Предыдущая страница реферата | 1  2  3 | Следующая страница реферата

The middle-products model allows countries and sectors to differ in the extent to which local value must be added to transform middle products into final commodities,  and  much  depends  upon  this  comparison.  It  does   not,  however, focus upon another question: in а  vertical production  structure with  many stages, which goods-in-process  or middle  products does  а country  import and  which does it  export?  Two  recent  papers  have  tackled  this  issue independently  and with different  models. Sanyal  (1980) assumes  that in  each of  two countries  а commodity is produced in а continuum of stages, with  different Ricardian  labor-only input structures. Depending upon technological differences and  relative country  size, а cut-off point  will be  determined, with  one country  producing the  commodity from raw material stage to some intermediate  point, and  then exporting  this good-in-process  to  the  other  country  where labor  is applied  to finish  the production process.  By  contrast,  Dixit and  Grossman (1982)  use а  specific-factors model, with  one  of  the  commodities (manufacturing)  produced in  а continuum  of stages using capital and labor (the other sector using land and  labor) [2] . These  stages are arranged  such  that,  as  goods-in-process  develop towards  the final  stage, more labor-intensive techniques are required.  Thus with  two countries,  the labor-abundant country will tend to specialize in later stages of the productive spectrum[3] .[3]

They analyze how  endowment changes  alter the  cut-off point,  as well  as investigating issues related to content protection.[3]

I.II Natural resources

As Chapter 8 in this volume discusses,  the normative  question of  pricing natural resources (exhaustible or renewable) has received much attention in  the literature of the past  decade. The  middle-products approach  stresses that  some activities, the extraction of natural resources, must take place locally although international trade then allows other countries  access to  these resources.  Obviously, comparative advantage changes  over time  for countries  engaged in  exporting exhaustible resource. In  early work  Vanek (1963)  traced through  the changing  pattern of United States trade in natural resources, and suggested that asymmetries in resource use and availability could account for the Leontief paradox. In а context of multi-level trade, the costs of recourse extraction  in one  country often depend on the availability of foreign capital. Kemp and Ohyama (1978) have  presented  а  simple  model  of  North  -  South  trade in  which South  makes use of  Northern  capital  to  develop  its  resources  and  exports  these resources  to the North  where  they  are  used  to  produce  final  commodities[4] . They put  their model to use in  exploring the  normative issue  of different  degrees of  bargaining strength and ability to exploit via export taxes and tariffs in  the two  regions. But  the model also  stresses  the involvement  of capital  flows in  resource extraction.  Schmitz and Helmberger  (1979)  argue  strongly  for  complementarity  between  trade  in  resources and trade in capital, а point also stressed  by Williams  in his  1929 article.  We turn to  consider  more  generally, now,  the interaction  between trade  in goods  and trade in factors.[3]

Addendum 1

Siberia is Among Leaders in Raw Materials Markets[5]

Siberia's rating looks more impressive in some groups of goods than its 7-th general placing. Split the whole flow of commercial projects into 9 groups of goods, and for 6 of them Siberia joins the leading three:

Timber and Paper

I       Siberia         32.6

II      Moscow          19.1

III     St.-Petersburg  14.2

Fuel

I       Siberia         20.3

II      Urals           13.2

III     Moscow          12.3

Chemical Products

I       Moscow          17.2

II      Siberia         15.7

III     St.-Petersburg  11.9

Construction Materials

I       Moscow          22.0

II      Siberia         14.1

III     Urals           5.6

Transportation

I       Moscow          23.6

II      Siberia         12.4

Рекомендуем скачать другие рефераты по теме: учреждения реферат, операции реферат, темы рефератов по информатике.



Предыдущая страница реферата | 1  2  3 | Следующая страница реферата

Поделитесь этой записью или добавьте в закладки