regionalism, multilateralism, and globalization jeffrey bergstrand university of notre dame april...

25
Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

Upload: keenan-elliff

Post on 14-Jan-2016

222 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization

Jeffrey Bergstrand

University of Notre Dame

April 30, 2005

Page 2: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

The Survey of Workers

• Question 1 (Questions 1-16):

In general, do you strongly favor, weakly favor, weakly oppose, strongly oppose policies aimed at increasing trade with Canada?

…… with France?

…… with China?

Page 3: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

The Survey of Workers

• Question 2 (Questions 17-32):

In general, do you strongly favor, weakly favor, weakly oppose, strongly oppose policies aimed at increasing investment with Canada?

…… with France?

…… with China?

Page 4: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

The Survey of Workers

• Question 3 (Questions 33-48):

In general, do you strongly favor, weakly favor, weakly oppose, strongly oppose policies aimed at increasing immigration with Canada?

…… with France?

…… with China?

Page 5: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

The Survey of Firms

• Question 1 (Questions 1-16):

In general, do you strongly favor, weakly favor, weakly oppose, strongly oppose policies aimed at increasing trade with Canada?

…… with France?

…… with China?

Page 6: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

The Survey of Firms

• Question 2 (Questions 17-32):

In general, do you strongly favor, weakly favor, weakly oppose, strongly oppose policies aimed at increasing investment with Canada?

…… with France?

…… with China?

Page 7: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

The Survey of Firms

• Question 3 (Questions 33-48):

In general, do you strongly favor, weakly favor, weakly oppose, strongly oppose policies aimed at increasing immigration with Canada?

…… with France?

…… with China?

Page 8: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

I. What is Globalization?

Page 9: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

• Create a Survey Instrument that is

“Based on Theory.”

Page 10: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

• Create a Survey Instrument that is “Based on Theory.”

• However, such a theory should reflect how consumers and firm leaders think.

Page 11: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

• Create a Survey Instrument that is “Based on Theory.”

• However, such a theory should reflect how consumers and firm leaders think.

• GE:1. Market Access2. Relative Costs3. Trade and Investment Costs

Page 12: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005
Page 13: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

Theoretical Model Outline

Goods• Differentiated final good• Homogeneous final good• Differentiated intermediatesFirm Structure• 3-plant and 2-plant HMNEs• 1-plant VMNEs• 1-plant NEsCost Structure• Plant vs. headquarters set-up costs (capital vs. skilled L)• Transaction costs (investment and trade)

Page 14: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

Key Differences

• Three Factors: Add Physical Capital

• Three “Goods”: Add Intermediates (or Outsourcing)

• Three Countries: Add ROW (in order to understand Bilateral Flows in a Multilateral World)

Page 15: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005
Page 16: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005
Page 17: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

Key Implications

The implications from a three-dimension theory can be vastly different than that from a two-dimension theory.

Bilateral information provides much more heterogeneity of information than multilateral information.

Page 18: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

II. Goods and Services, Regionalism, and Multilateralism

Robert Lawrence (1996, p. 5):The postwar experience with both multilateralism and regionalism has been mixed. On the one hand, the multilateral trading system has enjoyed spectacular success in lowering trade barriers on industrial products . . . . As the focus has shifted away from the relatively easy task of reducing barriers protecting industrial products, achieving agreement has become more difficult . . . . In many important areas, such as services and agriculture, liberalization has remained fairly limited.

Page 19: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

The Dilemma

• “Multilateralism” has effectively been a “second-best” policy. It has achieved wide breadth of country coverage, but more limited sectoral breadth (e.g., industrial goods).

• “Regionalism,” of course, is also a second-best policy. Major regional trade accords (e.g., EU) have much less breadth of country coverage, but in many cases have achieved greater sectoral breadth (e.g., goods and services.)

Page 20: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

Why Regionalism?

• Ed Mansfield (2005, p. 2):

“More generally, greater attention needs to be focused on why state leaders have displayed a particular preference for entering preferential trade arrangements. One possibility is that they do so to liberalize trade when faced with domestic obstacles to reducing trade barriers on a unilateral or multilateral basis.”

Page 21: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

Goods vs. Services

• Services, historically, are more costly to trade than goods.

• Services, historically, have been protected by governments from international competition more than goods.

Page 22: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

• See Figure 3 (last page of my memo).

Page 23: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

Key Implications

• Economic Geography is not just critical to trade flows, investment flows, and migration flows. It is critical to the benefits and costs of trade policies.

Page 24: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

III. Panel Data

• Labor micro-econometrics has generated many insights into refining estimation of average treatment effects of policies on outcomes. The same problems likely exist for trade policies and consumer/firms’ trade attitudes. In the absence of a budget constraint, a panel approach could yield econometric estimates less obfuscated by omitted variables and selection bias issues.

Page 25: Regionalism, Multilateralism, and Globalization Jeffrey Bergstrand University of Notre Dame April 30, 2005

IV. Various and Sundry Issues

1. Quantity vs. Quality(Bemoaning politicians’ arguments that trade creates “more jobs.”)

2. Trade Liberalization vs. Technological Change

3. Short-Run Adjustment Costs vs. Long-Run Benefits of Trade