Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Trade Politics
International Political Economy
Prof. Tyson Roberts
Lecture goals
• State vs. society based model
• Infant industry argument
• Strategic trade argument
• Strong vs. weak states
Assumptions of society- vs. state-
centered approach
Society-centered State-centered
Government always reduces state sometimes
intervention in welfare promotes state
trade… welfare
Trade policy balance of power goals of national
reflects… among societal decision makers
interests
Determinants of trade patterns
• Standard economic theory can explain why
the US sells cars to Colombia and Colombia
sells coffee to US …
– Factor endowments => comparative advantage
• But cannot explain why Japan, US, and
Germany sells cars to one another
Infant industry protection
• If barriers to entry are low, new/small firms
move to profit opportunities
• If barriers to entry are high, established firms
have advantage over new firms:
• Economies of scale
• Economies of experience
Car industry
• Car exporters tend to have large populations
– Large labor base, large domestic market => economies
of scale
• Car exporters tend to be developed
– Large capital base => economies of scale
• Car companies tend to have specialties in some
areas and weaknesses in others
– Economies of experience: Japan (efficiency), US
(muscle), Germany (driving experience), Italy (style)
An argument for protection
• Industrial policy (tariffs, subsidies, etc.) enable
infant industries to attain scale & experience
until able to compete globally
– 19th Century US & Germany
– 20th Century Japan & Korea
• Private capital markets may fail to finance
viable investments
– Private firms cannot always capture experience
– Inefficient capital markets (undeveloped or crisis)
An argument against protection
18
Impact of industrial policy in high-tech
industries
Payoffs with no subsidy
European Firm
Produce Not Produce
American Firm Produce -5, -5 100, 0
Not Produce 0, 100 0, 0
Answer:
Only one country will have a firm that produces in high tech.
(1) American firm Produce, European Not, or
(2) American Firm Not, European Firm Produce
19
Impact of industrial policy in high-tech
industries
Payoffs with European subsidy
European Firm
Produce Not Produce
American Firm Produce -5, 5 100, 0
Not Produce 0, 110 0, 0
20
Impact of industrial policy in high-tech
industries
Payoffs with European subsidy
European Firm
Produce Not Produce
American Firm Produce -5, 5 100, 0
Not Produce 0, 110 0, 0
22
Some DARPA contribution areas
Military Civilian
• Stealth fighter • Internet
• M-16 Assault rifle • Software innovations such
• Ballistic missile defense as parallel processing
• Sensors for anti-submarine • Digital imaging & x-ray
warfare • Semiconductor research
• (HDTV – aborted)
Competing Policy re: HDTV/DTV
• 1960s-1980s:
– Public-private cooperation in Europe, Japan => US behind
• Late 1980s/Early 1990s
– Proposal that DARPA fund HDTV R&D in US => private
companies delay own spending on R&D; proposal
withdrawn
– US HDTV policy delayed by conflicting interests –
consumers, broadcasters, electronics industry
• 1997-2001:
– Korea: Government decides standard, begins broadcasting
in DTV
• 2005
– US: Deadline set to cease analog broadcasts & consumer
subsidies => DTV adoption
Korean Japanese
First mover advantage does NOT guarantee success
Economies of scale & experience in one sector can be
exploited to enter new sectors
Competition enables better technologies to win market share
‘Made in USA’ Smartphone Operating Systems =
64% Share from 5% Five Years Ago
100%
Market Share of Smartphone OS
80%
Other OS
60% iOS
Android
Windows Mobile
40% BlackBerry OS
Linux
Nokia Symbian
20%
0%
2005 2011E