Industry | Annual loss to economy from barriers = Cost | Net employment loss if barrier is removed = jobs "saved" | Annual cost PER JOB SAVED |
Textile and apparel | $ 10.04 billion | 55,000 | $ 182,545 |
Maritime transport | $ 2.79 billion | 2,450 | $ 1,138,775 |
Dairy | $ 1.01 billion | 2,083 | $ 484,878 |
Motor vehicles | $ 710 million | 3,400 | $ 208,824 |
Sugar | $ 661 million | 1,694 | $ 390,200 |
Meat | $ 185 million | 100 | $ 1,850,000 |
Steel mills | $ 162 million | 1,265 | $ 128,063 |
Nonrubber footwear | $ 147 million | 1,316 | $ 111,702 |
From McConnell and Brue, 2002
Source: compiled from United States International Trade Commission data released December 1995. Data are for 1993.
New research has called these claims into question, at least somewhat. Jonathan Dingel summarizes some of the new research on trade (which includes contributions by Arkolakis et al., Ossa, and the opinions of Prescott) using more advanced trade models here. Arkolakis, et al. find that the gains from trade in these "new models" is "not much". But, these gains depend on the estimation of elasticity coefficients, which may vary by industry. When these coefficients are estimated separately for different industries, the gains from trade increase by about 6 fold, to somewhere between 24 and 42% of GDP.Thus, the gains from trade may well be large after all.
I think it makes sense to break up the data by industry due to the dependency on the estimation of elasticity coefficients which can vary by such. Considering how much we trade it is not a surprise to me that the increase can be between 24% and 42% although that seems like a very high percentage to range between. I also question today's relevance from the older data that was released 17 years ago with data 19 years old.
ReplyDelete