IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/inecon/v90y2013i2p337-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology adoption, government policy and tariffication

Author

Listed:
  • Ederington, Josh
  • McCalman, Phillip

Abstract

We integrate trade policy into an open-economy model of technology adoption to investigate the impact of alternate trade barriers on the equilibrium diffusion of a cost-saving technology. It is shown that even when ad-valorem tariffs have a neutral impact on technology adoption, non-tariff barriers such as quotas can be used to affect the speed of technology diffusion in both the home and foreign countries. In addition, we demonstrate how, in an open-economy setting, tariffication (i.e., the conversion of quotas to ad-valorem tariffs) can lead to faster technology adoption world-wide.

Suggested Citation

  • Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2013. "Technology adoption, government policy and tariffication," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 337-347.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:inecon:v:90:y:2013:i:2:p:337-347
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.02.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022199613000275
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.02.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nina Pavcnik, 2002. "Trade Liberalization, Exit, and Productivity Improvements: Evidence from Chilean Plants," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 69(1), pages 245-276.
    2. Jan Jørgensen & Philipp Schröder, 2005. "Welfare-ranking ad valorem and specific tariffs under monopolistic competition," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 228-241, February.
    3. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "On the Diffusion of New Technology: A Game Theoretic Approach," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 48(3), pages 395-405.
    4. Krishna, Pravin & Mitra, Devashish, 1998. "Trade liberalization, market discipline and productivity growth: new evidence from India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 447-462, August.
    5. Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Do safeguard tariffs and antidumping duties open or close technology gaps?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 469-484, March.
    6. Lee, Jong-Wha, 1996. "Government Interventions and Productivity Growth," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 391-414, September.
    7. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 1995. "Closing the Technology Gap under Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 755-770, September.
    8. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-959, December.
    9. Robert C. Feenstra, 1988. "Quality Change Under Trade Restraints in Japanese Autos," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 131-146.
    10. Georg Götz, 1999. "Monopolistic Competition and the Diffusion of New Technology," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(4), pages 679-693, Winter.
    11. Matschke, Xenia, 2003. "Tariff and quota equivalence in the presence of asymmetric information," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 209-223, October.
    12. Harrison, Ann E., 1994. "Productivity, imperfect competition and trade reform : Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 53-73, February.
    13. Krishna, Kala, 1990. "Protection and the Product Line: Monopoly and Product Quality," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 31(1), pages 87-102, February.
    14. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401.
    15. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2008. "Endogenous firm heterogeneity and the dynamics of trade liberalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 422-440, March.
    16. Krishna, Kala, 1987. "Tariffs versus quotas with endogenous quality," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1-2), pages 97-112, August.
    17. Kim, Euysung, 2000. "Trade liberalization and productivity growth in Korean manufacturing industries: price protection, market power, and scale efficiency," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 55-83, June.
    18. Collie, David R. & Su, Yu-Tien, 1998. "Trade policy and product variety: when is a VER superior to a tariff?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 249-255, February.
    19. Ping Lin & Kamal Saggi, 1999. "Incentives for Foreign Direct Investment under Imitation," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(5), pages 1275-1298, November.
    20. Falvey, Rodney E, 1979. "The Composition of Trade within Import-restricted Product Categories," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(5), pages 1105-1114, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nathaniel Lane, 2020. "The New Empirics of Industrial Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 209-234, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2011. "Infant industry protection and industrial dynamics," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 37-47, May.
    2. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2008. "Endogenous firm heterogeneity and the dynamics of trade liberalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 422-440, March.
    3. Hiroshi Mukunoki, 2017. "Market access and technology adoption in the presence of FDI," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 199-238, November.
    4. Ricardo A. López, 2005. "Trade and Growth: Reconciling the Macroeconomic and Microeconomic Evidence," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 623-648, September.
    5. Harrison, Ann E. & Rodriguez-Clare, Andres, 2009. "Trade, Foreign Investment, and Industrial Policy," MPRA Paper 15561, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. repec:lic:licosd:17606 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Nina Pavcnik, 2001. "Trade Protection and Wages: Evidence from the Colombian Trade Reforms," NBER Working Papers 8575, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Olivier Cadot & Céline Carrère & Vanessa Strauss-Kahn, 2013. "Trade Diversification, Income, And Growth: What Do We Know?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 790-812, September.
    9. Fernandes, Ana M., 2007. "Trade policy, trade volumes and plant-level productivity in Colombian manufacturing industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 52-71, March.
    10. Hakan Yilmazkuday, 2015. "Pass-through of trade costs to U.S. import prices," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 151(4), pages 609-633, November.
    11. Harrison, Ann & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2010. "Trade, Foreign Investment, and Industrial Policy for Developing Countries," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4039-4214, Elsevier.
    12. Chor-ching Goh & Beata S. Javorcik, 2007. "Trade Protection and Industry Wage Structure in Poland," NBER Chapters, in: Globalization and Poverty, pages 337-372, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Devashish Mitra, 2019. "Responses to Trade Opening: Evidence and Lessons from Asia," Working Papers id:12977, eSocialSciences.
    14. Ahmed, Gulzar & Arshad Khan, Muhammad & Afzal, Muhammad, 2015. "Trade Liberalization and Industrial Productivity: Evidence from Pakistan," MPRA Paper 70744, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Mar 2016.
    15. Attanasio, Orazio & Goldberg, Pinelopi K. & Pavcnik, Nina, 2004. "Trade reforms and wage inequality in Colombia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 331-366, August.
    16. Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou & Pavcnik, Nina, 2005. "Trade, wages, and the political economy of trade protection: evidence from the Colombian trade reforms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 75-105, May.
    17. Roberto Álvarez & Ricardo López, 2012. "Trade Liberalization and Industry Dynamics," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 579-595, September.
    18. Kosteas, Vasilios D., 2008. "Trade Protection and Capital Imports in the Mexican Manufacturing Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 2822-2837, December.
    19. Nathalie Lavoie & Qihong Liu, 2007. "Pricing-to-Market: Price Discrimination or Product Differentiation?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(3), pages 571-581.
    20. Paolo Epifani, 2003. "Trade liberalization, Firm Performances and Labor Market Outcomes in the Developing World, what Can We Learn From Micro-Level Data?," Rivista italiana degli economisti, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 455-486.
    21. repec:lic:licosd:19607 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Pinelopi K. Goldberg & Nina Pavcnik, 2004. "Trade, Inequality, and Poverty: What Do We Know? Evidence from Recent Trade Liberalization Episodes in Developing Countries," NBER Working Papers 10593, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technology adoption; Tariffs; Quotas;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:inecon:v:90:y:2013:i:2:p:337-347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505552 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.