No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Resource Endowments and Anomalies in International Trade Patterns: A Study of India, Japan and the U.S.A.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 May 2017
Extract
The pure theory of international trade, in its most elementary form, is predicated on differences in resource endowments between different countries. It has been argued, most notably by the Swedish economist Bertil Ohlin, that the existence of such inter-country differences in resource endowments explain the comparative cost differences between the factors of production, and hence the prevalence of trade. In the mid 1950's though, W. W. Leontiev's findings with regard to the nature of U.S. trade gave rise to considerable controversy because of the paradoxical nature of the findings. In this paper, the findings of Leontiev are examined and the seemingly anomalous trade patterns of India and Japan are also explored. It will be seen that while the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem (to be explained) still holds, resource endowments in themselves are never a complete explanation of trade patterns.
- Type
- Undergraduate Essay Contest Winner
- Information
- Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , April 1987 , pp. 54 - 58
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1987 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association
References
Bhagwati, J. N., and Bharadwaj, R., “Human Capital and the Indian Pattern of Foreign Trade,” M.I.T. Working Paper #57 (1970).Google Scholar
Bharadwaj, R. “Factor Proportions and the Structure of Indo-U.S. Trade,” Indian Economic Journal, 10 (October, 1962).Google Scholar
Bharadwaj, R. Structural Basis of India's Foreign Trade—A study suggested by the input-output analysis (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Caves, R. E. Trade and Economic Structure: Models and Methods, Harvard University Press, 1960.Google Scholar
Caves, R. E. and Jones, R. W., World Trade and Payments, Little Brown and Company, 1973.Google Scholar
Clement, M. O., Pfister, R. L. and Rothwell, K. J., Theoretical Issues in International Economics, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967.Google Scholar
Diab, M. A. The United States Capital Position and the Structure of its Foreign Trade (1956).Google Scholar
Freeman, A. M. III International Trade: An Introduction to Method and Theory, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1971.Google Scholar
Kennen, P. B. International Trade and Finance: Frontiers for Research, Cambridge University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Leontiev, W. W. “Domestic Production and Foreign Trade: The American Capital Position Re-Examined,” Economia Internationale VII (1954).Google Scholar
Leontiev, W. W. “Factor Proportions and the Structure of American Trade: Further Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 38 (November 1956).Google Scholar
Lindert, P. H. and Kindlebinger, C. P., International Economics, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1982.Google Scholar
Minhas, B. S. An International Comparison of Factor Costs and Factor Use, Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing Company, 1963.Google Scholar
Naya, S. “Natural Resources, Factor Mix and Factor Reverals in International Trade,” American Economic Review, 57 (May 1967).Google Scholar
Richardson, J. D. Understanding International Economics; Theory and Practice, Little Brown and Company, 1980.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. “Factor Proportions and Comparative Advantage,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (Part I: May 1956, Part II: August 1956).Google Scholar
Tatemoto, M. and Ichimura, S., “Factor Proportions and Foreign Trade: The Case of Japan,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 41 (November 1959).Google Scholar
Wahl, D. F. “Capital and Labor Requirements for Canada's Foreign Trade,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 27 (August 1961).Google Scholar