IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/wc2000/1159.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Empirical Investigation of The Kemp-Jones Model: The Case of OECD Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Mika Saito

    (University of Notre Dame)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact of different production technologies on relative prices of various goods and through them on the pattern of trade in these goods. Perfect capital mobility and differences in technology across countries are assumed, consistent with the Kemp-Jones model. This allows one to focus on labor costs, rather than on both labor and capital costs. The sector-specific unit labor costs for each country (relative to those of other sectors within each country) determine the comparative advantage or disadvantage of each country in trade. These sector- and country-specific relative unit labor costs can be broken down into two components, (i) relative wage rates and (ii) relative labor requirements per unit of output. The latter can be further decomposed into two sub-components, (iii) relative capital requirements per unit of labor and (iv) relative rates of technical progress. The decomposition into these two sub-components is carried out by an econometric estimation of the translog production function for each of 10 traded good sectors (2-digit classification of International Sectoral Data Base, 1970-92) in 14 OECD countries, using 3SLS estimation method. The decomposition of country- and sector-specific unit labor costs results in various empirical findings; two of which are as follows. First, the Ricardian model claims that the relative labor requirements are the key determinant of comparative advantage. The empirical evidence could only confirm this claim for the 1970s. Second, one of the main sources of the poor performance of the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem is widely agreed to be in cross-country differences in relative labor requirements. The decomposition of relative labor requirements into two sub-components indicates that such differences are highly correlated with cross-country differences in relative rates of technical progress in the light industries, but with cross-country differences in relative capital requirements in the heavy industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Mika Saito, 2000. "The Empirical Investigation of The Kemp-Jones Model: The Case of OECD Countries," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1159, Econometric Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:1159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/1159.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davis, Donald R. & David E. Weinstein & Scott C. Bradford & Kazushige Shimpo, 1997. "Using International and Japanese Regional Data to Determine When the Factor Abundance Theory of Trade Works," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 421-446, June.
    2. Gagnon, Joseph E. & Rose, Andrew K., 1991. "How Pervasive Is the Product Cycle? The Empirical Dynamics of American and Japanese Trade Flows," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5g98559s, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    3. Christensen, Laurits R & Jorgenson, Dale W & Lau, Lawrence J, 1973. "Transcendental Logarithmic Production Frontiers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 55(1), pages 28-45, February.
    4. Leamer, Edward E, 1980. "The Leontief Paradox, Reconsidered," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(3), pages 495-503, June.
    5. Donald Macdougallsir & Monica Dowley & Pauline Fox & Senta Pugh, 1962. "British And American Productivity Prices, And Exports: An Addendum," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 297-304.
    6. Bowen, Harry P & Leamer, Edward E & Sveikauskas, Leo, 1987. "Multicountry, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 791-809, December.
    7. Keith E. Maskus & Allan Webster, 1995. "Factor Specialization in U.S. and U.K. Trade: Simple Departures from the Factor-content Theory," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 131(III), pages 419-439, September.
    8. Robert M. Stern, 1962. "British And American Productivity And Comparative Costs In International Trade," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 275-296.
    9. Durkin, John T, Jr & Krygier, Markus, 1998. "Comparative Advantage and the Pattern of Trade within Industries," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 292-306, May.
    10. Hayami, Yujiro & Ruttan, Vernon W, 1970. "Agricultural Productivity Differences Among Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 60(5), pages 895-911, December.
    11. Fukuda, Shin-ichi & Hoshi, Takeo & Ito, Takatoshi & Rose, Andrew, 2006. "International Finance," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 455-458, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elhanan Helpman, 1999. "The Structure of Foreign Trade," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 121-144, Spring.
    2. Daniel Bernhofen, 2010. "The Empirics of General Equilibrium Tade Theory: What Have we Learned?," CESifo Working Paper Series 3242, CESifo.
    3. Assaf Zimring, 2019. "Testing the Heckscher–Ohlin–Vanek theory with a natural experiment," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 58-92, February.
    4. Hrvoje Jošic, Berislav Žmuk, 2023. "There is still life in factor proportions model: an evidence from the selected OECD countries," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 20(2), pages 193-221, December.
    5. Donald R. Davis & David E. Weinstein, 2002. "What Role for Empirics in International Trade?," Aussenwirtschaft, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science, Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economics Research, vol. 57(04), pages 441-468, December.
    6. Francisco Requena & Andrés Artal & Juana Castillo, 2008. "Testing Heckscher— Ohlin—Vanek Model Using Spanish Regional Data," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 31(2), pages 159-184, April.
    7. Thijs ten Raa & Pierre Mohnen, 2009. "The Location of Comparative Advantages on the Basis of Fundamentals Only," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Input–Output Economics: Theory And Applications Featuring Asian Economies, chapter 23, pages 425-446, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Kagawa, Shigemi, 2008. "How does Japanese compliance with the Kyoto Protocol affect environmental productivity in China and Japan?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 173-188, June.
    9. repec:shr:wpaper:13-04 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Donald R. Davis & David E. Weinstein, 2001. "An Account of Global Factor Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1423-1453, December.
    11. Peter M. Morrow, 2008. "East is East and West is West: A Ricardian-Heckscher-Ohlin Model of Comparative Advantage," Working Papers 575, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
    12. Donald R. Davis & David E. Weinstein, 2001. "The Factor Content of Trade," NBER Working Papers 8637, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Elhanan Helpman, 1998. "Explaining the structure of foreign trade: Where do we stand?," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 134(4), pages 573-589, December.
    14. Hausmann, Ricardo & Stock, Daniel P. & Yıldırım, Muhammed A., 2022. "Implied comparative advantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    15. Hausmann, Ricardo & Hidalgo, Cesar A. & Stock, Daniel P. & Yildirim, Muhammed A., 2014. "Implied Comparative Advantage," Working Paper Series rwp14-003, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    16. Widell, Lars, 2005. "On Measurements of the Factor Content of Trade: - The Case of Sweden," Working Papers 2005:7, Örebro University, School of Business.
    17. John Romalis, 2004. "Factor Proportions and the Structure of Commodity Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 67-97, March.
    18. Andrés Artal & Juana Castillo & Francisco Requena, 2006. "Contrastación empírica del modelo de dotaciones factoriales para el comercio interregional de España," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 30(3), pages 539-576, September.
    19. Martino Pelli & Jeanne Tschopp, 2014. "Hurricanes Revisited : Comparative Advantage as a Source of Heterogeneity," Cahiers de recherche 14-09, Departement d'économique de l'École de gestion à l'Université de Sherbrooke.
    20. Pavel Ciaian & d'Artis Kancs & Jan Pokrivcak, 2008. "Comparative Advantages, Transaction Costs and Factor Content of Agricultural Trade: Empirical Evidence from the CEE," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2008_03, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    21. William R Kerr, 2018. "Heterogeneous Technology Diffusion and Ricardian Trade Patterns," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 32(1), pages 163-182.

    More about this item

    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:ecm:wc2000:1159. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    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.