10.6The Difference between Level of Trade and the Trade Balance
that has been creeping higher. Clearly, a whopping is no guarantee of economic good health. Instead, Japan’s reflects that Japan has a very high rate of domestic savings, more than the Japanese economy can invest domestically, and so it invests the extra funds abroad. In Japan’s slow economy, consumption of is relatively low, and the growth of consumption is relatively slow. Thus, Japan’s continually exceed its , leaving the continually high. Recently, Japan’s trade surpluses began to deteriorate. In 2013, Japan ran a due to the high cost of imported oil. By 2015, Japan again had a surplus and continues to run one today.
10.6 The Difference between Level of Trade and the Trade Balance
LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Identify three factors that influence a country's level of trade
- Differentiate between balance of trade and level of trade
A nation’s level of trade may at first sound like much the same issue as the balance of trade, but these two are actually quite separate. It is perfectly possible for a country to have a very high level of trade—measured by its of goods and services as a share of its GDP—while it also has a near-balance between and . A high level of trade indicates that the nation a good portion of its . It is also possible for a country’s trade to be a relatively low share of GDP, relative to global averages, but for the imbalance between its and its to be quite large. We emphasized this general theme earlier in Measuring Trade Balances, which offered some illustrative figures on trade levels and balances. A country’s level of trade tells how much of its it . We measure this by the percent of out of GDP. It indicates the degree of an economy's . Some countries, such as Germany, have a high level of trade—they export almost 50% of their total . The balance of trade tells us if the country is running a trade surplus or trade deficit. A country can have a low level of trade but a high trade deficit. (For example, the United States only exports around 10% of its GDP, but it has a trade deficit of over $600 billion.) Three factors strongly influence a nation’s level of trade: the size of its economy, its geographic location, and its history of trade. Large economies like the United States can do much of their trading internally, while small economies like Sweden have less ability to provide what they want internally and tend to have higher ratios of exports and imports to GDP. Nations that are neighbors tend to trade more, since costs of transportation and communication are lower. Moreover, some nations have long and established patterns of international trade, while others do not. Consequently, a relatively small economy like Sweden, with many nearby trading partners across Europe and a long history of foreign trade, has a high level of trade. Brazil and India, which are fairly large economies that have often sought to inhibit trade in recent decades, have lower levels of trade; whereas, the United States and Japan are extremely large economies that have comparatively few nearby trading partners. Both countries actually have quite low levels of trade by world standards. The ratio of exports to GDP in either the United States or in Japan is about half of the world average. The balance of trade is a separate issue from the level of trade. The United States has a low level of trade, but had enormous trade deficits for most years from the mid-1980s into the 2000s. Japan has a low level of trade by world standards, but has typically shown large trade surpluses in recent decades. Nations like Germany and the United Kingdom have medium to high levels of trade by world standards, but Germany had a moderate trade surplus in 2020, while the United Kingdom had a moderate trade deficit. Their trade picture was roughly in balance in the late 1990s. Sweden had a high level of trade and a moderate trade surplus in 2020, while Canada had a high level of trade and a moderate trade deficit that same year. In short, it is quite possible for nations with a relatively low level of trade, expressed as a percentage of GDP, to have relatively large trade deficits. It is also quite possible for nations with a near balance between exports and imports to worry about the consequences of high levels of trade for the economy. It is not inconsistent to believe that a high level of trade is potentially beneficial to an economy, because of the way it allows nations to play to their comparative advantages, and to also be concerned about any macroeconomic instability caused by a long-term pattern of large trade deficits. The following Clear It Up feature discusses how this sort of dynamic played out in Colonial India. CLEAR IT UP Are trade surpluses always beneficial? Considering Colonial India. India was formally under British rule from 1858 to 1947. During that time, India consistently had trade surpluses with Great Britain. Anyone who believes that trade surpluses are a sign of economic strength and dominance while trade deficits are a sign of economic weakness must find this pattern odd, since it would mean that colonial India was successfully dominating and exploiting Great Britain for almost a century—which was not true. Instead, India’s trade surpluses with Great Britain meant that each year there was an overall flow of financial capital from India to Great Britain. In India, many heavily criticized this financial capital flow as the “drain,” and they viewed eliminating the financial capital drain as one of the many reasons why India would benefit from achieving independence.
Final Thoughts about Trade Balances
Trade deficits can be a good or a bad sign for an economy, and trade surpluses can be a good or a bad sign. Even a of zero—which just means that a nation is neither a net borrower nor lender in the international economy—can be either a good or bad sign. The fundamental economic question is not whether a nation’s economy is borrowing or lending at all, but whether the particular borrowing or lending in the particular economic conditions of that country makes sense. It is interesting to reflect on how public attitudes toward trade deficits and surpluses might change if we could somehow change the labels that people and the news media affix to them. If we called a “attracting foreign ”—which accurately describes what a means—then trade deficits might look more attractive. Conversely, if we called a “shipping abroad”—which accurately captures what a does—then trade surpluses might look less attractive. Either way, the key to understanding trade balances is to understand the relationships between flows of trade and flows of international payments, and what these relationships imply about the causes, benefits, and risks of different kinds of trade balances. The first step along this journey of understanding is to move beyond knee-jerk reactions to terms like “,” “,” and “.” BRING IT HOME More than Meets the Eye in the Congo Now that you see the big picture, you undoubtedly realize that all of the economic choices you make, such as depositing savings or investing in an international mutual fund, do influence the flow of goods and services as well as the flows of around the world. You now know that a does not necessarily tell us whether an economy is performing well or not. The Democratic Republic of the Congo ran a trade surplus in 2013, as we learned in the beginning of the chapter. Yet its current account balance was –$2.8 billion. However, the return of political stability and the rebuilding in the aftermath of the civil war there has meant a flow of investment and financial capital into the country. In this case, a negative current account balance means the country is being rebuilt—and that is a good thing.
Key Terms
balance of trade () the gap, if any, between a nation’s and a broad measure of the balance of trade that includes trade in goods and services, as well as international flows of and foreign aid the dollar value of divided by the dollar value of a country’s GDP the international flows of that facilitates trade and investment the balance of trade looking only at goods the total of private savings and public savings (a government ) unilateral transfers “one-way payments” that governments, private entities, or individuals make that they sent abroad with nothing received in return
Key Concepts and Summary
10.1 Measuring Trade Balances
The measures the gap between a country’s and its . In most high- economies, goods comprise less than half of a country’s total , while services comprise more than half. The last two decades have seen a surge in international trade in services; however, most global trade still takes the form of goods rather than services. The includes the trade in goods, services, and flowing into and out of a country from investments and .
10.2 Trade Balances in Historical and International Context
The United States developed large trade surpluses in the early 1980s, swung back to a tiny in 1991, and then had even larger trade deficits in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As we will see below, a necessarily means a net inflow of from abroad, while a necessarily means a net outflow of from an economy to other countries.
10.3 Trade Balances and Flows of Financial Capital
International flows of goods and services are closely connected to the international flows of . A current account deficit means that, after taking all the flows of payments from goods, services, and together, the country is a net borrower from the rest of the world. A current account surplus is the opposite and means the country is a net lender to the rest of the world.
10.4 The National Saving and Investment Identity
The national saving and investment identity is based on the relationship that the total quantity of supplied from all sources must equal the total quantity of demanded from all sources. If S is private saving, T is taxes, G is government spending, M is , X is , and I is investment, then for an economy with a current account deficit and a : A tends to increase the (meaning a higher or lower ), while economic boom will tend to decrease the (meaning a lower or a larger ).
10.5 The Pros and Cons of Trade Deficits and Surpluses
Trade surpluses are no guarantee of economic health, and trade deficits are no guarantee of economic weakness. Either trade deficits or trade surpluses can work out well or poorly, depending on whether a government wisely invests the corresponding flows of .
Text from Principles of Macroeconomics 3e, OpenStax, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Access for free at openstax.org.
My notes
No notes yet on this page.
