Trade Theory

On part du constat que les firmes multinationales (FMN) jouent un rôle majeur dans la balance des paiements française et dans les enchaînements dits macro-économiques. Nous montrons que l’analyse des FMN est à tort coupée de l’analyse économique d’ensemble, et en particulier de la théorie du commerce international et nous proposons une nouvelle approche théorique de la FMN et du commerce international.

Développant l’analyse marxiste contemporaine originale de la révolution informationnelle et de la crise systémique, nous la croisons, en montrant ses apports spécifiques, avec les travaux académiques contemporains américains de Markusen et de Brainard, voire de Helpman et Grossman, ceux en termes de chaîne de valeur globale (y compris les analyses françaises de B. Lassudrie-Duchêne), ou ceux anciens de Vernon et Hymer, ainsi qu’avec les travaux hétérodoxes français sur les FMN depuis les années 1970.

Avec la révolution technologique informationnelle, un nouveau type de FMN se développe, au sein desquels les transferts de valeurs et la transversalité des ressources informationnelles sont décisifs. Cela nous conduit à introduire un facteur de production « global » dans l’analyse théorique du commerce international, contrairement à l’analyse HOS (Hecksher-Ohlin-Samuelson) qui suppose des facteurs localisés dans chaque pays.

Dans ces conditions, on montre que les effets du commerce international sur la croissance et le revenu national deviennent indéterminés. Cela implique de développer des politiques économiques sélectives, incitant d’une part à un type de développement des ressources et à leur partage, favorisant d’autre part une valeur ajoutée située.

Des indicateurs spécifiques sont nécessaires, dont certains sont en plein développement dans le système statistique public international (les FATS, foreign affiliates trade statistics) et dont les enjeux sont analysés. D’autres sont développés par nous dans l’optique de construire des « balances des paiements » de groupes, à partir d’un travail original sur des données statistiques, individuelles et exhaustives, mêlant comptes d’entreprises (bases Suse ou Fiben), liens financiers de groupe (enquête Lifi ou Fiben), statistiques individuelles de stocks d’IDE, statistiques de flux individuels en balance des paiements (services, revenus, flux financiers) et statistiques douanières.

Les estimations réalisées ici sur ces données individuelles appariées et exhaustives vont dans le sens attendu par notre analyse théorique : un coût global, traité comme un coût du capital, plus élevé en France pour les FMN, s’opposant à un coût local plus faible, lié aux salaires. Ces données nous permettent aussi de montrer l’interpénétration étroite entre activités financières et réelles au sein des firmes. Cela nous conduit à remettre en cause un certain nombre d’éléments de la théorie dominante : la séparation entre contrôle et propriété, le paradigme SCP (structures de marché-comportement-performances), l’analyse IS-LM.

En conclusion, nous proposons de considérer que la multinationale remplit une fonction objective nécessaire, celle de la co-production internationale et du partage de ressources informationnelles, mais de façon sous-optimale car visant la rentabilisation du capital de son périmètre. Nous concluons à la nécessité de son dépassement par d’autres formes et institutions à inventer tout en assurant cette fonction.

The central aim of this dissertation is to make an unambiguous international trade policy recommendation for developing countries grounded on rigorous economic theory. As is generally known, trade models featuring increasing returns to scale and imperfect competition have challenged the mainstream case for free trade which is built upon unrealistic assumptions like constant return to scale and perfect competition. In this context, the core contribution of this dissertation is the restatement of the original free- trade case made by the classical political economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo. This restatement is based on the accurate interpretation of Ricardo’s famous numerical example in chapter 7 of the Principles. The classical case for free trade formulated by Smith and Ricardo neither relies on unrealistic assumptions nor the laissez-faire doctrine. On the contrary, it stipulates that free trade should always be accompanied by public policies that expand the provision of public education, job training, health care and infrastructure. Moreover, a widespread policy change towards free trade should always be implemented gradually, in order to take care of those groups who might be affected in the short run by the increased level of international competition and technological progress. The main conclusion of the dissertation is that free trade – as conceived by classical political economy – is the most suitable international trade policy for developed as well developing countries for achieving sustainable economic growth and development.

There are three main claims in the paper: first, there is sufficient evidence for affirming that Ricardo adhered to Smith’s productivity theory; second, Ricardo’s original demonstration of the comparative- advantage proposition is indeed compatible and complementary with respect to the latter; and third, Ricardo agreed with Smith’s multifactorial explanation of the pattern of trade, which includes increasing returns and economies of scale. These results suggest that the level of compatibility between the international trade theories of Smith and Ricardo is significantly higher than it is currently reflected in the economic literature. They also add a new perspective to the ongoing process of reassessment of Smith’s contributions to international trade theory, further strengthening the view that he was indeed an outstanding international trade theorist.

The so-called Ricardian trade model of contemporary economic textbooks is not a rational reconstruction of Ricardo's famous numerical example in chapter seven of the Principles. It differs from the latter in terms of the definition of the four numbers, relevant cost comparison, rule for specialisation, assumptions and theoretical implications. Thus, the widespread critique regarding the unrealistic assumptions of the textbook trade model does not apply to Ricardo's original proof of comparative advantage.

With the famous numerical example of chapter 7 of the Principles (1817) David Ricardo intended to illustrate first and foremost the new proposition that his labor theory of value does not regulate the price of international transactions when the factors of production are immobile between countries. Unfortunately, later scholars have often omitted this proposition when referring to Ricardo's numerical example. Instead, they have highlighted only the comparative-advantage proposition, although Ricardo considered it as a corollary of the omitted proposition and therefore inextricably linked to it. This inexplicable omission has led to an incomplete understanding of the logical construction of Ricardo's numerical example, as well as to the misinterpretation of the four numbers as unitary labor costs. With an accurate understanding of Ricardo's numerical example and the logical relationship between the two propositions it meant to prove, it is relatively easy to refute the main objections that have been raised against the very same numerical example in the past. Moreover, it reaffirms the sustained relevance of Ricardo's two propositions as important insights for understanding the current process of economic globalization.

The question we need to ask and answer is: As a result of trade was there growth in the African Economy or was the continent underdeveloped or developing during the pre-colonial era? This paper is aimed at critically analysing the potentials of the pre-colonial African Trade using data from various well achieved historians.

We will explore Africa’s economy as it developed overtime and responded to economic changes. Will specifically investigate the forms of trade and currencies used which facilitated trade in Africa, will provide locations they were traded from and to who or locations it was traded to. We will examine the kingdoms and cities which rose to growth and prosperity as a result of trade, the trade routes and the trade strategies they employed.

We will find that the economies of some African societies were hunting-gathering, agricultural-based, crafts-level (not industrial-level) hand-tool manufacturing, which produced agricultural tools, cloths, iron or copper implements, pottery, jewelry, weapons for hunting or warfare amongst others products.

Austvik, Ole Gunnar, 1994: "Mellom autarki og føderasjon. Noen begreper for internasjonal handel og integrasjon" i  Gaarder, G. (ed.): Hvor går EU? Hva er igjen av Maastricht-avtalen?, Blå bok Europaprogrammet nr. 4, Oslo juli 1994. ISSN 0804-3485.

Med utgangspunkt i enkel handelsteori diskuterer denne artikkelen hovedtrekk ved et lands økonomiske fordeler av internasjonalt vare- og tjenestebytte. Videre tar den for seg interessekonflikter som oppstår gjennom omfordelingseffekter som følger av økt frihandel. Ulike argumenter for handelsbegrensninger diskuteres og likeså alternative virkemidler som kan nyttes for å begrense importen og å øke eksporten. Mulige nivåer for økonomisk integrasjon settes også opp. Lavere nivåer kan presse fram høyere og mer omfattende nivåer for integrasjon for å hindre at ikke-tariffære handelsbegrensninger innføres som substitutt for fjernede tollsatser og kvoter. Det finnes imidlertid også muligheter for tilbakeslag og for at integrasjonsprosessen kan ta lang tid.

The law of comparative advantage should not be attributed to anyone. This astonishing conclusion to the longstanding attribution debate on the law of comparative advantage comes from the recent demystification of David Ricardo’s famous numerical example in chapter 7 of the Principles. It debunked the conventional narrative that his “four magic numbers” were the first proof of this law by showing that Ricardo chose them according to an already customary rule for specialization. Likewise, there is no hint of the law of comparative advantage in the writings of John Stuart Mill, James Mill and Robert Torrens. The belief in the existence of this supposed law arose out of the confusion left by John Stuart Mill when he misinterpreted the purpose, content and implications of Ricardo’s numerical example. In truth, the law of comparative advantage is nothing more than a mythological construct, so no one deserves credit for it.