Search Results

1 - 10 of 182 items :

  • "comparative advantage" x
Clear All

References BALASSA, B. (1977): A Stage Approach to Comparative Advantage. World Bank Staff Working Paper, 256. HELEY, S. L. (1985): The Theory of Agricultural Comparative Advantage. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. HOOK, J. P. (1992): The Comparative Advantage of Agricultural Economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, pp. 1059-1065. LAURSEN, K. (1998): Revealed Comparative Advantage and the Alternatives as Measures of International Specialization. Department of Industrial Economic and Strategy. DRUID


In a peripheral rural area like the Pyrenees, it is necessary to promote local resources, which can be converted in value-added activities with comparative advantages in relation with other areas. The Comparative Advantage Theory and Second-Best Option (SBO) methodology are presented here. Each local territory can develop activities or services, even though there are other places that may be more suitable for them, when these are the best specialization option for this territory. The idea of SBO methodology means engaging in activities that make it possible to achieve a comparative advantage. Four cases are discussed: a) transformation of dairy products into competitive value-added commodities; b) promotion of extensive cattle farming based on local natural grass feed; c) development of value-added tourist activities linked to local landscape; and d) planning value-added cultural activities related with cultural heritage.

REFERENCES Amanor K. S., Chichava S. (2016): South-South cooperation, agribusiness, and African agricultural development: Brazil and China in Ghana and Mozambique. World Development 81(C): 13 – 23. Balassa B. (1965): Trade liberalisation and “revealed” comparative advantage. The Manchester School 33: 99 – 123. Balassa B. (1977): Revealed’ comparative advantage revisited: an analysis of relative export shares of the industrial countries. 1953 – 1971. The Manchester School 45: 327 – 344. Bergstrand J. H., Egger P., Larch M. (2016): Economic determinants of the

, Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 3, pp. 313-335. Dinopoulos, E., Thompson, P. (1999), Scale Effects in Schumpeterian Models of Economic Growth, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 157-185. Dornbusch, R., Fischer, S., Samuelson P. A. (1977), Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods, American Economic Review, Vol. 67, pp. 823-839. Grossman, G. M., Helpman, E. (1990), Comparative Advantage and Long-Run Growth, American Economic Review, Vol. 80, pp. 796-815. Grossman, G. M., Helpman, E. (1991a), Endogenous Product

References Balassa, B. (1965). Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed“ Comparative Advantage. The Manchester School, 33 (2), 99-123. Eurostat. (2017a). International trade of EFTA and enlargement countries . Retrieved May 25, 2017, from Eurostat. (2017b). EU trade since 1988 by SITC . Retrieved May 25, 2017, from > IMF. (2016). IMF Executive Board Concludes Article IV Consultation with Former Yogoslav Republic of Macedonia

References Balassa, B. (1965). Trade liberalization and revealed comparative advantage. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies , 33, 99-123. Balassa, B. (1967). Trade liberalization among industrial countries . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Balkytė, A. & Tvaronavičienė, M. (2010). Perception of competitiveness in the context of sustainable development: Facets of “sustainable competitiveness”. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 341–365. Bender, S., Li, Kui-Wai (2002). The changing trade and revealed comparative advantages

. 610-617. Balance, R., Forstner, H., Murray, T. (1987), Consistency tests of alternative measures of comparative advantage, The Review of Economics and Statistics, No. 2, pp. 157-161. Balance, R., Forstner, H., Murray, T. (1985), On measuring revealed comparative advantage: a note on Bowen’s indices, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, No. 121, pp. 346-350. Balassa, B. (1965), Trade liberalization and ‘revealed’ comparative advantage, The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, No. 33. Balassa, B. (1989), ‘Revealed’ comparative advantage revisited, in: B. Balassa

References Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching Up, Forging Ahead, and Falling Behind. Journal of Economic History, 46(2). p. 385–406. Balassa, B. & Noland, M. (1989). Revealed Comparative Advantage in Japan and the United States, Journal of International Economic Integration, 2(2). Balassa, B. (1965). Trade Liberalisation and Revealed Comparative Advantage , The Manchester School, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 99-123. Ćorović, E. (2019). Strukturni problemi finansiranja privrednog rasta Republike Srbije. Novi Pazar: Naučna publikacija Državnog Univerziteta u Novom

References Bown Ch. P. (2010). Taking Stock of Antidumping. Safeguards and Countervailing Duties. 1990-2009. ʻThe World Economyʼ, Vol. 34. Issue 12. Faustino H.C. (1991), On the controversy between Ballance-Forstner-Murray and Bowen about measuring comparative advantage, ʻEstudos de economiaʼ, Lisboa. Vol. 11. Khatibi A. (2009), The trade effects of European antidumping policy, ʻECIPE working paperʼ, No. 07. Kuna-Marszałek A. (2007), Postępowanie antydumpingowe jako instrument protekcji, Uniwersytet Łódzki. Łódź. Leromain E., Orefice G. (2013), New Revealed


This paper puts forth a new scholarly approach to trade negotiations, for practitioners of international agreements, or simply to business students attempting to understand Ricardian trade theory. The paper hypothesizes that matrices can provide a simpler conceptual framework for considering Ricardo’s comparative advantage, especially when multiple goods and multiple countries are involved, in order to determine which countries should produce which goods. Numerous theoretical examples are presented, singularly, and jointly, as are different possible flaws and assumptions, additional applications, and alternative uses of the matrices, such as employing matrices to increase production of certain goods needed during crises or shortages. The article also argues that “terms of trade” should not be “assumed” in trade models but be based upon indifference curves, and addresses other influencing factors such as neoclassical changes in utility or in production. Found valid, the paper applies this method of trade simplification to pressing international situations, the question of “Brexit,” the sobriquet for the United Kingdom’s effort to withdraw from the European Union, which creates interesting possibilities for new trade deals, and the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The conclusion conceptually compares bilateral and multilateral trade, singularly, and with all countries together.