19.2What Happens When a Country Has an Absolute Advantage in All Goods

production-possibility frontier Starting at point C, which shows Saudi oil production of 60, reduce Saudi oil domestic oil consumption by 20, since 20 is exported to the United States and exchanged for 20 units of corn. This enables Saudi to reach point D, where oil consumption is now 40 barrels and corn consumption has increased to 30 (see Figure 19.3). Notice that even without 100% specialization, if the “trading price,” in this case 20 barrels of oil for 20 bushels of corn, is greater than the country’s opportunity cost, the Saudis will gain from trade. Since the post-trade consumption point D is beyond its production possibility frontier, Saudi Arabia has gained from trade. LINK IT UP Visit this website (http://wits.worldbank.org/trade-visualization.aspx) for trade-related data visualizations.

19.2 What Happens When a Country Has an Absolute Advantage in All Goods

LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Show the relationship between production costs and comparative advantage
• Identify situations of mutually beneficial trade
• Identify trade benefits by considering opportunity costs

What happens to the possibilities for trade if one country has an absolute advantage in everything? This is typical for high-income countries that often have well-educated workers, technologically advanced equipment, and the most up-to-date production processes. These high-income countries can produce all products with fewer resources than a low-income country. If the high-income country is more productive across the board, will there still be gains from trade? Good students of Ricardo understand that trade is about mutually beneficial exchange. Even when one country has an absolute advantage in all products, trade can still benefit both sides. This is because gains from trade come from specializing in one’s comparative advantage.

Production Possibilities and Comparative Advantage

Consider the example of trade between the United States and Mexico described in Table 19.7. In this example, it takes four U.S. workers to produce 1,000 pairs of shoes, but it takes five Mexican workers to do so. It takes one U.S. worker to produce 1,000 refrigerators, but it takes four Mexican workers to do so. The United States has an absolute advantage in productivity with regard to both shoes and refrigerators; that is, it takes fewer workers in the United States than in Mexico to produce both a given number of shoes and a given number of refrigerators. Country Number of Workers needed to produce 1,000 units — Shoes Number of Workers needed to produce 1,000 units — Refrigerators United States 4 workers 1 worker Mexico 5 workers 4 workers TABLE 19.7Resources Needed to Produce Shoes and Refrigerators Absolute advantage simply compares the productivity of a worker between countries. It answers the question, “How many inputs do I need to produce shoes in Mexico?” Comparative advantage asks this same question slightly differently. Instead of comparing how many workers it takes to produce a good, it asks, “How much am I giving up to produce this good in this country?” Another way of looking at this is that comparative advantage identifies the good for which the producer’s absolute advantage is relatively larger, or where the producer’s absolute productivity disadvantage is relatively smaller. The United States can produce 1,000 shoes with four- fifths as many workers as Mexico (four versus five), but it can produce 1,000 refrigerators with only one- quarter as many workers (one versus four). So, the comparative advantage of the United States, where its absolute productivity advantage is relatively greatest, lies with refrigerators, and Mexico’s comparative advantage, where its absolute productivity disadvantage is least, is in the production of shoes.

Mutually Beneficial Trade with Comparative Advantage

When nations increase production in their area of comparative advantage and trade with each other, both countries can benefit. Again, the production possibility frontier is a useful tool to visualize this benefit. Consider a situation where the United States and Mexico each have 40 workers. For example, as Table 19.8 shows, if the United States divides its labor so that 40 workers are making shoes, then, since it takes four workers in the United States to make 1,000 shoes, a total of 10,000 shoes will be produced. (If four workers can make 1,000 shoes, then 40 workers will make 10,000 shoes). If the 40 workers in the United States are making refrigerators, and each worker can produce 1,000 refrigerators, then a total of 40,000 refrigerators will be produced. Country Shoe Production — using 40 workers Refrigerator Production — using 40 workers United States 10,000 shoes or 40,000 refrigerators Mexico 8,000 shoes or 10,000 refrigerators TABLE 19.8Production Possibilities before Trade with Complete Specialization As always, the slope of the production possibility frontier for each country is the opportunity cost of one refrigerator in terms of foregone shoe production–when labor is transferred from producing the latter to producing the former (see Figure 19.4).

FIGURE 19.4Production Possibility Frontiers (a) With 40 workers, the United States can produce either 10,000 shoes and zero refrigerators or 40,000 refrigerators and zero shoes. (b) With 40 workers, Mexico can produce a maximum of 8,000 shoes and zero refrigerators, or 10,000 refrigerators and zero shoes. All other points on the production possibility line are possible combinations of the two goods that can be produced given current resources. Point A on both graphs is where the countries start producing and consuming before trade. Point B is where they end up after trade. Let’s say that, in the situation before trade, each nation prefers to produce a combination of shoes and refrigerators that is shown at point A. Table 19.9 shows the output of each good for each country and the total output for the two countries. Country Current Shoe Production Current Refrigerator Production United States 5,000 20,000 Mexico 4,000 5,000 Total 9,000 25,000 TABLE 19.9Total Production at Point A before Trade Continuing with this scenario, suppose that each country transfers some amount of labor toward its area of comparative advantage. For example, the United States transfers six workers away from shoes and toward producing refrigerators. As a result, U.S. production of shoes decreases by 1,500 units (6/4 × 1,000), while its production of refrigerators increases by 6,000 (that is, 6/1 × 1,000). Mexico also moves production toward its area of comparative advantage, transferring 10 workers away from refrigerators and toward production of shoes. As a result, production of refrigerators in Mexico falls by 2,500 (10/4 × 1,000), but production of shoes increases by 2,000 pairs (10/5 × 1,000). Notice that when both countries shift production toward each of their comparative advantages (what they are relatively better at), their combined production of both goods rises, as shown in Table 19.10. The reduction of shoe production by 1,500 pairs in the United States is more than offset by the gain of 2,000 pairs of shoes in Mexico, while the reduction of 2,500 refrigerators in Mexico is more than offset by the additional 6,000 refrigerators produced in the United States. Country Shoe Production Refrigerator Production United States 3,500 26,000 Mexico 6,000 2,500 Total 9,500 28,500 TABLE 19.10Shifting Production Toward Comparative Advantage Raises Total Output This numerical example illustrates the remarkable insight of comparative advantage: even when one country has an absolute advantage in all goods and another country has an absolute disadvantage in all goods, both countries can still benefit from trade. Even though the United States has an absolute advantage in producing both refrigerators and shoes, it makes economic sense for it to specialize in the good for which it has a comparative advantage. The United States will export refrigerators and in return import shoes.

How Opportunity Cost Sets the Boundaries of Trade

This example shows that both parties can benefit from specializing in their comparative advantages and trading. By using the opportunity costs in this example, it is possible to identify the range of possible trades that would benefit each country. Mexico started out, before specialization and trade, producing 4,000 pairs of shoes and 5,000 refrigerators (see Figure 19.4 and Table 19.9). Then, in the numerical example given, Mexico shifted production toward its comparative advantage and produced 6,000 pairs of shoes but only 2,500 refrigerators. Thus, if Mexico can export no more than 2,000 pairs of shoes (giving up 2,000 pairs of shoes) in exchange for imports of at least 2,500 refrigerators (a gain of 2,500 refrigerators), it will be able to consume more of both goods than before trade. Mexico will be unambiguously better off. Conversely, the United States started off, before specialization and trade, producing 5,000 pairs of shoes and 20,000 refrigerators. In the example, it then shifted production toward its comparative advantage, producing only 3,500 shoes but 26,000 refrigerators. If the United States can export no more than 6,000 refrigerators in exchange for imports of at least 1,500 pairs of shoes, it will be able to consume more of both goods and will be unambiguously better off. The range of trades that can benefit both nations is shown in Table 19.11. For example, a trade where the U.S. exports 4,000 refrigerators to Mexico in exchange for 1,800 pairs of shoes would benefit both sides, in the sense that both countries would be able to consume more of both goods than in a world without trade. The U.S. economy, after specialization, will benefit The Mexican economy, after specialization, will benefit if it: if it: Exports fewer than 6,000 refrigerators Imports at least 2,500 refrigerators Imports at least 1,500 pairs of shoes Exports no more than 2,000 pairs of shoes TABLE 19.11The Range of Trades That Benefit Both the United States and Mexico Trade allows each country to take advantage of lower opportunity costs in the other country. If Mexico wants to produce more refrigerators without trade, it must face its domestic opportunity costs and reduce shoe production. If Mexico, instead, produces more shoes and then trades for refrigerators made in the United States, where the opportunity cost of producing refrigerators is lower, Mexico can in effect take advantage of the lower opportunity cost of refrigerators in the United States. Conversely, when the United States specializes in its comparative advantage of refrigerator production and trades for shoes produced in Mexico, international trade allows the United States to take advantage of the lower opportunity cost of shoe production in Mexico. The theory of comparative advantage explains why countries trade: they have different comparative advantages. It shows that the gains from international trade result from pursuing comparative advantage and producing at a lower opportunity cost. The following Work It Out feature shows how to calculate absolute and comparative advantage and the way to apply them to a country’s production. WORK IT OUT Calculating Absolute and Comparative Advantage In Canada a worker can produce 20 barrels of oil or 40 tons of lumber. In Venezuela, a worker can produce 60 barrels of oil or 30 tons of lumber. Country Oil (barrels) Lumber (tons) Canada 20 or 40 Venezuela 60 or 30 TABLE 19.12 a. Who has the absolute advantage in the production of oil or lumber? How can you tell? b. Which country has a comparative advantage in the production of oil? c. Which country has a comparative advantage in producing lumber? d. In this example, is absolute advantage the same as comparative advantage, or not? e. In what product should Canada specialize? In what product should Venezuela specialize? Step 1. Make a table like Table 19.12. Step 2. To calculate absolute advantage, look at the larger of the numbers for each product. One worker in Canada can produce more lumber (40 tons versus 30 tons), so Canada has the absolute advantage in lumber. One worker in Venezuela can produce 60 barrels of oil compared to a worker in Canada who can produce only 20. Step 3. To calculate comparative advantage, find the opportunity cost of producing one barrel of oil in both countries. The country with the lowest opportunity cost has the comparative advantage. With the same labor time, Canada can produce either 20 barrels of oil or 40 tons of lumber. So in effect, 20 barrels of oil is equivalent to 40 tons of lumber: 20 oil = 40 lumber. Divide both sides of the equation by 20 to calculate the opportunity cost of one barrel of oil in Canada. 20/20 oil = 40/20 lumber. 1 oil = 2 lumber. To produce one additional barrel of oil in Canada has an opportunity cost of 2 lumber. Calculate the same way for Venezuela: 60 oil = 30 lumber. Divide both sides of the equation by 60. One oil in Venezuela has an opportunity cost of 1/2 lumber. Because 1/2 lumber < 2 lumber, Venezuela has the comparative advantage in producing oil. Step 4. Calculate the opportunity cost of one lumber by reversing the numbers, with lumber on the left side of the equation. In Canada, 40 lumber is equivalent in labor time to 20 barrels of oil: 40 lumber = 20 oil. Divide each side of the equation by 40. The opportunity cost of one lumber is 1/2 oil. In Venezuela, the equivalent labor time will produce 30 lumber or 60 oil: 30 lumber = 60 oil. Divide each side by 30. One lumber has an opportunity cost of two oil. Canada has the lower opportunity cost in producing lumber. Step 5. In this example, absolute advantage is the same as comparative advantage. Canada has the absolute and comparative advantage in lumber; Venezuela has the absolute and comparative advantage in oil. Step 6. Canada should specialize in the commodity for which it has a relative lower opportunity cost, which is lumber, and Venezuela should specialize in oil. Canada will be exporting lumber and importing oil, and Venezuela will be exporting oil and importing lumber.

Comparative Advantage Goes Camping

To build an intuitive understanding of how comparative advantage can benefit all parties, set aside examples that involve national economies for a moment and consider the situation of a group of friends who decide to go camping together. The six friends have a wide range of skills and experiences, but one person in particular, Jethro, has done lots of camping before and is also a great athlete. Jethro has an absolute advantage in all aspects of camping: he is faster at carrying a backpack, gathering firewood, paddling a canoe, setting up tents, making a meal, and washing up. So here is the question: Because Jethro has an absolute productivity advantage in everything, should he do all the work? Of course not! Even if Jethro is willing to work like a mule while everyone else sits around, he, like all mortals, only has 24 hours in a day. If everyone sits around and waits for Jethro to do everything, not only will Jethro be an unhappy camper, but there will not be much output for his group of six friends to consume. The theory of comparative advantage suggests that everyone will benefit if they figure out their areas of comparative advantage—that is, the area of camping where their productivity disadvantage is least, compared to Jethro. For example, it may be that Jethro is 80% faster at building fires and cooking meals than anyone else, but only 20% faster at gathering firewood and 10% faster at setting up tents. In that case, Jethro should focus on building fires and making meals, and others should attend to the other tasks, each according to where their productivity disadvantage is smallest. If the campers coordinate their efforts according to comparative advantage, they can all gain.

19.3 Intra-Industry Trade between Similar Economies

LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify at least two advantages of intra-industry trading
• Explain the relationship between economies of scale and intra-industry trade

Absolute and comparative advantages explain a great deal about global trading patterns. For example, they help to explain the patterns that we noted at the start of this chapter, like why you may be eating fresh fruit from Chile or Mexico, or why lower productivity regions like Africa and Latin America are able to sell a substantial proportion of their exports to higher productivity regions like the European Union and North America. Comparative advantage, however, at least at first glance, does not seem especially well-suited to explain other common patterns of international trade.

The Prevalence of Intra-Industry Trade between Similar Economies

The theory of comparative advantage suggests that trade should happen between economies with large differences in opportunity costs of production. Roughly half of all U.S. trade involves shipping goods between the fairly similar high-income economies of Japan, Canada, and the United States. Furthermore, the trade has an important geographic component—the biggest trading partners of the United States are Canada and Mexico (see Table 19.13). Country U.S. Exports Go to ... U.S. Imports Come from ... China 8.6% 17.7% Canada 17.6% 12.6% Japan 4.3% 4.3% Mexico 15.8% 13.6% South Korea 3.8% 3.3% TABLE 19.13Top Trading Partners (November 2021)(Source: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/ toppartners.html) Moreover, the theory of comparative advantage suggests that each economy should specialize to a degree in certain products, and then exchange those products. A high proportion of trade, however, is intra-industry trade—that is, trade of goods within the same industry from one country to another. For example, the United States produces and exports autos and imports autos. Table 19.14 shows some of the largest categories of U.S. exports and imports. In all of these categories, the United States is both a substantial exporter and a substantial importer of goods from the same industry. In 2021, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the United States exported $131 billion worth of autos, and imported $317 billion worth of autos. About 60% of U.S. trade and 60% of European trade is intra-industry trade.

Simpler explanation — Cambridge AS & A Level Economics

Absolute advantage International trade takes place because countries have different factor (resource) endowments. They differ in the supply and quality of labour, capital equipment, land and enterprise and the type of climate they have. The differences in factor endowment affect the types of products countries produce and the quality and quantity of the products, as well as their cost of production. It is usually easier to move goods and services between countries than factors of production, and so international trade occurs. There are some aspects of world trade that can be explained by absolute advantage.

A country has an absolute advantage in producing a product if it can produce more of the product with the same quantity of resources than another country. For example, Indonesia has the absolute advantage in producing rice while Brazil has the absolute advantage in producing coffee. Figure 25.2 shows simplified production possibilities for the two countries. This is based on each country allocating half of its resources to each of the products. If each country specialises in the product in which it has an absolute advantage and then trades, based on opportunity cost ratios, total output will rise and both countries will be able to consume more products.

Table 25.1 shows output before and after specialisation. Before specialisation After specialisation Rice (tonnes) Coffee (tonnes) Rice (tonnes) Coffee (tonnes) Indonesia 1000 Brazil 1000 Total 1000 1000 In this case, the opportunity cost of producing 1 tonne of rice in Indonesia is 0.4 of a tonne of coffee, while in Brazil it is 2.5 tonnes of coffee. An exchange rate of 1 tonne of rice for 1.5 tonnes of coffee lies between the opportunity cost ratios and will benefit both countries. 300 tonnes of rice for 450 tonnes of coffee. Rice (tonnes) Coffee (tonnes) Indonesia Brazil Total 1000 1000 Comparative advantage Although absolute advantage explains a small proportion of international trade, more trade is based on comparative advantage.