« Paul Krugman wins the Nobel Prize | Main | Did the world end today? »
What is New Trade Theory?
Congratulations to Paul Krugman on his Nobel. Here is a primer on one of Krugman's key contributions, New Trade Theory. Tyler has more links below.
Ricardo showed that every country (and every person) has a comparative advantage, a good or service that they can produce at a lower (opportunity) cost than any other country (or person). As a result, production is maximized when each country specializes in the good or service that they produce at lowest cost, that is in the good in which they have a comparative advantage. Since specialization in comparative advantage maximizes production, trade can make every country better off.
But what determines comparative advantage? In Ricardo it is the natural products of the soil, Portugal is good at producing wine and so England has a comparative advantage in cloth. Heckscher, Ohlin and Samuelson among others extended the model to show how factor proportions can determine comparative advantage - countries with a lot of labor relative to capital, for example, will tend to have a comparative advantage in labor intensive goods production.
Notice, however, that in the Ricardian model and its extensions the determinants of comparative advantage like geography and factor proportions lie outside of the model. New Trade Theory of which Paul Krugman can be said to be the founder, brings the determinants of comparative advantage into the model.
Consider the simplest model (based on Krugman 1979). In this model there are two countries. In each country, consumers have a preference for variety but there is a tradeoff between variety and cost, consumers want variety but since there are economies of scale - a firm's unit costs fall as it produces more - more variety means higher prices. Preferences for variety push in the direction of more variety, economies of scale push in the direction of less. So suppose that without trade country 1 produces varieties A,B,C and country two produces varieties X,Y,Z. In every other respect the countries are identical so there are no traditional comparative advantage reasons for trade.
Nevertheless, if trade is possible it is welfare enhancing. With trade the scale of production can increase which reduces costs and prices. Notice, however, that something interesting happens. The number of world varieties will decrease even as the number of varieties available to each consumer increases. That is, with trade production will concentrate in say A,B,X,Y so each consumer has increased choice even as world variety declines.
Increasing variety for individuals even as world variety declines is a fundamental fact of globalization. In the context of culture, Tyler explains this very well in his book, Creative Destruction; when people in Beijing can eat at McDonald's and people in American can eat at great Chinese restaurants the world looks increasingly similar even as each world resident experiences an increase in variety.
Thus, Krugman (1979) can be thought of as providing another reason why trade can be beneficial and a fundamental insight into globalization.
Moreover, Krugman (1979) began the task of bringing the reasons for comparative advantage within the model. In that paper, Krugman also hypothesizes briefly about what happens when we allow migration within the model. Recall, that in Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson factor proportions explain trade patterns but are themselves determined outside of the model. When people and capital can move, however, factor proportions are themselves something to be explained.
Krugman (1991) (JSTOR and here) brings increasing returns together with capital and labor migration and transport costs into one model. Krugman's (1991) model has become a workhorse of economic geography and international trade. The model is too complex to explain here but the reasons for that complexity are clear to see - when everything becomes "endogenous" small initial differences can make for big effects. To minimize transport costs, for example, firms want to locate near consumers but consumers want to locate near work! Thus, there are multiple equilibria and at a tipping point the location decisions of a single firm or consumer can snowball into big effects. So Krugman has been a leader in introducing tipping points, network effects and thus the importance of history into international trade as well as into economics more generally.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on October 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM | Permalink
Comments
I've always felt that Ricardo misses the opportunity for growth. Sure, Portugal has a comparative advantage in soil productivity, but that goes nowhere--England can parlay its advantage in cloth into an advantage in weaving machinery, other machinery, and all the products of an expanding industrial economy, while Portugal is stuck growing crops.
Sure, the system improves overall, but it sucks to be Portugal.
Posted by: jb at Oct 13, 2008 10:42:07 AM
Mentioned this on the other thread, but it fits better here, and I butchered the link.
One of the more interesting empirical applications of new trade theory is in Broda-Weinstein (2006), which is summarized non-technically in this NY Fed publication here. This paper attempts to actually quantify the gains from variety according to Krugman's theory.
Posted by: DRDR at Oct 13, 2008 10:50:30 AM
Put Simply,
Krugman no longer believes in any of his theories.
Let me tell you,
It is fun teaching International Trade when the students bring in NYT editorials conflicting with the theories presented in the text.
Just one of the reasons his text was dropped.
Posted by: cfpete at Oct 13, 2008 10:51:56 AM
Homeschool debate students have US policy toward India as their national debate topic this year. Many are running cases calling for freer trade with India. If they can cite arguments that claim gains from increased diversity, their case for allowing and encouraging more trade with (and migration from) India would create significant diversity-enhanced gains. India has surely the most diverse population on the planet, as well as the second-largest. And India has a diverse geography and climate as well.
Posted by: Greg Rehmke at Oct 13, 2008 11:32:28 AM
Increasing variety for individuals even as world variety declines is a fundamental fact of globalization.
Would it be accurate to put it this way? Before trade, you have access to only local products, made by both well-run and poorly-run companies. After trade, some of the poorly-run companies tend to die out and you now have access to global products made by (relatively) well-run companies from all over.
The well-run companies get stronger and the less well run ones die out. More consolidation, more economies of scale, more surplus.
Is that the gist?
Posted by: mk at Oct 13, 2008 11:37:15 AM
One question I have about this model is why trade must result in more variety.
If at equilibrium, an isolated country's economy has 3 companies, why isn't the equilibrium of a multi-country, free-trade economy just as likely to have 3 companies? Does a bigger economy tend to have more companies at equilibrium? (I'm not sure I would see why)
Posted by: mk at Oct 13, 2008 11:53:29 AM
That was an interesting description. I had never thought about it before, but the effect you describe here is a version of what in physics is called spontaneous symmetry breaking: even if the countries have no natural advantages in what they produce, there are advantages to them specialising in something, so they pick something and do that, breaking the symmetry they started with before trade.
Does anyone know whether the links are more explicit? Spontaneous symmetry breaking was a big topic in physics in the 70s (and the 60s too), I wonder if these ideas seeped through, or were independently discovered?
Posted by: improbable at Oct 13, 2008 12:11:07 PM
Economics is important and trade is good....to an extent. Just
like immigration is good.....to an extent. Excessive trade, just
like excessive immigration can destroy a nation's history,
culture, values, etc.
Globalization essentially means = uber or hyper trade. The USA
will not remain a sovereign and independent country if all of our
heavy industries fade away. Engineering and manufacturing matter
very much to a free, prosperous, independent country.
A little common-sensed nationalism is what we need today.
Posted by: RSG at Oct 13, 2008 12:15:37 PM
It is fun teaching International Trade when the students bring in NYT editorials conflicting with the theories presented in the text.
Isn't the case of a student bringing in conflicting statements by the same author (in this case, a newly minted Nobel laureate) a great opportunity for encouraging the student towards deeper insight?
Are the conflicts real? What caused the change of opinion in this clearly learned individual? He's moved on, why haven't you?
Understanding the conflicts in a particular field (and often times, within a particular individual) is a critical part of truly becoming part of that field. Frankly, it's what makes any field of study interesting.
No wonder students find econ boring. Their profs are hiding all the good conflicts!
Posted by: Sam Wilson at Oct 13, 2008 12:17:23 PM
By a strange coincidence, this years's Nobel Prize in Physics was given to three physicists for their work in spontaneous symmetry breaking.
Posted by: derek at Oct 13, 2008 12:35:24 PM
mk,
think about it this way. Without trade consumers in each country choose 3 varieties. With trade, it's possible to have a larger market and thus to lower costs and prices. Consumers could take all the gains in lower prices by choosing 3 varieties (eliminating 3) but consumers care about variety as well as low prices - thus in the new equilibrium they take a little bit more of both - 4 varieties with each variety being sold to more consumers and thus supplied at lower price.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Oct 13, 2008 12:42:17 PM
A little common-sensed nationalism is what we need today.
Truer words were never spoken.
And who says 'diversity' is always a benefit. I am willing to grant that in relatively minor matters such as the weekly 'eating out' night, it might be a good thing. But in many things people don't like diversity. They move to neighborhoods with people like them in cultural, race, language, income etc. This is as true of immigrant communities, who set up their own ghettos, as it is of those impacted by immigration.
Don't let 'em slip assumptions by you!
Posted by: Mitchell Young at Oct 13, 2008 12:55:13 PM
Alex Tabarrok, wouldn't the same thing be happening WITHIN countries, too? Specialization and the division of labor in each industry will tend to give increasing returns, and by causing lower real prices, this would slowly crowd-out the nearly-equivalent goods and services. It this a partial explanation for both brand dominance and, at a higher level, path dependence?
Posted by: lee A. Arnold at Oct 13, 2008 12:55:53 PM
mk -- What you described, a world where trade drives the inefficient local firms out of business and helps the best firms worldwide prosper, is exactly the intuition behind Melitz (2003), which is the most relevant 21st century model of trade. Melitz, like Krugman, uses a monopolistic competition model, except he needs to add some heterogeneity in productivity and a few other tricks to make it work. In the Krugman model, every firm is the same, though they each produce different products. Models with heterogeneous firms really didn't take off in the field until recently.
Posted by: DRDR at Oct 13, 2008 1:07:26 PM
Thanks to alex and DRDR for the helpful explanations!
Posted by: mk at Oct 13, 2008 1:12:23 PM
Krugman's "International Economics" book was recommended by my professor for our International Economics course in Portugal. The book is way better than Krugman's NYT column.
Posted by: Jose Costa at Oct 13, 2008 2:19:01 PM
Put Simply, Krugman no longer believes in any of his theories.
This is what I was wondering about.
How accurate is a claim that Krugman has since repudiated the work for which he won the Nobel prize?
Posted by: diz at Oct 13, 2008 2:44:56 PM
diz,
I can pretty much guarantee a claim that
"Put simply, Krugman no longer believes in any of his theories"
is false. You can be sure that this kind of statement is false even if you had never heard of Krugman or didn't know anything about his theories. Give it some thought.
Posted by: RobbL at Oct 13, 2008 3:54:54 PM
I'm a little surprised that no in mentioning the pioneering work of Kelvin Lancaster, who first wrote about models of this type in 1979. This work was in turn based on his early (1971 or so) book about how consumers consume the attributes of goods rather than the goods themselves. I've always felt that his spatial models are more realistic at a micro-level than the Dixit-Stiglitz taste-for-variety stuff.
Posted by: srp at Oct 13, 2008 4:00:19 PM
It's not so much that Krugman actually disbelieves his own theories any more, it's just that to read his over-the-top partisan rhetoric and twisting of economics in his publically-consumed NYT column you wouldn't know any better. That'll mostly change when the Democrats are back at the helm, except when there are problems, in which case those problems will be the result of Republican machination, and at which point his ends-justify-the-means style of economic commentary will resurface as long as is necessary.
Posted by: MM at Oct 13, 2008 4:11:32 PM
Variety will not decrease as we continue to globalize and everyone gains access to information technology.
With increased automation, variety will actually increase.
When anyone can create a new product and have it manufactured anywhere when even a single customer orders it, product variety will explode into the billions.
At this point, people will be crying out for sameness. Fortunately, they'll be able to order that online too.
Posted by: Alan Brown at Oct 13, 2008 4:27:56 PM
srp -- I would disagree that no one is mentioning Lancaster. The Nobel committee, in its scientific writeup gave credit to Lancaster for his ideas, but said Krugman articulated his more forcefully and clearly.
Posted by: DRDR at Oct 13, 2008 4:56:53 PM
I'm a bit surprised that Jeffrey Sachs was overlooked for his work in economic development and now poverty...what is everyone elses thought on this?
Posted by: Eric at Oct 13, 2008 5:36:53 PM
I can pretty much guarantee a claim that "Put simply, Krugman no longer believes in any of his theories" is false.
I didn't mean that question is such a strict pedantic sense.
What I mean is if you looked a Krugman's most notable work (his work that can be argued to be Nobel-worthy), does he currently take positions that are consistent with its implications?
Posted by: diz at Oct 13, 2008 5:49:25 PM
"Ricardo showed that every country (and every person) has a comparative advantage, a good or service that they can produce at a lower (opportunity) cost than any other country (or person)."
Really? I must have gotten something wrong in my undergrad micro class. I thought what you just described is absolute advantage. Furthermore, I thought that what Ricardo showed was that absolute advantage wasn't required to benefit from trade. That mere comparative advantage was sufficient to ensure gains from trade. In other words, that I can benefit from trade even if I lack an absolute advantage in anything.
Posted by: Crank at Oct 13, 2008 6:21:06 PM