This is “Interpreting the Welfare Effects”, section 4.10 from the book Policy and Theory of International Economics (v. 1.0).
This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 license. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author (but see below), don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms.
This content was accessible as of December 29, 2012, and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz in an effort to preserve the availability of this book.
Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page.
For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page. You can browse or download additional books there. You may also download a PDF copy of this book (29 MB) or just this chapter (694 KB), suitable for printing or most e-readers, or a .zip file containing this book's HTML files (for use in a web browser offline).
The real wage calculations show that some workers gain from trade, while others lose from trade. On the other hand, we showed that the economy is able to jump to a higher aggregate indifference as a result of free trade. The increase in aggregate welfare is attributable entirely to an increase in consumption efficiency. A reasonable question to ask at this juncture is whether the winners from trade could compensate the losers such that every worker is left no worse off from free trade. The answer to this question is no in the context of this model.
In the immobile factor model, there is no increase in world productive efficiency. The immobility of factors implies that world output is the same with trade as it was in autarky. This means that the best that compensation could provide is to return everyone to their autarky consumption levels. And the only way to do that is to eliminate trade. There simply is no way to increase the total consumption of each good for every worker after trade begins.
Sometimes economists argue that since the model displays an increase in consumption efficiency, this means that the country is better off with trade. While technically this is true, it is important to realize that statements about what’s best for a country in the aggregate typically mask the effects on particular individuals. The immobile factor model suggests that in the very short run, movements to free trade will very likely result in a redistribution of income with some groups of individuals suffering real income losses. It will be very difficult to convince those who will lose that free trade is a good idea because the aggregate effects are positive.
Furthermore, since there is no way for the winners to compensate the losers such that everyone gains, the model implies that the movement to free trade can be a zero-sum game, at least in the very short run. This means that the sum of the gains to the winners is exactly equal to the sum of the losses to the losers.
In the Heckscher-Ohlin model, we will show that income redistribution is possible even in the long run when an economy moves to free trade. However, in that case, free trade will be a positive-sum game in that the sum of the gains will exceed the sum of the losses.
Jeopardy Questions. As in the popular television game show, you are given an answer to a question and you must respond with the question. For example, if the answer is “a tax on imports,” then the correct question is “What is a tariff?”