李嘉图模型中的4个数字

The true meaning of David Ricardo’s

four magic numbers

Andrea Maneschi *

Department of Economics,Vanderbilt University,Nashville,TN,USA

Received 17October 2002;received in revised form 1November 2002;accepted 20November 2002Abstract

The four numbers in David Ricardo’s example of comparative advantage have been traditionally interpreted as unit labor coefficients in the production of wine and cloth in UK and Portugal.A recent interpretation suggests that they represent instead the labor needed to produce the amounts of wine and cloth actually traded.Ricardo’s four numbers are shown to yield each country’s gains from trade by simply subtracting two of the numbers from the other two.Since the numbers also indicate each country’s comparative advantage,Ricardo established a close connection between comparative advantage and the gains from trade.

D 2003Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved.

Keywords:David Ricardo;Comparative advantage;Gains from trade

JEL classification:F10;B12

1.Introduction

David Ricardo’s famous paragraphs in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation of 1817formulating the principle of comparative advantage have often been quoted:

The quantity of wine which she [Portugal]shall give in exchange for the cloth of England,is not determined by the respective quantities of labour devoted to the production of each,as it would be,if both commodities were manufactured in England,or both in Portugal.

0022-1996/$-see front matter D 2003Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0022-1996(03)00008-4

*Tel.:+1-615-322-2993;fax:+1-615-343-8495.

E-mail address:andrea.maneschi@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html, (A.Maneschi).

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html,/locate/econbase

Journal of International Economics 62(2004)433–

443

England may be so circumstanced,that to produce the cloth may require the labour of 100men for one year;and if she attempted to make the wine,it might require the labour of 120men for the same time.England would therefore find it her interest to import wine,and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth.

To produce the wine in Portugal,might require only the labour of 80men for one year,and to produce the cloth in the same country,might require the labour of 90men for the same time.It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine in exchange for cloth.This exchange might even take place,notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be produced there with less labour than in England.Though she could make the cloth with the labour of 90men,she would import it from a country where it required the labour of 100men to produce it,because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her capital in the production of wine,for which she would obtain more cloth from England,than she could produce by diverting a portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the manufacture of cloth.

Thus England would give the produce of the labour of 100men,for the produce of the labour of 80.(Ricardo,1817,pp.134–135)

These paragraphs contain what Paul Samuelson (1969)referred to as the ‘four magic numbers’denoting the amounts of labor needed to produce wine and cloth in UK (120,100)and Portugal (80,90).The traditional interpretation of these numbers is that they represent the amounts of labor needed to produce one unit of each commodity in each country,that is,that they are labor input–output coefficients.This interpretation appears in nearly all textbooks of international trade,where the ‘Ricardian’model,presented as the simplest representation of the rationale for trade,is based on fixed labor coefficients.While most authors do not quote from Ricardo’s Principles or use his numbers,others illustrate this model by explicit reference to the four numbers.1With the additional assumption that these coefficients are constant,the textbook Ricardian model yields linear production possibility frontiers and complete specialization in both countries (except that if one of the countries happens to be ‘large’,it remains nonspecialized).

Present-day textbooks can cite illustrious precedents for this interpretation of the Ricardian model.For example,Gottfried Haberler (1936,p.128)began his analysis of the theory of comparative cost by asserting that ‘‘In chapter VII of his Principles he [Ricardo]gives the following celebrated example:In England a unit of cloth costs 100and a unit of wine 120units of labour;in Portugal a unit of cloth costs 90and a unit of wine 80units of labour’’.Jacob Viner (1937,p.445)presented a table containing the same four numbers,described as the amounts of ‘labor required for producing a unit’of cloth and wine in UK and Portugal.Basing himself on the same interpretation of Ricardo’s passage,John S.Chipman criticized him for faulty logic:the second paragraph quoted above ‘‘is a non

1

Caves et al.(1993),Kenen (1994)and Krugman and Obstfeld (2000)are examples of the former approach;Appleyard and Field (2001)and So ¨dersten and Reed (1994)of the latter.Appleyard and Field present Ricardo’s four numbers in a table (p.29)titled ‘‘Ricardian Production Conditions in England and Portugal’’,while So ¨dersten and Reed show a table (p.6)that identifies them as ‘‘labour cost of production (in hours)’’.A.Maneschi /Journal of International Economics 62(2004)433–443

434

A.Maneschi/Journal of International Economics62(2004)433–443435 sequitur,since nothing so far has been said about Portugal;indeed,the argument could be turned around merely by redefining the units of measurement’’.The first two sentences of the third paragraph are‘‘equally unsatisfactory,except when read in conjunction with the first’’(Chipman,1965,pp.479–80).Other authors,including the present writer(Man-eschi,1998,p.53),have echoed Chipman’s interpretation.A troubling aspect of this criticism is that it implies an illogical(or,at the very least,careless)thought process on the part of the master logician of political economy.Since many international economists believe that comparative advantage was Ricardo’s most significant contribution to classical political economy,it is unfortunate to have to qualify one’s admiration of his formulation of this principle by pointing out its imperfections.

Section2sets out a new interpretation by Ruffin(2002)of Ricardo’s numerical example,which absolves him of any such criticism and presents the first clear interpre-tation of the meaning of the four magic numbers.Ruffin,however,did not expand on how Ricardo’s formulation of comparative advantage is intimately related to the gains from trade,as I wish to argue in this article.Ricardo’s measure of the gains from trade is consistent with what Viner named the‘eighteenth-century rule’characterizing such gains. Section3shows that the gains from trade according to this rule are obtained simply by subtracting two of the four numbers from the other two.The concluding Section4 examines the reasons why the new interpretation of Ricardo’s four numbers was over-looked for so long,and how the adoption of the standard interpretation might have affected the evolution of the theory of international trade.

2.A new interpretation of Ricardo’s four numbers

A recent reinterpretation of the above passage from Ricardo’s Principles has cast a new light on it,and at the same time rescued Ricardo from the charge of inconsistency or carelessness.In fact,it shows to great advantage the revolutionary character of Ricardo’s contribution.Ruffin(2002)convincingly argued that the four labor input numbers presented by Ricardo are not input–output coefficients,but rather the quantities of labor needed to produce the amounts of wine and cloth actually traded by UK and Portugal.This is implied by Ricardo’s usage of the terms‘the cloth’and‘the wine’in the second paragraph quoted above,which refer to the amounts traded that were mentioned in the first paragraph.As Ruffin states,

Let X be‘the quantity of wine’that is traded for Y units of cloth.If England requires 120men for one year to make X units of wine and100men to make Y units of cloth,‘‘England would therefore find it her interest to import wine,and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth.’’He[Ricardo]then went on to Portugal,which required80men to produce the wine and90to produce the cloth.Obviously,Portugal would save10men producing X wine and trading it for England’s Y cloth.(Ruffin,2002,pp.741–742) He adds(p.742)that‘‘Ricardo’s proof is elegant,simple,and sublime.It not only uses the separation property of the law of comparative advantage,but the logical structure applies to any number of goods or countries,unlike textbook expositions’’.

Further reflection on Ruffin’s novel interpretation of Ricardo’s numerical example has convinced me that it can be developed so as to yield new insights into the relationship between comparative advantage and the gains from trade.Given that X units of Portuguese wine are traded for Y units of English cloth (Ricardo never assigned values to X and Y ),the unit labor coefficients for wine and cloth in UK and Portugal are given by the following table:

The terms of trade are Y /X units of cloth per unit of wine.In UK the opportunity cost of wine is 1.2Y /X units of cloth,while in Portugal it is 0.89Y /X ,so that Portugal has a comparative advantage in wine.

Instead of following this procedure in terms of the unknown variables X and Y ,economists have tended to infer the pattern of comparative advantage,and hence the direction of trade,by interpreting the ‘four magic numbers’as unit labor coefficients.They used them to derive the autarky price ratios for the two countries,and offered reasons that explain why the terms of trade usually lie between them.Ricardo is often mildly reprimanded for announcing the terms of trade in the fourth paragraph of the above passage without explaining their determination,a task later undertaken by John Stuart Mill.

With the new interpretation of the four numbers,we see that Ricardo’s method was much more direct.By stipulating from the start that certain quantities of wine and cloth exchange for each other in the trade equilibrium,he essentially began with the terms of trade,and went on to specify domestic exchange ratios in the two countries that are consistent with them and lie on either side of them.2The fact that UK uses 100men to produce the cloth she exports,whereas she would need 120men to produce the wine she imports,immediately establishes her comparative advantage in cloth without requiring any knowledge of Portugal’s labor inputs.Likewise,Portugal’s comparative advantage in wine is established by her requiring 80men to produce enough wine to pay for the cloth which she would otherwise produce with the labor of 90men.Thus,in the same breath,Ricardo informed his readers not only about the pattern of comparative advantage,but about each country’s gains from trade.In the case of UK,these gains are given by the difference between the two numbers he cited for wine and cloth,120à100=20,while in the case of Portugal they amount to 90à80=10.They express the labor that each country saves when

Wine

Cloth UK 120/X

100/Y Portugal

80/X 90/Y 2

Ruffin (2002)argues persuasively that Ricardo’s primary concern (as expressed in the first paragraph of the passage from the Principles quoted above)was not how the commodity terms of trade are determined,but the fact that the double factoral terms of trade between two trading countries are usually not equal to unity.While it is theoretically possible (though unlikely)that they equal unity when each country has an absolute advantage in its export commodity,this is impossible when (as in Ricardo’s numerical example)Portugal has an absolute advantage in both commodities.Hence the labor theory of value cannot be relied on as a guide for the determination of international prices.A.Maneschi /Journal of International Economics 62(2004)433–443

436

A.Maneschi/Journal of International Economics62(2004)433–443437 it trades with the other instead of remaining self-sufficient.These gains,of course,can be realized only if it specializes according to its comparative advantage.Gains from trade accrue to each country as long as the amount of labor embodied in its exports falls short of the labor it would need to produce the commodities it imports.This guarantees that the terms of trade fall inside the cone spanned by the two autarky price ratios.The economy of thought and the richness of results to be drawn from Ricardo’s example are truly astounding.

The way in which Ricardo expressed the gains from trade is consistent with a long tradition that preceded him,denoted by Viner as the‘eighteenth-century rule’for the gains from trade.It states that‘‘it pays to import commodities from abroad whenever they can be obtained in exchange for exports at a smaller real cost than their production at home would entail’’(Viner,1937,p.440).It therefore reflects the benefits of trade viewed as an indirect method of production.Consider this in the context of Ricardo’s two-good English economy,where good C(cloth)is exported,good W(wine)is imported,and labor is the only factor of production.Let the superscript t represent the trade equilibrium.If a i is the amount of labor needed to produce one unit of good i,one unit of labor can produce either1=a W units of wine or1=a C units of cloth,which can be exchanged fore1=a CTep C=p WTt units of wine at the terms of tradeep C=p WTt:This trade is beneficial at the margin as long as

e1=a CTep C=p WTt>1=a W;e1Tor

ep C=p WTt>a C=a W?MRT;e1aTsince the marginal rate of transformation(MRT)equals the ratio of the marginal costs of producing cloth and wine.The economy produces more cloth untilep C=p WTt?MRT;so that the terms of trade line is tangent to the transformation curve,or until it specializes fully in cloth.The assumption of increasing opportunity costs in the transformation of wine into cloth is used and justified in Section3.It is more general than the textbook version of the Ricardian model,where the transformation curve is linear and each trading economy becomes fully specialized.

3.Ricardo’s measure of the gains from trade

Rather than basing the gains from trade on a unit of labor shifted from the importable to the exportable sector,as implied by(1),Ricardo expressed these gains with reference to a country’s total imports and exports.To express his measure algebraically,assume that m W units of wine,rather than produced directly,are imported in exchange for exports x C of cloth.These amounts are shown in Fig.1,where the autarky equilibrium is at A and the terms of trade are given by the slope of PC.If consumption occurs at point C,the trade triangle is CBP,its sides measuring exports BP of cloth and imports CB of wine.If y i is the output of commodity i and S i the amount of labor used in sector i,let y C?feS CTand y W?geS WTbe the production functions of cloth and wine in UK.

Assume that f V ;g V >0;f W ;g W V 0;and either f W or g W <0;so that there are diminishing returns to labor in the production of at least one good.If L is the economy’s fully employed labor force,L ?S C tS W ?f à1ey C Ttg à1ey W T,where f à1and g à1are the inverse functions of f and g .This equation yields the economy’s concave transformation curve shown in Fig.1.3

If d t i represents the demand for commodity i in UK when it trades with Portugal,the

amount of labor required to produce x C ?y t C àd t C cloth exports is f à1ey t C Tàf à1ed t C T:The labor that would be required to produce m W ?d t W ày t W wine imports is g à1ed t W Tàg à1

ey t W ).According to Ricardo,the amount of labor saved (LS)through trade is therefore

LS ?g à1ed t W

Tàg à1ey t W Tàf à1ey t C Ttf à1ed t C T?120à100?20men :

e2T3Findlay (1974)obtained a concave transformation curve when he assumed constant returns to labor in the manufacturing sector ef W ?0Tand diminishing returns in the agricultural sector eg W <0T:The technological assumptions made in this section are analogous to those underlying the Ricardo–Viner (sometimes called ‘specific-factors’)model,which assumes that each sector of the economy uses a factor of production specific to it as well as a ‘mobile’factor,usually taken to be labor,common to all sectors.Krugman and Obstfeld (2000)discuss this model in the chapter immediately following that devoted to the ‘Ricardian’model.In a box titled ‘Specific Factors and the Beginnings of Trade Theory’,they state that ‘‘Yet almost surely the British economy of 1817was better described by a specific factors model than by the one-factor model Ricardo presented’’(p.58).They implicitly assume that the agricultural (corn)sector uses land as its specific factor,that capital is specific to the manufacturing sector,and that both sectors share the mobile factor,labor.They go on to discuss the distributional implications of the Corn Laws for landlords and capitalists,and the reasons for Ricardo’s opposition to these

laws.

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html,parative advantage and Ricardo’s measure of the gains from trade.

A.Maneschi /Journal of International Economics 62(2004)433–443

438

A.Maneschi/Journal of International Economics62(2004)433–443439 Since L?fà1ey t CTtgà1ey t WT;(2)can be rewritten as

LS?fà1ed t CTtgà1ed t WTàL:e2aT

A measure of the gains from trade often used in neoclassical trade theory is the Hicksian equivalent variation(EV),defined as the amount of income that must be added to national income evaluated at autarky prices at point A in order to attain the level of welfare realized at point C.If the‘equivalence’underlying the equivalent variation is of the Slutsky type,EV S,the community is able to buy the free-trade consumption bundle itself at the autarky prices,so that

EV S?p aed tàd aT;e3Twhere p and d are the price and demand vectors,and the superscript a represents the autarky equilibrium.4If cloth is the numeraire and CH is drawn parallel to AG,EV S is measured in Fig.1by the difference GH between the values of the consumption bundles at C and A at the autarky prices given by the slope of the line AG.5An alternative measure of the gains from trade is the compensating variation(CV),defined as the income that must be taken away when the community consumes bundle C at free trade prices in order to reduce welfare to its autarky level.

A measure that is analogous to both the EV and the CV is the difference between the amount of labor needed to produce the consumption bundle under trade(d t C;d t W)and that needed to produce the bundle(d a C;d a W)consumed under autarky.It is the additional labor force,over and above L;that would be needed in autarky to produce the consumption bundle available under free trade.It is here denoted as the equivalent variation in terms of labor,or EV L.It differs from both the EV and CV since it is expressed in terms of the labor input rather than of expenditure.Since in autarky d a C?y a C;d a W?y a W;and fà1ey a CTtgà1ey a WT?L;this measure is given by

EV L?fà1ed t CTtgà1ed t WTàfà1ey a CTàgà1ey a WT

?fà1ed t CTtgà1ed t WTàL:e4TThis is identical to the value of LS in(2a),and therefore to the measure proposed by Ricardo.The beauty and appeal of Ricardo’s measure is that it coincides with EV L,and is thus analogous to the neoclassical measures of the gains from trade,the equivalent and compensating variations.

The transformation curve shown in Fig.1,characterized by increasing opportunity costs in transforming one commodity into the other and incomplete specialization,is

4On the difference between Hicks and Slutsky compensations,see Varian(1992,pp.135–137).While not shown in Fig.1,it is clear that the Slutsky EV usually exceeds the Hicksian EV.

5Note that the Slutsky equivalent variation is smaller than p a m;the value of net imports at autarky prices, where m is the economy’s net import vector.The value of p a m is known to be positive thanks to the generalization of the concept of comparative advantage by Deardorff(1980)and Dixit and Norman(1980).In terms of cloth,it is given in Fig.1by

àx Ctep W=p CTa m W?àBPtep W=p CTa CB?àBPteBH=CBTCB?PH;

which exceeds the value of the equivalent variation given by GH.

consistent with Ricardo’s statement that ‘‘a country possessing very considerable advan-tages in machinery and skill,and which may therefore be enabled to manufacture commodities with much less labour than her neighbours,may,in return for such commodities,import a portion of the corn required for its consumption’’(Ricardo,1817,p.136;emphasis added).This implies that some of the corn consumed is produced domestically.The passage from Ricardo’s Principles quoted at the beginning of this article nowhere states or implies that specialization is complete after trade in either UK or Portugal.A concave transformation curve is also ideally suited to portray both the static and the dynamic gains from trade.If the cloth and wine in Ricardo’s example are relabeled as ‘manufactures’and ‘corn’(a term used by the classical economists to denote wheat and other grains),it is easy to show that when the country with a comparative advantage in manufactures imports corn,whose production is subject to diminishing returns,it enjoys an increase in the profit rate caused by a rise in the marginal product of labor in the corn sector (Findlay,1974,1984;Maneschi,1983).A ‘‘rise in the rate of profits’’is mentioned by Ricardo (1817,p.132)as a gain from trade on a par with the static gain discussed above.Since a higher profit rate is associated with a higher rate of capital accumulation,the economy enjoys dynamic gains from trade by moving to a trajectory marked by a higher growth rate.6

Another consequence of assuming a concave transformation curve and incomplete specialization is that the trade triangle is much smaller than that associated with a linear transformation curve leading to complete specialization.The smaller volume of trade may explain the relatively small numbers of workers associated with the production of exports and imports in UK (100,120)and Portugal (80,90)in Ricardo’s example.

4.Concluding remarks

The gains from trade outlined above,in terms of the amount of labor saved by trading exports for importable goods instead of producing the latter directly,represent the static benefits from exploiting trade as an indirect method of production.In Ricardo’s example,Portugal’s comparative advantage can be deduced from the fact that her relative productivity advantage in wine is 33%,while that in cloth is 10%.Commentators have often speculated on why Ricardo picked his four numbers so that Portugal holds an absolute advantage over UK in producing both commodities.These numbers strike one as especially peculiar with regard to cloth,given that the industrial revolution occurred in UK rather than Portugal.A possible explanation for Ricardo’s choice is that he wished to make the rhetorical point that,even if she were inefficient in producing both commodities,UK could end up garnering the lion’s share (20/30or two-thirds)of the worldwide gains from trade.

The new interpretation of Ricardo’s four numbers is consistent with diminishing returns in production,so that a trading economy need not fully specialize in its export good.The

6

This dynamic interpretation of the gains from trade,consistent with Ricardo’s insistence throughout his Principles of Political Economy that Britain’s corn trade should be liberalized,is stressed in Maneschi (1992).A.Maneschi /Journal of International Economics 62(2004)433–443

440

A.Maneschi/Journal of International Economics62(2004)433–443441 corollary is that there is a dynamic as well as a static component of the gains from trade. This conforms with Ricardo’s opinion,forcefully expressed in Parliament as well as in his writings,that the Corn Laws led to a decline in Britain’s rate of profit.Their repeal would reverse this trend,since cheaper corn imports would boost the profit rate and restore dynamism to the British economy.

If the above interpretation of Ricardo’s four numbers is correct,why did most economists,including some very distinguished ones,7for almost two centuries interpret them instead to be unit labor coefficients in the production of wine and cloth in the two countries?A second and equally challenging question is whether this interpretation distorted in any way the profession’s understanding of the nature of Ricardian comparative advantage.In answering the first question,recall that John Stuart Mill(1844,1848) completed Ricardo’s theory by developing the principle of reciprocal demand as a determinant of the terms of trade.In both his books,he cited paragraphs from his father’s Elements of Political Economy(James Mill,1844)that contained examples of Ricardian comparative advantage relating to English cloth being traded for Polish corn.Just as in Ricardo’s case,James Mill’s four numbers represented the labor needed to produce the amounts actually traded by the two countries.But John https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html,l also inserted examples of English broad cloth being exchanged for German linen that were expressed in terms of the domestic and international terms of trade,not in terms of the amounts of labor embodied in the commodities traded.This had the effect of focusing attention on the two trading economies’autarky price ratios as limits within which the terms of trade must lie.It was natural for subsequent economists to assume(in line with Ricardo’s own labor theory of value)that these autarky price ratios were given by labor inputs per unit of output,and that Ricardo’s four numbers represent the four labor coefficients per unit of output needed to calculate them.Ricardo’s failure to speculate on the determination of the terms of trade was viewed as a defect which https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html,l’s theory was designed to correct.Given the intellectual prestige carried by Mill’s interpretation of the Ricardian model,subsequent generations of economists followed the same interpretation without bothering to read closely Ricardo’s original wording of the principle of comparative advantage.8

A second and related question is whether the standard interpretation of Ricardo’s principle led economists to form a distorted view of Ricardian comparative advantage.As argued above,Ricardo began his example by postulating the equilibrium terms of trade, and went on to assume that the two trading countries’opportunity cost ratios lie on either side of them,without explaining what those ratios depend on.The textbook versions of the Ricardian model invert Ricardo’s own order of presentation by first theorizing about the 7As Ruffin(2002,p.742)points out,Sraffa is an exception to this generalization.He correctly interpreted Ricardo’s paragraphs on comparative costs when he stated that via trade UK‘gains the labour of20Englishmen’, while‘‘Portugal gains the labour of10Portuguese’’(Sraffa,1930,p.541).As noted below,James Mill is another exception.The history of economic thought contains many examples of insights gained by earlier economists that were subsequently lost.Sraffa’s insight of1930(unrelated to his subsequent larger reinterpretation of Ricardo’s work)was ignored for over70years until Roy Ruffin noticed it and brought it to public attention.Perhaps the new view of Ricardo’s four numbers as the amounts of labor embodied in trade flows should be referred to as the Sraffa–Ruffin interpretation.

https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html,l’s role in diverting attention away from Ricardo’s formulation of the labor embodied in the bundle of traded goods is also underscored by Ruffin(2002,pp.742–743).

autarky price ratios in each country,attributing them to different technologies based on labor as the sole factor of production,and then speculating on the location of the terms of trade within the cone spanned by autarky prices.The standard interpretation of trade models also divides the theory of international trade into ‘positive’and ‘normative’branches,where the former investigates the reasons for comparative advantage (which include technological differences,differential factor endowments and differences in tastes among countries),and the latter its welfare implications or the ‘gains from trade’.These branches are often discussed in separate sections of textbooks or surveys of international trade,and there is no doubt that this dichotomy is didactically useful.9Ricardo,however,did not make it.His primary focus of interest was the gains from trade,and his four numbers relating to the wine and cloth traded by UK and Portugal yield such gains for each country by simple subtraction.The gains from trade can be realized because each country trades according to its comparative advantage.Since his four magic numbers do double duty by providing indices of comparative advantage as well as measures of the gains from trade,Ricardo rejected any dichotomy between the positive rationale for trade and the normative gains from trade.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Roy Ruffin and two anonymous referees for their perceptive comments on earlier versions of this article.Remaining errors are the author’s alone.References

Appleyard,D.R.,Field Jr.,A.J.,2001.International Economics,4th Edition.McGraw-Hill,New York.

Caves,R.E.,Frankel,J.A.,Jones,R.W.,1993.World Trade and Payments,6th Edition.Harper Collins,New York.Chipman,J.S.,1965.A survey of the theory of international trade:part 1:the classical theory.Econometrica 33,477–519.

Deardorff,A.V .,1980.The general validity of the law of comparative advantage.Journal of Political Economy 88,941–957.

Dixit,A.K.,Norman,V .,1980.Theory of International Trade.Cambridge University Press,Digswell Place.Findlay,R.,1974.Relative prices,growth and trade in a simple Ricardian system.Economica 41,1–13.

Findlay,R.,1984.Growth and development in trade models.In:Jones,R.W.,Kenen,P.B.(Eds.).Handbook of International Economics,V ol.I.North-Holland,Amsterdam,pp.185–236.

Haberler,G.,1936.The Theory of International Trade.William Hodge,Edinburgh.

Jones,R.W.,Kenen,P.B.(Eds.),1984.Handbook of International Economics,V ol.I.North-Holland,Amsterdam.Kenen,P.B.,1994.The International Economy,3rd Edition.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Krugman,P.,Obstfeld,M.,2000.International Economics:Theory and Policy,6th Edition.Harper Collins,New York.

Maneschi,A.,1983.Dynamic aspects of Ricardo’s international trade theory.Oxford Economic Papers 35,67–80.

Maneschi,A.,1992.Ricardo’s international trade theory:beyond the comparative cost example.Cambridge Journal of Economics 16,421–437.

9

For example,Chapter 1of Jones and Kenen (1984),by R.W.Jones and J.P.Neary,treats ‘The positive theory of international trade’,and Chapter 2(by W.M.Corden)‘The normative theory of international trade’.A.Maneschi /Journal of International Economics 62(2004)433–443

442

A.Maneschi/Journal of International Economics62(2004)433–443443 Maneschi,A.,https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html,parative Advantage in International Trade:A Historical Perspective.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Mill,J.,1844.Elements of Political Economy,3rd Edition.A.M.Kelley,New York,1965.

Mill,J.S.,1844.Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy.John W.Parker,London.

Mill,J.S.,1848.Principles of Political Economy.Parker&Co,London.

Ricardo,D.,1817.On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.In:Sraffa,P.(Ed.).The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo,V ol.I.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,1951.

Ruffin,R.J.,2002.David Ricardo’s discovery of comparative advantage.History of Political Economy34, 727–748.

Samuelson,P.A.,1969.The way of an economist.In:Samuelson,P.A.(Ed.),International Economic Relations: Proceedings of the Third Congress of the International Economic Association.Macmillan,London,pp.1–11. So¨dersten,B.,Reed,G.,1994.International Economics,3rd Edition.Macmillan,Houndmills.

Sraffa,P.,1930.An alleged correction of Ricardo.Quarterly Journal of Economics44,539–545.

Varian,H.R.,1992.Microeconomic Analysis,3rd Edition.Norton,New York.

Viner,J.,1937.Studies in the Theory of International Trade.Harper,New York.

李嘉图模型

第二节李嘉图模型 斯密绝对优势说不能回答这样的问题：如果一国在所有产品生产上都不存在着绝对有利的生产条件，那么这个国家还要不要参加国际贸易，或者说还能不能从国际贸易中获得利益呢？而当时许多殖民地便处于这种状况，它们又与宗主国之间发生了大量的双向贸易。 李嘉图(D. Ricardo)提出的比较优势理论(亦称比较成本说)解释了这一问题，李嘉图认为，即使一国在所有产品的生产成本上与别国相比都处于劣势，仍然会进行国际贸易，仍然可以获得贸易利益。李嘉图在其1817年出版的《政治经济学及赋税原理》一书的第7章“论对外贸易”中，运用两国两产品模型，论证了国际贸易的基础是比较优势而非绝对优势。 一、李嘉图模型的假设 进行经济分析常常需要通过一些假设条件使问题简化，李嘉图及其追随者们关于比较优势的分析使用或隐含了以下假设： (1)两国两产品模型。即假定世界上只有两个国家，生产两种产品。 (2)只有劳动一种要素，所有的劳动是同质的(homogeneous)。 (3)生产成本不变。单位产品成本不因产量增加而增加，总是和生产单位产品所使用的劳动量成比例。 (4)运输成本为零。即不考虑运输、进入市场的费用。 (5)没有技术进步。这意味着技术水平是给定的、不变的，从而经济是静态的。 (6)物物交换。目的在于排除货币和汇率因素的影响。 (7)完全竞争市场。但生产要素在国内自由流动，在国际间不能自由移动。 (8)充分就业。即没有闲置的资源，劳动力作为惟一生产要素得到充分利用。 (9)国民收入分配不变。即贸易不影响一国国民的相对收入水平，这样有助于说明贸易对整个世界和对每一个个人都是有利的，可以直接衡量贸易利益。 二、相对成本与比较优势 比较优势理论的基本思想在于，不同国家生产不同产品会存在劳动生产率或成本上的差异，各国应分工生产各自具有相对优势，即劳动生产率相对较高或成本相对较低的产品，通过国际贸易获得利益。所谓比较优势(comparative advantage)是指一国(数种产品中)生产成本相对低的优势。 现在根据上述假定以两国两产品模型说明李嘉图比较优势原理，假定有A、B两个国家(英国和葡萄牙)，均生产X(呢绒)、Y(酒)两种产品；只有一种生产要素(劳动)，以劳动量(小时)表示生产成本。表2-3是两国分工和贸易前的生产状况：

第三章古典贸易理论的扩展

第三章古典贸易理论的扩展

第三章古典贸易理论的扩展 第一节李嘉图模型的扩展 （哈勃勒机会成本模型） 在李嘉图的理论中，劳动是唯一的生产要素并且是同质的，也就是说，李嘉图理论只是分析了两国一种要素条件下生产两种产品的贸易情形。然而，这种情形并不能够完全覆盖经济实际中的全部情形。实际上，经济中的要素总是多种的，任何国家生产任何一种产品所需要的资源或要素不仅存在数量要求而且存在结构或种类的配置问题。那么，针对多种要素（例如，两种要素）条件下的产品生产的贸易问题，奥地利经济学家哈勃勒在继承李嘉图理论分析框架的基础上通过引入并运用机会成本的概念，对李嘉图古典贸易理论进行了演绎，在新的条件下对比较优势理论给予了一个新的解释，称之为“哈勃勒扩展”。其关键性概念是机会成本。 1、机会成本 所谓机会成本（opportunity cost）是指：假定经济社会的资源是给定的，那么在这种条件下，经济社会增加一种商品的生产就不得不减少或放弃另外一种商品的生产，该减少的或放弃的某种商品的产量就称为增加生产的机会成本。在经济学分析中，机会成本通常用边际产量表示，即：每增加生产1单位某种商品生产时必须减少的或不得不放弃的另一种商品的最大产量。 假定：A国全部经济资源总量被给定，且被配置在生产小麦和布匹等两个主要的商品上。现在，A国为增加小麦的产量，就必须将经济资源的一部分从生产布匹的过程转移到小麦的生产过程，这样做显然会引起该经济社会布匹产量的减少。那么，减少的布匹产量就是增加小麦生产的机会成本。因此机会成本的概念表达了经济社会在资源给定的条件下，如何配置经济资源的一种抉择。 从上述的分析中可知，机会成本存在着两种状态： （1）当增加的产量所形成的收益超过减少的

李嘉图模型的扩展

第三节李嘉图模型的扩展 一、机会成本递增 哈伯勒运用机会成本概念与生产可能性曲线对古典贸易理论进行了重新诠释，哈伯勒的分析其重要意义在于提供了突破古典国际贸易理论单一生产要素局限的可能性。并且，分析不再是关注于生产某种商品的资源投入数量，而是相同资源可生产的另一种产品的产量，即某种产品的机会成本。 李嘉图的比较利益说是机会成本不变的情形，结果是两国可能实行完全的专业化分工。 马歇尔曾经论述过的内部规模经济和外部规模经济会产生机会成本递减的情况，即随产量增加需要放弃的另一种产品产量减少。但哈伯勒认为内部规模经济利益导致的生产扩大使得机会成本递减的情形会被机会成本递增所代替，而外部规模经济利益又常常被忽略而丧失。所以，机会成本递减属于罕见的情形，纵使存在，结果是两国中至少一国实行完全专业化分工。 最为普遍的是机会成本递增，因为生产要素从一种商品生产转用于另一种商品生产，往往使得该生产要素不是用在它最适合生产的产品，加大了转产损失，就会出现机会成本递增。 我们先引入两个分析工具：一是生产可能性曲线(production possibility curve)，亦称生产可能性边界(production possibility frontier — PPF)，是指在给定技术和可利用资源的条件下，用这些资源和技术所能够生产出来的各种商品的各种数量组合的轨迹。 两种产品的情形可在平面坐标表示出来，生产可能性曲线上的每一点表示充分而有效利用资源所能生产的两种产品产量的一种组合；生产可能性曲线以内的各点表示资源未获充分利用，或者属于全部利用了资源但却是缺乏效率的利用；生产可能性曲线以外的各点则表示现有技术和资源所达不到的产量。 图2-3 生产可能性的几种情况 生产可能性曲线上点的斜率表示增加生产1单位某产品所必须牺牲的另一种产品的数量，即某产品的机会成本，这一斜率也称为该产品的边际转换率(marginal rate of transformation — MRT)，即在生产可能性曲线上两种商品相互替代的比例。 生产可能性曲线会由于机会成本的动态变化而呈现不同形状。在机会成本不变的情况下，生产可能性曲线是一条直线；机会成本递增的时候，生产可能性曲线凹向原点；而机会成本递减的时候，生产可能性曲线凸向原点。这几种情况如图2-3所示。 二是社会无差异曲线(community indifference curve)。是指在一定的偏好函数、技术水平和资源状况下，按照一定价格和收入，表现产品数量的各种组合对社会各个消费者的满足程

李嘉图模型中的4个数字

The true meaning of David Ricardo’s four magic numbers Andrea Maneschi * Department of Economics,Vanderbilt University,Nashville,TN,USA Received 17October 2002;received in revised form 1November 2002;accepted 20November 2002Abstract The four numbers in David Ricardo’s example of comparative advantage have been traditionally interpreted as unit labor coefficients in the production of wine and cloth in UK and Portugal.A recent interpretation suggests that they represent instead the labor needed to produce the amounts of wine and cloth actually traded.Ricardo’s four numbers are shown to yield each country’s gains from trade by simply subtracting two of the numbers from the other two.Since the numbers also indicate each country’s comparative advantage,Ricardo established a close connection between comparative advantage and the gains from trade. D 2003Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved. Keywords:David Ricardo;Comparative advantage;Gains from trade JEL classification:F10;B12 1.Introduction David Ricardo’s famous paragraphs in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation of 1817formulating the principle of comparative advantage have often been quoted: The quantity of wine which she [Portugal]shall give in exchange for the cloth of England,is not determined by the respective quantities of labour devoted to the production of each,as it would be,if both commodities were manufactured in England,or both in Portugal. 0022-1996/$-see front matter D 2003Elsevier B.V .All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0022-1996(03)00008-4 *Tel.:+1-615-322-2993;fax:+1-615-343-8495. E-mail address:andrea.maneschi@https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html, (A.Maneschi). https://www.sodocs.net/doc/835424814.html,/locate/econbase Journal of International Economics 62(2004)433– 443

从中国机电产品的进出口来分析李嘉图模型和赫克歇尔-俄林模型的差异

从中国机电产品的进出口来分析李嘉图模型和赫克歇尔-俄林模型的 差异 从商务数据中心重点商品进出口统计可以看到，主要进口产品统计中机电产品占据61992289万美元，主要出口产品统计中机电产品占据88245276万美元，同样高居榜首。本文就从机电产品来试着分析下李嘉图模型与赫克歇尔-俄林模型的差异。 首先,来了解以下这两个模型，李嘉图模型：李嘉图模型的基本思想是，一个国家两个部门的劳动生产率即使都比另一个国家高，或者都比另一个国家低，只要有一个部门的劳动生产率相对较高，该部门就是具有比较优势的部门，这就好比，发达国家的劳动生产率比发展中国家要高，但是他们更愿意让发展中国家生产初级制成品，而他们自己生产高级制成品，比如，美国更愿意从其他国家进口汽车配件，而在本国生产汽车。 赫克歇尔-俄林模型：基本思想有两条：第一，不同的产品是用不同的比列的生产要素生产的：第二，不同的国家具有不用比例的要素禀赋。由此可以判断，一个某种要素相对丰裕的国家在生产中使用该要素比列较高的产品方面具有比较优势。同样的道理，不一样的思考角度，前面论述的是因为劳动生产率的相对比较优势，导致美国更愿意让发展中国家生产初级制成品，而他们自己生产高级制成品，现在换个角度，因为中国的劳动力价格比较低，拥有劳动力的要素禀赋，所以美国才更愿意从中国进口初级制成品的机电配件，而自己附加本国具有的科技和技术要素禀赋，来完成最终的制成品。 分析完了两个模型，再来考擦下中国在出口大量机电产品的同时又在大量的进口机电产品那，宏观经济源于微观，但又高于微观，在我们周围，喜爱用国产手机的，相信不会占很多，但是国产手机依然有强大的出口，长虹，美的，海尔也有着大量的出口，但是同时，又在大量的进口苹果，索尼，诺基亚，奔驰等等，从个体来看，注重的是品位，是享受，因为内在的科技含量和技术水平比较高，那么我们出口的机电产品为什么又能吸引消费者的爱好那，我觉得应该是价格，最关键的就是价格。 因为劳动力的廉价，造成了价格优势，根据李嘉图模型来说，贸易双方都会得益，因为都是在生产各自具有劳动率相对比较优势的产品，而根据赫克歇尔-俄林模型来说，进出口贸易会引起商品价格的变动，而商品价格和要素价格之间有一一对应的关系，因此商品价格的变动也会引起要素价格的变动，这就是说国际贸易会产生收入分配影响，一般来说，一国

李嘉图模型的理论背景

第一节李嘉图模型的理论背景 一、重商主义 重商主义(Mercantilism) 是曾经支配过一个时代的经济思潮，产生于15 世纪，到17 世纪后其影响力逐渐衰落。 重商主义是资本主义最初发展阶段反映商业资本利益和要求的经济理论，它的产生和发展，代表了原始积累阶段时期为加速资本主义发展，资产阶级渴望积累大量货币资本的需要。 重商主义是当时的人对资本原始积累时期商业实践的直观感知，以及由此导出的一系列基于经验主义的政策结论。重商主义的基本内容是：财富就是货币，货币即财富；财富的直接源泉是流通领域；一个国家财富必不可少的是金银等贵金属，如果它没有贵金属，就必须通过贸易来取得，对外贸易必须保持顺差。 重商主义的发展可分为两个阶段：早期重商主义(15世纪)和晚期重商主义(16—17世纪)。在早期重商主义时期，由于工场手工业不发达，封建国家不可能指望依靠大量出口而换回国内所必需的货币。于是，政府采取各种行政措施来补救，以防止货币外流和尽可能地吸收外国货币。早期重商主义以守财奴的眼光来看待货币，觉得一切购买都是使货币减少，一切出售都是使货币增加，主张国家在对外贸易中尽量少买，最好不买，主张国家对每一外国的贸易都应是超出的。这种观点后发展为货币差额论。 晚期重商主义着重在开源方面，着重奖励出口，扶植手工制造业。因为晚期重商主义时期，对外贸易已有很大发展，商业和工场手工业已很发达，资本原始积累时期也已经开始了。晚期重商主义者对金银的态度已完全改变，已经用资本家的眼光来看待货币，认为货币搁置不用是不会产生货币的，只有将货币投入流通，使其成为资本，才能增值。货币充作资本的职能已全部显现出来。晚期重商主义认为少买多卖是相对的，可以大量买，只需在对外贸易总额中出售量大于购买量就行。这种思想后来发展为贸易差额论。晚期重商主义者托马斯·孟(T. Mun)这样说到：“必须时时谨守这一原则：在价值上，每年卖给外国人的货物，必须比我们消费它们的为多”。[1]晚期重商主义已经放弃了早期重商主义的反贸易偏向，将对外贸易的重要性进一步提高。 应当提及的是，重商主义者虽然衰落了但没有消亡，尤其是它的贸易政策主张仍然延续了下来，甚至直到今日，各国的贸易政策中仍然可以隐约见到重商主义的影子。 二、绝对优势理论 重商主义者从商业资本的角度，提出了采取奖出限进的保护贸易政策来保证对外贸易的顺差——他们所认为的财富增加的源泉。但是，限制贸易的措施却阻碍了当时日益成长的产业资本扩张，从而引发出产业资本家要求自由贸易的呼声。 斯密(A. Smith)并非提出自由贸易的第一人，在他之前，配第(W. Petty)、巴本(N. Barbon)、诺思(D. North)、休谟(D. Hume)等已有关于自由贸易的言论，他们的言论可被视作是自由贸易理论的萌芽。但斯密之前并无系统的关于自由贸易的理论，均为针对重商主义贸易保护而提出的一些要求贸易自由的政策主张，只是到了斯密，一种系统的自由贸易理论在古典经济学的基础上建立了起来。 绝对优势说是斯密在对重商主义的批判过程中建立的，斯密认为，首先，重商主义把金[1]托马斯·孟：《英国得自对外贸易的财富》，中译本，商务印书馆，1965年，第4-5页。

李嘉图模型(比较优势)

劳动生产率和比较优势 1． 各国参与国际贸易的基本原因： A. 各国间的差别，做善长的事，取长补短，获益（比较优势） B. 达到生产的规模经济，生产效率提高 2. 比较优势： 本国生产一种商品的机会成本低于外国，拥有比较优势（北美计算机，南美玫瑰） 3. 英国经济学家 大卫-李嘉图模型 A. 一国： 国际间劳动生产率的不同是国际贸易的唯一决定因素 a L ：单位产品劳动投入，单位劳动生产率是它的倒数 生产可能性边界：斜率是横坐标的机会成本（前提是同质）（一个国家能够生产不同产品的组合） 不等式：L Q a Q a LC LC LW LW ≤+ 劳动总是流向工资比较高的部门，产品的供给取决于劳动力的流向 奶酪的小时工资: P c /a LC 当 Pc/Pw>aLc/aLw ， 奶酪部门工资高，本国专门生产奶酪 关键命题：一国相对价格>机会成本时，只生产奶酪 如果没有国际贸易，本国必须为自己生产两种产品，导致两种产品的价格必须等于机会成本。即：在没有国际贸易时，产品的相对价格等于他们的相对单位产品劳动投入 B. 两国 *LW * LC LW LC a a a a < 比较机会成本 得出比较优势 绝对优势：当一个国家能够以少于其他国家的劳动投入生产出同样单位的商品时。（光凭绝对优势没法确定贸易模式） 4.国际贸易发生后相对价格确定 研究比较优势时必须注意两个市场，即注意两种产品的相对供求量。 RD TOT

5．贸易所得 两种方法体现贸易互利性： ①间接生产： 用1小时生产的奶酪换取葡萄酒：( LC a 1)（Pw Pc ) 直接用1小时生产葡萄酒： LW a 1 因为( LC a 1)（Pw Pc )> LW a 1 ，所以第一种方法好。 当世界市场均衡时，没有国家会同时生产两种产品，就一定有Pw Pc >LW LC a a 。 ②研究影响消费可能性： 贸易前：消费可能性与生产可能性一致 贸易后：都扩大了，各国居民的福利水平提高 6.相对工资 劳动生产率较低的国家工资率也较低，就具有了成本优势（工资相同是在一国情况下）。 比较优势决定贸易模式，绝对优势决定相对工资（工资率）。 7.比较优势的误区 1劳动生产率和竞争力 一个部门的比较优势不仅取决于该部门相对于其他国家同一部门的劳动生产率，也取决于本国相对于国外的工资率。（劳动生产率低，必然工资率低，低到成本比他国小，从而拥有比较优势。） 2贫民劳动论 生产成本低取决于生产率高还是工资率低都是无关紧要的，关键是用本国生产的奶酪换取他国的葡萄酒更便宜。 3剥削 拒绝出口，外国（工资低的国家）两个产业的工资率相等，产品价格上涨，购买力下降（以

国际经济学课后答案

第三章复习题(1),本国共有1200单位的劳动，能生产两种产品：苹果和香蕉。苹果的单位产品劳动投入是3，香蕉的单位劳动产品投入时2。 a.画出本国的生产可能性边界。 b.用香蕉衡量的苹果的机会成本是多少 c.贸易前，苹果对香蕉的相对价格是多少为什么 答：a.本国的生产可能性边界曲线是一条直线，在400（1200/3)处与苹果轴相截，在600（1200/2）处与香蕉轴相截，如图2-7所示。 b.用香蕉衡量苹果的机会成本是3/2。生产1单位苹果需要3单位的劳动，生产1单位香蕉需要2单位的劳动。如果放弃1单位苹果的生产，这将释放出3单位的劳动。这2 图2-7 本国生产可能 单位的劳动可以被用来生产3/2单位的香蕉。 c.劳动的流动性可以使得各个部门的工资趋同，竞争可以使得商品的价格等于它们的生产成本。这样，相对价格等于相对成本，而相对成本等于工资乘以苹果的单位劳动产品投入。因为各个部门工资相等，所以价格比率等于单位产品劳动投入的比率，即生产苹果所需的3单位劳动与生产香蕉所需的2单位劳动比率。 （2）假设本国的情况和习题1相同。外国拥有800单位的劳动，外国苹果的单位劳动投入是5，香蕉的单位产品劳动投入是1。 a.画出外国的生产可能性边界。 b.画出世界相对供给曲线。 答：a.外国的生产可能性边界曲线是一条直线，在160（800/5）处与苹果轴

相截，在 800(800/1)处与香蕉轴相截。如图2-8所示。 b.世界相对供给曲线可以由苹果和香蕉的相对价格和相对供给量绘出。如图2-9。 从图2-9可以看出，苹果对香蕉的最低相对价格是3/2，在这个价格上，苹果的世界相对供给曲线是水平的。在3/2的相对价格上，本国对苹果的最大供给量是400，外国对香蕉的供给量是800，这时，相对供给量为1/2。只要相对价格保持在3/2和5之间，相对供给量就不变。如果相对价格成为5，两个国家都会生产苹果，香蕉的产量为零。这时，相对供给曲线是水平的。所以，从图2-9中可以看出，相对价格为3/2时，相对供给在0到1/2之间；相对价格在3/2和5之间时，相对供给保持1对需求曲线包括（1/5,5）,（1/2，2），（1，1），(2,1/2)几个点，如图2-10中的A 、B 、C 、D 四点。 图2-10 世界相对供给曲图2-9 世界相对供 图2-8 外国生产可能曲

国际经济学名词解释

贸易基础：指国家之间进行贸易的动力，一般来说一个国家只有当其能从贸易中获利时才会愿意从事贸易。 贸易所得：参与国际贸易的国家中，获得的利益有多大，贸易利益在国家之间是如何分配的 贸易模式：对于参与国家来说，哪个国家出口哪种商品，哪个国家进口那种商品。 重商主义：认为货币是一国的财富形式，一国拥有的货币越多，则这个国家的财富越多 绝对优势：某一商品的生产上，一国所耗费的劳动成本绝对低于另一国，在生产效率上占有绝对优势。 比较优势原理：在两国间，劳动生产率的差距并不是在任何商品上都是相等。对于处于绝对优势的国家，应集中力量生产优势较大的商品，处于绝对劣势的国家，应集中力量生产劣势较小的商品，然后通过国际贸易，互相交换，彼此都节省了劳动，都得到了益处。 机会成本理论：当一国在一种商品的生产上有较低的机会成本时，该国在该商品生产上就有比较劣势 生产可能性曲线：一国采用其所能获得的最佳技术，充分利用其所有资源生活残的两种商品的各种组合。 相对商品价格：商品之间价格关系的动态反映，专指两种或多种商品之间由供给与需求作用所形成的价格比例关系。机会成本递增：一国每多生产1单位某商品必须放弃越来越多的另一种商品生产 边际转换率：一国每多生产一单位X必须放弃生产Y的数量 社会无差异曲线：反映能使社会或国家获得同等满足程度的两种商品的不同组合 边际替代率：一国为保持在原来的无差异曲线上，多消费一个单位X而必须放弃的Y的数量。 相互需求：在国际贸易中，可以把出口视为对对方的供给，把进口视为本国的需求。 提供曲线：又称相互需求曲线，它表示一国想交换的进口商品与所愿意出口的本国商品数量之间的函数关系；反映了一个国家在不同的相对价格水平下所愿意出口和进口的商品数量。 贸易条件：指一国的出口商品价格指数与进口商品价格指数之比率 要素禀赋：指一个国家拥有的各种生产资源的相对量状况 要素丰裕度：可以用两个角度来衡量，一种是以实物来衡量，即用各国所有可以利用的资本和劳动的总和来衡量；另一种是以相对要素价格来衡量，即用每个国家的资本租用价格和劳动时间价格来衡量。 劳动密集型：为生产一定产量所必须投入的生产要素中，劳动投入的比例高于其它生产要素比例的产业。 资本密集型：为生产一定产量所必须投入的生产要素中，资本投入的比例高于其它生产要素比例的产业。 规模报酬不变：产量增加的比例等于各种生产要素增加的比例 完全竞争：又称纯粹竞争，是一种不受任何阻碍和干扰的市场结构，指那些不存在足以影响价格的企业或消费者的市场。 相对要素价格：用每个国家的资本租用价格和劳动时间按来衡量 派生需求：对一种要素的需求，即从最终产品的需求中派生出来 赫克歇尔-俄林定理：指一国应当出口该国相对丰裕和便宜的要素密集型的商品，进口该国相对稀缺和昂贵的要素密集型的商品。 要素价格均等化定理：即使生产要素不能在国之间流动，国际贸易也会使各国同质要素的相对价格和绝对价格会趋于相等。也就是说国际贸易会使各国工资相等，也会使各国利率相同 特定要素模型：假定一个国家生产两种产品，劳动供给可以在两个部门间进行配置.与李嘉图模型不同的是,特定要素模型中存在劳动以外的生产要素.劳动可以在部门间流动,是一种流动要素.其他要素则是特定的,只能被用与生产某些特定产品. 人力资本：通过教育、培训、保健、劳动力迁移、就业信息等获得的凝结在劳动者身上的技能、学识、健康状况和水平的总和。 要素密集度逆转：商品在不同的国家，其要素密集性的差异。一种商品在外国是劳动密集性商品，而在美国可能是资本密集性商品。 需求逆转：两国需求的差异超过其在要素禀赋上的差异。美国强烈偏好资本密集性商品。 规模经济：由于生产专业化水平的提高等原因,使企业的单位成本下降,从而形成企业的长期平均成本随着产量的增加而递减的经济。 不完全竞争：指这样一些市场：完全竞争不能保持，因为至少有一个大到足以影响市场价格的买者（或卖者），并因此

国际经济学书目

第1章导论 1.1 国际经济学的产生与发展 1.2 国际经济与国内经济的关系 1.3 国际经济学的内容与结构 1.4 国际经济学的分析方法与特征 第一部分国际贸易理论与政策 第2章古典国际贸易理论 2.1 国际贸易理论概述 2.2 重商主义 2.3 亚当.斯密的绝对优势说 2.4 大卫.李嘉图的比较优势说 2.5 李嘉图模型的扩展， 第3章新古典贸易理论 3.1 国际相互需求理论 3.2 赫克歇尔一俄林理论(H－O模型) 3.3 H－O理论的验证——列昂惕夫之谜3.4 对H－O理论的简要评价 第4章新古典贸易理论的扩展 4.1 新要素贸易理论 4.2 经济增长与国际贸易 4.3 特定要素模型 第5章产业内贸易理论 5.1 产业内贸易概述 5.2 产品差异分析 5.3 需求偏好相似理论 5.4 规模经济理论 5.5 产业内贸易理论模型 5.6 对产业内贸易理论的评价 第6章国际贸易动态理论 6.1 技术差距论 6.2 产品生命周期说 6.3 国家竞争优势理论 6.4 产业集聚理论 6.5 贸易引力模型 第7章国际贸易政策 7.1 国际贸易政策概述 7.2 关稅 7.3 非关税壁垒

7.4 鼓励出口的贸易政策措施与出口管制 第8章贸易保护政策的理论依据 8.1 贸易保护的古典理论 8.2 贸易保护的现代理论 8.3 贸易保护的政治经济学分析 第二部分国际金融理论与政策 第9章国际收支 9.1 国际收支的概述 9.2 国际收支平衡 9.3 国际收支调节理论 第10章外汇与汇率 10.1 外汇与汇率的基本概念 10.2 汇率决定的基础和影响汇率变化的因素10.3 汇率理论 第11章国际金融市场与国际金融创新 11.1 国际金融市场概述 11.2 欧洲货币市场 11.3 国际金融创新 第12章国际货币体系 12.1 国际货币体系的历史演变 12.2 固定汇率制与浮动汇率制之争 12.3 最优货币区理论与欧洲货币一体化的实践 第三部分国际投资与国际经济协调 第13章要素的国际流动 13.1 劳动力国际流动 13.2 资本国际流动 13.3 国际资金流动与货币危机 第14章国际直接投资与跨国公司 14.1 国际直接投资与跨国公司概述 14.2 国际直接投资与跨国公司理论 14.3 国际直接投资与国际贸易关系理论 第15章开放经济下宏观经济理论与政策 15.1 国际经济传导机制 15.2 宏观经济的对内与对外均衡 15.3 固定汇率下的宏观经济政策 15.4 浮动汇率下的宏观经济政策