Liberalisation of International Trade - The Case of Asymmetric Countries
The aim of this paper is to analyse the welfare consequences of the processes of liberalisation of trade between asymmetric states in terms of the various sizes and effectiveness of their economies and the type of international exchange. These characteristics ultimately define the distribution of benefits from the liberalisation of international trade. When it is inter-industry or vertical intra-industry and barriers in trade are smaller than the difference in the effectiveness of the economies, the trade liberalisation undoubtedly contributes to improved social welfare, regardless of the level of effectiveness and the size of the economy. In the situation, however, of horizontal intra-industry trade, changes in the welfares of asymmetric countries, caused by their progressing trade liberalisation, depend on the sizes and effectiveness of their economies. The welfare of society in either a very big and ineffective or in a small and very ineffective country could even decrease in such a situation. This is the case when the increase in consumers' surplus is not sufficient to compensate for the decreasing profits of firms. (original abstract)
-  Alesin A., Spolaore F., Wacziarg R., (2005), Trade, Growth, And The Size Of Countries, Chapter 23, [in:] Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 1B, [ed:] Aghion P., Durlauf S. N., Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1500-1522.
-  Bond E., Park J., (2002), Gradualism in Trade Agreements with Asymmetric Countries, Review of Economic Studies 69, 379-406.
-  Brander J., (1981), Intra-industry trade in identical commodities, Journal of International Economics 11, 1-14.
-  Brander J., Krugman P., (1983), A 'Reciprocal Dumping' Model Of International Trade, Journal of International Economics 15, 313-321.
-  Clarke R., Collie D., (2003), Product Differentiation and the Gains from Tradeunder Bertrand Duopoly, Canadian Journal of Economics 36, 658-673.
-  Davis D., (1995), Intra-industry trade: A Heckscher-Ohlin-Ricardo approach, Journal of International Economics 39, 201-226.
-  Dixit A., (1979), A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers, The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 10, No. 1, 20-32.
-  Fisher T., Prentice D., Waschik R., (2010), Managerial Economics. A strategic approach, Routledge, London and New York, 356.
-  Gori G. F., Lambertini L., (2012), Trade Liberalisation between Asymmetric Countries with Environmentally Concerned Consumers, Quaderni DSE, Working Paper No. 824, 1-25.
-  Hackner J., (2000), A Note on Price and Quantity Competition in Differentiated Oligopolies, Journal of Economic Theory 93, 233-239.
-  Helpman E., (1984), Increasing Returns, Imperfect Markets, And Trade Theory, Chapter 7, [in:] Handbook of International Economics, Vol. 1, [ed.:] Jones R. W.,Kenen P. B., Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam, North-Holland, 326-365.
-  Hine R., Torres I., Wright P., (2000), Does Trade Liberalisation Damage Firms in Large Countries? Cost and Size Asymmetries in Intra-Industry Trade, Centre for Research on Globalisation and Labour Markets, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Research Paper 15, 1-18.
-  Park J., (2000), International Trade Agreements between Countries of Asymmetric Size, Journal of International Economics 50(2), 473-495.
-  Prabir De, (2006), Why Trade Costs Matter?, Asia-Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade, Working Paper Series, No. 7, 2-9.
-  Singh N., Vives X., (1984), Price and quantity competition in a differentiated duopoly, RAND Journal of Economics 15, 546-554.