrations sometimes leads to monopolistic competition.
[edit] Econometric testing
The econometric evidence for NTT was mixed, and again; highly technical. Due to the time-scales required and the particular nature of production in each 'monopolizable' sector, statistical judgements have been hard to make. In many ways, there is too limited a dataset to produce a reliable test of the hypothesis which doesn't require arbitrary judgements from the researchers.
Japan is cited as evidence of the benefits of "intelligent" protectionism, but critics of NTT have argued that the empirical support post-war Japan offers for beneficial protectionism is unusual, and that the NTT argument is based on a selective sample of historical cases. Although many examples (like Japanese cars) can be cited where a 'protected' industry subsequently grew to world status, regressions on the outcomes of such "industrial policies" (including the failures) have been less conclusive.
[edit] History of the theory's development
The theory was initially associated with Paul Krugman in the early 1970s; Krugman claims that he heard about monopolitistic competition from Robert Solow. Looking back in 1996 Krugman wrote that International economics a generation earlier had completely ignored returns to scale "The idea that trade might reflect an overlay of increasing-returns specialization on comparative advantage was not there at all: instead, the ruling idea was that increasing returns would simply alter the pattern of comparative advantage." In 1976, however, MIT-trained economist Victor Norman had worked out the central elements of what came to be known as the Helpman-Krugman theory. He wrote it up (by hand) and showed it to the great monopolistic competition innovator, Avinash Dixit, and they both agreed it wasn't very significant. Indeed Norman never had the paper typed, much less published. Norman's formal stake in the race comes from the final chapters of the famous Dixit-Norman book (Theory of International Trade : A Dual, General Equilibrium Approach, ISBN 0-521-29969-1).
James Brander, a PhD student at Stanford was undertaking similarly innovative work using models from industrial organisation theory -- cross-hauling -- to explain two way trade in similar products.
[edit] See also
- General equilibrium
- Endogenous growth theory was developed at a similar time to NTT, and is linked through the idea that industrial and trade policy can affect over-all productivity growth.
[edit] External links
- On The Smithian Origins Of "New" Trade And Growth Theories, Aykut Kibritcioglu Ankara University shows that Adam Smith's "increasing returns to scale" conception of international trade anticipated NTT by two hundred years.
- Krugman acknowledges NTT's debt to Ohlin. He writes that Ohlin may have lacked the modelling technology necessary to incorporate increasing returns to scale into the Heckscher-Ohlin model, but that his book Interregional and International Trade, discusses the consideration qualititively.
[edit] Footnotes
1 The rapid post-war industrialization in Japan is documented in Arthur MacEwan's Neo-liberalism or Democracy?: Economic Strategy, Markets and Alternatives for the 21st Century, Zed Books, 1999, ISBN 1-85649-725-9. (The book also details the Keynesian case against free trade, on the grounds of the Poor’s under-consumption, [1]).
