Social optimality in interregional trade models
https://doi.org/10.34020/2073-6495-2022-3-010-025
Abstract
We study the model of interregional trade under monopolistic competition of producers. We obtain a local comparative statics of symmetric social optimality with respect to transport costs. Particular attention is paid to situations of free trade and autarky. For the case of two regions, counterintuitive results we obtain that (1) with low transport costs in one of the regions, public welfare can either increase or decrease; (2) when transport costs are high, trade liberalization worsens public welfare in one region and improves it in another.
Supporting agencies: The study was carried out within the framework of an internal grant of the SIU RANEPA, April –June 2022. The authors consider it their pleasant duty to express their sincere gratitude to their colleagues at the REC “Digital Transformation of the Economy” and especially the Department of Business Statistics and Analytics of the SIU RANEPA for useful discussions.
About the Authors
I. A. Bykadorov
Siberian Institute of Management – branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Bykadorov Igor A. – Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Business Analytics and Statistics
Novosibirsk
Yu. N. Ismaiylova
Siberian Institute of Management – branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ismaiylova Yuliya N. – Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Business Analytics and Statistics
Novosibirsk
M. V. Pudova
Siberian Institute of Management – branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Pudova Marina V. – Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Business Analytics and Statistics
Novosibirsk
S. E. Khruschev
Siberian Institute of Management – branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Khruschev Sergey E. – Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Business Analytics and Statistics
Novosibirsk
References
1. Antoshhenkova I.V., Bykadorov I.A. Model’ monopolisticheskoj konkurencii: vlijanie tehnologicheskogo progressa na ravnovesie i obshhestvennuju optimal’nost’ [Model of monopolistic competition: the impact of technological progress on equilibrium and social optimality], Matematicheskaja teorija igr i ee prilozhenija [Mathematical game theory and its applications], 2014, vol. 6, Iss. 2, pp. 3–31.
2. Bykadorov I.A., Ismajylova Ju.N., Pudova M.V. Rynochnoe ravnovesie v modelyakh mezhregional’noj torgovli pri monopolisticheskoj konkurencii [Market equilibrium in interregional trade models under monopolistic competition], Vestnik NGUJeU [Vestnik NSUEM]. 2022, no. 3, pp. 183–203.
3. Arkolakis C., Costinot A., Donaldson D., Rodreguez-Clare A. The Elusive Pro-Competitive Effects of Trade // The Review of Economic Studies. 2019. Vol. 86. P. 46–80.
4. Arkolakis C., Costinot A., Rodreguez-Clare A. New Trade Models, Same Old Gains? // American Economic Review. 2012. Vol. 102. P. 94–130.
5. Behrens K., Murata Y. General Equilibrium Models of Monopolistic Competition: a New Approach // Journal of Economic Theory. 2007. Vol. 136. P. 776–787.
6. Brander J., Krugman P. A `Reciprocal Dumping’ Model of International Trade // Journal of international economics. 1983. Vol. 15. No. 3-4. P. 313–321.
7. Bykadorov I. Monopolistic Competition Model with Different Technological Innovation and Consumer Utility Levels // CEUR Workshop Proceeding. 2017. Vol. 1987. P. 108–114.
8. Bykadorov I. Monopolistic competition with investments in productivity // Optimization Letters. 2019. Vol. 13. Iss. 8. P. 1803–1817.
9. Bykadorov I., Ellero A. Funari S., Kokovin S., Pudova M. Chain Store Against Manufacturers: Regulation Can Mitigate Market Distortion // Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2016. Vol. 9869. P. 480–493.
10. Bykadorov I., Ellero A., Funari S., Moretti E. Dinkelbach Approach to Solving a Class of Fractional Optimal Control Problems // Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. 2009. Vol. 142. No. 1. P. 55–66.
11. Bykadorov I., Ellero A., Moretti E. Minimization of communication expenditure for seasonal products // RAIRO Operations Research. 2002. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 109–127.
12. Bykadorov I., Ellero A., Moretti E., Vianello S. The role of retailer’s performance in optimal wholesale price discount policies // European Journal of Operational Research. 2009. Vol. 194. No. 2. P. 538–550.
13. Bykadorov I., Gorn A., Kokovin S., Zhelobodko E. Why are losses from trade unlikely? // Economics Letters. 2015. Vol. 129. P. 35–38.
14. Bykadorov I., Kokovin S. Can a larger market foster R&D under monopolistic competition with variable mark-ups? // Research in Economics. 2017. Vol. 71. No. 4. P. 663–674.
15. Chamberlin E.H. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition: A Re-Orientation of the Theory of Value, 1st. ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1933.
16. Chamberlin E.H. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962.
17. Demidova S. Trade Policies, Firm Heterogeneity, and Variable Markups // Journal of International Economics. 2017. Vol. 108. No. 8. P. 260–273.
18. Demidova S., Rodriguez-Clare A. Trade Policy under Firm-Level Heterogeneity in a Small Economy // Journal of International Economics. 2009. Vol. 78. No. 1. P. 100–112.
19. Dhingra S. Trading Away Wide Brands for Cheap Brands // American Economic Review. 2013. Vol. 103. No. 6. P. 2554–2584.
20. Dhingra S., Morrow J. Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity under Firm Heterogeneity // Journal of Political Economy. 2019. Vol. 127. No. 1. P. 196–232.
21. Dixit A.K., Stiglitz J.E. Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity // American Economic Review. 1977. Vol. 67. No. 3. P. 297–308.
22. Feenstra R.C. A Homothetic Utility Function for Monopolistic Competition Models, without Constant Price Elasticity // Economics Letters. 2003. Vol. 78. No. 1. P. 79–86.
23. Feldman A.M., Serrano R. Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory. 2nd ed. Springer, Brown University, Providence, US, 2006.
24. Kokovin S., Molchanov P., Bykadorov I. Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade: Revisiting Gains from Trade // Journal of International Economics. 2022. Vol. 137. No. 103595.
25. Krugman P. Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade // Journal of International Economics. 1979. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 469–479.
26. Krugman P. Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade // American Economic Review. 1980. Vol. 70. No. 5. P. 950–959.
27. Melitz M.J., Ottaviano G.I.P. Market Size, Trade, and Productivity // Review of Economic Studies. 2008. Vol. 75. No. 1. P. 295–316.
28. Melitz M.J. The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity // Econometrica. 2003. Vol. 71. No. 6. P. 1695–1725.
29. Melitz M.J., Redding S.J. Missing Gains from Trade? // American Economic Review. 2014. Vol. 104. No. 5. P. 317–321.
30. Melitz M.J., Redding S.J. New Trade Models, New Welfare Implications // American Economic Review. 2015. Vol. 105. No. 3. P. 1105–1146.
31. Moulin H. Fair Division and Collective Welfare. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2004.
32. Mrazova M., Neary J.P. Together at Last: Trade Costs, Demand Structure, and Welfare // American Economic Review. 2014. Vol. 104. No. 5. P. 298–303.
33. Mrazova M., Neary J.P. Not so demanding: Demand Structure and Firm Behavior // American Economic Review. 2017. Vol. 107. No. 12. P. 3835–3874.
34. Ottaviano G.I.P., Tabuchi T., Thisse J.-F. Agglomeration and trade revised // International Economic Review. 2002. Vol. 43. P. 409–436.
35. Zhelobodko E., Kokovin S., Parenti M., Thisse J.-F. Monopolistic competition in general equilibrium: Beyond the Constant Elasticity of Substitution // Econometrica. 2012. Vol. 80. No. 6. P. 2765–2784.
Review
For citations:
Bykadorov I.A., Ismaiylova Yu.N., Pudova M.V., Khruschev S.E. Social optimality in interregional trade models. Vestnik NSUEM. 2022;(3):10-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34020/2073-6495-2022-3-010-025
Email this article 
