Environmental Policies, Comparative Advantage and the Gains/Losses from International Trade

1997 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Schweinberger
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Comparative Advantage ◽  
Environmental Policies

Trade and Spatial Growth

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-111
Author(s):  
Sirimal Abeyratne ◽  
N. S. Cooray
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Comparative Advantage ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Spatial Concentration ◽  
Trade Theory ◽  
Missing Link ◽  
Spatial Growth

Comparative advantage is based on ‘locational factors’ so that trade leads to growth and its spatial concentration. Until recently, the nexus between trade and spatial growth received little space within trade analyses though it did not appear to be a missing link in initial contributions to trade theory. The reshaping of the global economy with greater integration has called for analyses of trade and spatial growth. This article examines theoretical premises of the link between international trade and spatial growth, and the implications of reshaping of the global economy for the study of spatial growth within trade theory.

Corruption, Environmental Resources, and International Trade

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Ranjan ◽  
Baishali Bakshi
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Resource Management ◽  
Comparative Advantage ◽  
Environmental Resources ◽  
Over Exploitation

Abstract It is shown how corruption in the management of environmental resources can give rise to a comparative advantage in environment-intensive industries. International trade, in this setting, is not necessarily welfare improving. When corruption responds endogenously to the over-exploitation of resources, it is possible for international trade to generate forces that improve resource management by reducing corruption. Therefore, in this case trade could provide gains in addition to the usual gains.

scholarly journals Export Competitiveness Analysis of Creative Industries in the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-37
Author(s):  
Deimantė Krisiukėnienė ◽  
Vaida Pilinkienė
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Comparative Advantage ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Creative Industries ◽  
Research Purpose ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Revealed Comparative Advantage ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Trade Competitiveness ◽  
The Eu

AbstractResearch purpose. The research purpose is to assess and compare the competitiveness of the EU creative industries’ export.Design/Methodology/Approach. The article is organised as follows: Section 1 presents a short theoretical conception of creative industries; Section 2 presents the theoretical background of trade competitiveness indices; Section 3 introduces the research data set, method and variables; Section 4 discusses the results of the revealed comparative advantage index analysis; and the final section presents the conclusions of the research. It should be noted that the research does not cover all possible factors underlying the differences in the external sector performance and thus may need to be complemented with country-specific analysis as warranted. Methods of the research include theoretical review and analysis, evaluation of comparative advantage indices and clustering.Findings. The analysis revealed that the EU countries may gain competitiveness because of the globalisation effects and the development of creative industries. The increase in the revealed comparative advantage (RCA) index during the period 2004–2017 shows rising EU international trade specialisation in creative industries. According to dynamic RCA index results, France, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain has competitive advantage in creative industries sectors and could be specified as ‘rising stars’ according to dynamic of their export.Originality/Value/Practical implications. A creative industries analysis is becoming increasingly relevant in scientific research. Fast globalisation growth affects the processes in which closed economies together with their specific sectors are no longer competitive in the market because productivity of countries as well as particular economic sectors depends on international trade liberalisation, technology and innovation. Scientific literature, nevertheless, contains a gap in the area of international trade competitiveness research in creative industries sector.

Can Cleaner Environment Promote International Trade? Environmental Policies as Export Promoting Mechanisms

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 809-833
Author(s):  
Ioanna Pantelaiou ◽  
Panos Hatzipanayotou ◽  
Panagiotis Konstantinou ◽  
Anastasios Xepapadeas
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Environmental Policies

scholarly journals The Global Economics of Water: Is Water a Source of Comparative Advantage?

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Debaere
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Water Resources ◽  
Comparative Advantage ◽  
Physical Capital ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Production Factors ◽  
Traditional Production ◽  
Global Economics

With newly available data, I investigate to what extent countries' international trade exploits the very uneven water resources on a global scale. I find that water is a source of comparative advantage and that relatively water abundant countries export more water-intensive products. Additionally, water contributes significantly less to the pattern of exports than the traditional production factors labor and physical capital. This suggests relatively moderate disruptions to overall trade on a global scale due to changing precipitation in the wake of climate change. (JEL F14, O13, O19, Q15, Q25, Q54)

Fortune and Fairness in Global Economic Life

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-290
Author(s):  
Aaron James
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
Comparative Advantage ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Current System ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Luck Egalitarianism ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Success Stories ◽  
The Difference

This paper develops John Rawls’s famous objection to the system of natural liberty as against the contemporary system of international trade. Even as “dynamic” policies have proven successful in several recent development success stories, the current system enforces a “static,” laissez-faire system of comparative advantage that threatens to consign poorly-endowed countries to a low-productivity, low-income destiny in agriculture and raw materials. I discuss two very different fairness arguments in favor of allowing and encouraging “dynamic,” pro-development polices: an argument from “structural equity” and an argument from “equity of fortune.” I suggest that the former is of more central importance, and that the difference between the two kinds of fairness argument shows why Rawls’s original objection to the (domestic) system of natural liberty does not imply “luck egalitarianism.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document