Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T01:17:18.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intersectoral adjustment and unemployment in a two-country Ricardian model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Didier Laussel ,
Philippe Michel  and
Thierry Paul
Didier Laussel
Affiliation:
GREQAM / IDEP et Université de la Méditerranée
Philippe Michel
Affiliation:
Institut Universitaire de France, GREQAM et Université de la Méditérranée
Thierry Paul*
Affiliation:
GREQAM / IDEP et Université de la Méditerranée
*
GREQAM, Centre de la Vieille Charité, 2 rue de la Charité, 13002 Marseille, France. [email protected].
Get access

Summary

In a two-country Ricardian model, we study the dynamics of intersectoral reallocation of labour following upon a once and for all move to free trade. The job creation/destruction process in both sectors is slow and this results in unemployment during the transition toward the long run free trade equilibrium. We identify different free trade regimes depending on whether or not the world relative price is between the two autarkic prices. In some regimes, one of the two countries overshoots its autarkic equilibrium i.e. temporarily specializes according to its comparative disadvantage. In that case, welfare increases in both countries. In other regimes, the adjustment process is monotonic in both countries but welfare increases in only one country. When the two countries have “very” different rates of job creation/ destruction, the world price adjusts in such a way that the difference in adjustment speed between the two countries decreases.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans un modèle Ricardien à deux pays, nous analysons la dynamique de la réallocation intersectorielle de la main d'oeuvre consécutive à un passage au libre-échange. Le processus de création/destruction de postes de travail dans les deux secteurs est lent, générant ainsi du chômage pendant la transition vers l'équilibre mondial de long terme. Nous identifions différents régimes de libre-échange selon le niveau du prix relatif mondial par rapport aux niveaux des prix d'autarcie. Pour certains régimes, l'un des deux pays effectue un sur-ajustement en se spécialisant temporairement dans le bien pour lequel il détient un désavantage comparatif. On montre que dans ces situations, le bien-être augmente dans les deux pays. Pour d'autres régimes de libre-échange, le processus d'ajustement suit une trajectoire monotone dans les deux pays mais le bien-être n'augmente que dans un des deux pays. Lorsque les deux pays ont des taux de création/destruction de postes de travail très différents, le prix mondial s'ajuste de telle manière que la différence dans les vitesses d'ajustement des deux économies diminue.

Keywords

Avantage comparatifProcessus d'ajustementEconomies interdépendantesF11F16O19Comparative advantageAdjustment processInterdependent countriesF11F16O19
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , 2004 , pp. 169 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank two anonymous referees for their detailed and helpful comments. The paper also benefited from discussions with Pierre Granier.

References

Baldwin, R. and Venables, A.J. (1994), “International Migration, Capital Mobility and Transitional Dynamics”, Economica, 61 (243), pp. 285–300.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, J.N. (1982), “Introduction”, in Import Competition and Response, ed. by Bhagwati, J., University of Chicage Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Burda, M. (1995) “Migration and the Option Value of Waiting”, Center for Economic Policy Research, discussion paper no. 1229.Google Scholar
Dehejia, V.H. (1997), “Will Gradualism Work when Shock Therapy doesn't?”, Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion paper no. 1552.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. (1989), “Intersectoral Capital Reallocation under Price Uncertainty” , Journal of International Economics, 26, pp. 309–325.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. and Rob, R. (1994), “Risk-Sharing, Adjustment and Trade”, Journal of International Economics, 36(3–4), pp. 263–287.Google Scholar
Feenstra, R. and Lewis, T. (1994), “Trade Adjustment Assistance and Pareto Gains from Trade”, Journal of International Economics, 36 (3–4), pp. 201–222.Google Scholar
Fung, K. and Staiger, R. (1994), “Trade Liberalization and Trade Adjustment Assistance”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working paper no. 4847.Google Scholar
Hamermesh, D. and Pfann, G. (1996), “Adjustment Costs in Factor Demand”, Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion paper no. 1371.Google Scholar
Harris, J. and Todaro, M. (1970) “Migration, unemployment and development : a two-sector analysis”, The American Economic Review, (March).Google Scholar
Karp, L. and Paul, Th. (1994), “Phasing in and Phasing out Protectionism with costly adjustment of Labor”, The Economic Journal, 104, pp. 1379–1393.Google Scholar
Karp, L. and Paul, Th. (1998), “Labor Adjustment and Gradual Reform: When is Commitment Important ?”, Journal of International Economics, December, 46.2.Google Scholar
Karp, L. and Paul, Th. (2002), “Intersectoral Adjustment and Policy Intervention : The Importance of General Equilibrium Effects”, Review of International Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Mayer, W. (1974), “Short-Run an Long-Run Equilibrium for a Small Open Economy”, Journal of Political Economy, 82. no.5, pp. 955–967.Google Scholar
Mussa, M. (1974), “Tariffs and the Distribution of Income : the Importance of Factor Specificity, Substituability, and Intensity in the Short and Long Run”, Journal of Political Economy, 82, no. 6, pp. 1191–1203.Google Scholar
Mussa, M. (1978), “Dynamic Adjustment in the Hecksher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model”, Journal of Political Economy, 86, pp. 775–791.Google Scholar
Mussa, M. (1982), “Government policy and the Adjustment process”, in Import Competition and Response, ed. by Bhagwati, J., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mussa, M. (1986), “The Adjustment Process and The Timing of Trade Liberalization”, In Choksi, and Papageorgiou, , eds., Economic Liberalization in Developing Countries, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Neary, J.P. (1982), “Intersectoral Capital Mobility, Wage Stickiness, and the Case for Adjustment Assistance”, in Import Competition and Response, ed. by Bhagwati, J., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Pissarides, C.A. (1990), Equilibrium unemployment theory, Basil Blakwell.Google Scholar
Saint-Paul, G. (1996), Dual Labor Markets : A macroeconomic perspective, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London.Google Scholar
Terra, C. (1999), “Tariff Design with Varying Degrees of Commitment”, Journal of Development Economics, 58.1, pp. 123–148.Google Scholar