Please Answer The Following Two Problems

Please Answer The Following Two Problems

Suppose that the U.S. and Japan are two Ricardian economies. Both countries can produce only two goods: automobiles and computers. The characteristics of each economy are summarized in the following table. Labor productivity in automobiles and computers, and the endowment of labor for each country are provided.

a. Graph the production possibility frontier of both countries with computers on the horizontal axis and automobiles on the vertical axis. Label the axes and calculate the intercepts.

b. Identify the absolute and comparative advantage of U.S. and Japan.

c. Suppose that these two countries engage in free trade. Identify absolute and comparative advantage, describe the pattern of trade, and explain briefly your reasoning.

d. Suppose that the relative price of computers in terms of automobiles after trade is 3 units (number of automobiles per unit of computers). Using the same diagrams as in question 1a, graph the consumption possibility frontier for both countries. Do both countries gain from trade?

e. Analyze each of the mentioned industries (computers, consumer electronics, and automobiles) from the standpoint of each country-based and firm-based theory of international trade. Which theory is the best predictor and which is the worst predictor of reality for these industries?

f. Do the same theories work as well in making predictions for those industries?

g. Based on what you know about the Japanese market, decide whether the same pattern of competitiveness that exists in the United States for the computer, consumer electronics, and automobile industries also holds true for that market. Why or why not?

Paper For Above instruction

International trade theories, notably Ricardian and firm-based models, help to explain the patterns of comparative advantage and industry competitiveness across nations. Examining the U.S. and Japan in the context of these theories offers insights into their economic specializations, trade patterns, and industry dynamics.

Production Possibility Frontiers and Comparative Advantages

The Ricardian model suggests that countries should specialize in the production of goods for which they have a comparative advantage, determined by relative productivity differences. Using the data provided (though not numerically specified here), the graphing of the PPFs for both the U.S. and Japan reveals their maximum production capacities for automobiles and computers, with axes labeled accordingly. Intercepts indicate the maximum output each country can produce if they dedicate all resources to one good solely. The country with a higher productivity in a good will have a comparative advantage in that good. For instance, if the U.S. has higher productivity in automobiles and Japan in computers, then the U.S. will have an absolute and comparative advantage in automobiles, whereas Japan will in computers.

Patterns of Trade and Gains from Specialization

When these countries engage in free trade, they will tend to export the good in which they hold a comparative advantage and import the other. The pattern of trade, thus, is U.S. specializing in automobiles while importing computers from Japan, which specializes in computers. This exchange allows both countries to consume beyond their respective PPFs, indicated by the consumption possibility frontiers post-trade, which are tangential to their PPFs but extended outward due to trade. Both countries stand to gain from trade, as reflected by an increase in consumption possibilities.

Post-Trade Relative Prices and Consumption

The relative price of computers in terms of automobiles at 3 units implies a specific terms of trade. Graphically, the consumption possibilities are expanded beyond the initial PPFs, illustrating gains from trade. These gains are realized when the world price ratio exceeds the domestic opportunity cost ratio, aligning with comparative advantage principles. Both nations benefit if they specialize according to comparative advantage and engage in trade at this relative price.

Industry Analysis Based on Trade Theories

Beyond the Ricardian model, firm-based theories, such as the New Trade Theory, emphasize economies of scale and product differentiation. For instance, in the U.S. computer industry dominated by firms like Dell and Apple, one might observe firm-level advantages due to economies of scale, innovation, and branding. Conversely, Japanese firms in electronics thrive through specialization and incremental innovation. In the auto industry, both U.S. and Japanese firms benefit from global competition, with U.S. firms(Based on brand strength and scale) and Japanese firms (through manufacturing efficiency and technological innovation) competing effectively.

In predicting industry patterns, Ricardian theories are more straightforward in explaining comparative advantages, but firm-based theories better account for industry-specific factors like branding, scale, and innovation. For example, Japanese automotive firms' competitiveness is not solely based on productivity but also on firm-level strategic practices.

Real-World Industry Patterns and Theory Limitations

Ricardian theory accurately predicts the overall direction of trade but oversimplifies real-world complexities. Firm-based theories, such as the New Trade Theory, better explain persistent industry advantages and market structures, especially in highly concentrated markets like technology and automobiles. For example, the dominance of U.S. tech giants reflects firm-level advantages, not just comparative productivity differences.

Comparative Analysis for Japan

Applying this reasoning to Japan, the pattern of specialization and competitiveness may mirror that of the United States in some sectors, particularly electronics and automobiles, but variations exist due to different institutional, cultural, and strategic factors. Japanese firms tend to prioritize incremental innovation, quality, and long-term relationships, which influence their global competitiveness. Accordingly, similar trade patterns may be observed, but the underlying drivers differ, with firm strategies and systemic characteristics playing critical roles.

Conclusion

Overall, neither Ricardian nor firm-based theories alone can fully capture the complex nature of international industry competitiveness. The integration of both provides a more comprehensive understanding of global trade patterns, technological innovation, and market dynamics, as observed in the U.S. and Japanese economies across various sectors.

References

  • Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M., & Melitz, M. J. (2018). International Economics: Theory and Policy. Pearson.
  • Helpman, E., & Krugman, P. R. (1985). Market Structure and Foreign Trade. MIT Press.
  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73-93.
  • Krugman, P. R. (1979). Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade. Journal of International Economics, 9(4), 469-479.
  • Melitz, M. J. (2003). The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity. Econometrica, 71(6), 1695-1725.
  • Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. MIT Press.
  • Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77-90.
  • Krugman, P. R. (1991). Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483-499.
  • Chen, K., & Dahlman, C. (2004). The Knowledge Economy, the Growth of Innovation, and the Global Economy. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.
  • Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. J. (1999). The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade. MIT Press.

Related Assignments