Solution to NR.4 hw03

Solution to NR.4 hw03 - Homework #8 1. For a small country...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Homework #8 1. “For a small country like the Philippines, a move to free trade would have huge advantages. It would let consumers and producers make their choices based on the real costs of goods, not on artificial prices determined by government policy; it would allow escape from the confines of a narrow domestic market; it would open new horizons for entrepreneurship; and, most important, it would help to clean up domestic politics.” Separate out and identify the arguments for free trade in this statement. In the order in which they are presented, the arguments are: 1) Free trade permits households and firms to condition their economic behavior on marginal costs and benefits, undistorted by government policy. 2) Resource constraints mean that, through trade, consumers will have access to a broader range of commodities than would be possible under autarky; in addition, if there are economies of scale, trade permits a more rational division of labor. 3) “New horizons for entrepreneurship” also implies some form of economy of scale, in this case in terms of the application of entrepreneurial effort. 4) Many forms of trade policy generate rents that may be captured by political effort (e.g. access to import licenses or foreign exchange). Eliminating the policies that generate these rents eliminates the incentive to engage in such rent-seeking behavior. 2. Which of the following are potentially valid arguments for tariffs or export subsidies, and which are not (explain your answers)? a. “The more oil in the US imports, the higher the price of oil will go in the next world shortage”. This is a potentially valid argument based on a (somewhat peculiar) mix of the optimal tariff and insurance arguments for protection. The optimal tariff argument suggests that, since the US is large in the market for oil, restricting current consumption will hold down the price so that future price increases occur from a lower base. The core of this statement, however, seems to be an insurance argument which is unrelated to market power: protection will raise the price of oil to domestic producers, increasing production and exploration, and ensuring a domestic supply in the future. However, in general, one would expect the argument to go the other way: if we are worried about future disruptions, we should consume as much low priced current oil as possible to ensure that we don’t use up all the readily available domestic oil. b. “The growing exports of off-season fruit from Chile, which now accounts for 80 percent of the U.S. supply of such produce as winter grapes, are contributing to sharply falling prices of these former luxury goods.”
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Off-season exports are, almost by assumption, non-competing good. Thus, any policy which
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/06/2012 for the course ECON UA 23 taught by Professor Arhan during the Fall '11 term at NYU.

Page1 / 6

Solution to NR.4 hw03 - Homework #8 1. For a small country...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online