International Economics: Trade Openness, Correlation with GDP, Comparative Advantage
Verified
Added on  2023/04/07
|7
|893
|361
AI Summary
This document discusses trade openness in Italy and Sweden, correlation between openness and GDP per capita, and comparative advantage in shoes and calculators between Singapore and Australia.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS STUDENT ID: [Pick the date]
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS Question 1 The requisite table indicating the trade openness for Italy and Sweden for the given time is shown below. The requisite formula used for the computation of trade openness is indicated as follows. TradeOpenness(%)=[(Exportsofgoods&services+Importsofgoods& services)/GDP]*100 For each of the years, the above input for the concerned year is substituted to compute the trade openness. An alternative approach to compute openness is by evaluating the use of tariff and non-tariff barriers by a given country. Higher use of these would be associated with relatively less openness. This should produce results similar to the above approach as trade for the countries with higher barriers to trade would be expected to be lesser (Mankiw, 2016). Question 2 The requisite plot of trade openness for the two countries i.e. Italy and Sweden is indicated as follows.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS From the above line graph, it is apparent that the openness is significantly higher for Sweden in comparison to Italy for the time period under consideration thereby highlighting that Sweden is more open than Italy.With regards to changes in openness for Sweden, it is apparent that from 2003 to 2008, there was an almost linear increase in openness from 74% to 94%. However, during 2008-2009, there was a sharp decline in the openness caused on account of the global financial crisis which had a significantly adverse impact on trade (Froyen, 2016). Post this crisis, even though there has been some improvement in the openness for Sweden but the percentage has remained well below 90%. With regards to opened for Italy, owing to a booming global economy from 2003 -2008, there was an improvement in the openness percentage from 46% to 55%. Clearly, the increase in openness for Italy is significantly lower for Sweden which during the corresponding period improved by 20% as compared to 9% for Italy. A sharp decline to 46% was observed in 2008-2009 on account of global economic crisis and falling trade (Krugman & Wells, 2015). However, post this crisis, the recovery in openness percentage is superior for Italy in comparison for Sweden. This is because Italy unlike Sweden has managed to surpass the pre- crisis openness peak percentage of 55%. Question 3
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS The correlation between openness and the GDP per capita (proxy for economic development) has been found using the CORREL() function in Excel. For Italy using the data from 2003- 2015, the correlation coefficient has come out 0.77. The correlation coefficient is positive which implies that the nature of relationship between openness and economic development is positive or directly proportional. This implies that improvement in openness percentage wouldleadtoimprovementineconomicdevelopment.Themagnitudeofcorrelation coefficient highlights that the strength of relationship would be deemed strong (Dombusch, Fischer &Startz, 2015). With regards to Sweden, the corresponding correlation coefficient has come out as 0.52. The correlation coefficient in this case is also positive which is indicative that the two variables are directly proportional. It implies that improvement in one variable seems to co-exist with theimprovementinothervariable.However,thestrengthofcorrelationislesserin comparison to Italy. Even though the correlation coefficient still remains significant for Sweden but the relationship would be termed as moderate (Barro, 2017). Question 4 (a)Based on the given data, it is apparent that absolute advantage in terms of shoes is possessed by Singapore since within a given unit time, it can manufacture four shoes in comparison to one shoe for Australia. With regards to calculators, neither of the two countries has an absolute advantage since workers in each of the two countries make 2 calculators in a unit time. (b)Theopportunitycostsneedstobedeterminedtohighlightwhichcountryhasa comparative advantage. Shoes To manufacture one unit of shoe, two calculators would have to be forgone by an Australian worker. Opportunity cost of one shoe for Australian worker = 2 calculators To manufacture four units of shoe, two calculators would have to be forgone by a Singapore worker
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS Opportunity cost of one shoe for Singapore worker = (2/4) calculators = 0.5 calculator SincetheopportunitycostforSingaporeworkerislower,henceSingaporehasthe competitive advantage for shoes. Calculators .Opportunity cost of one calculator for Australian worker = (1/2) shoes Opportunity cost of one calculator for Singapore worker = (4/2) shoes Since the opportunity cost for Australian worker is lower, hence Australia has the competitive advantage for calculator. c) The PPF for Singapore is captured using the graph below. The PPF for Australia captured using the graph below.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS e) Autarky relative price for calculator (Singapore) = 240/120 = 2 Autarky relative price for calculator (Australia) = 80/160 = 0.5 f) Under autarky, Singapore must make 240 shoes and consume 100 while exporting 140 shoes. Further, Australia should produce 160 calculators and consumer 100 calculators while exporting the remaining 60 calculators to Singapore.
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS References Barro,R.(2017).Macroeconomics:AModernApproach(4thed.).London:Cengage Learning. Dombusch,R.,Fischer,S.&Startz,R.(2015).Macroeconomics(10thed.).New York: McGraw Hill Publications. Froyen, A. (2016),Macroeconomics(3rded.). New Delhi: Pearson Education. Krugman, P. & Wells, R. (2015).Macroeconomics(3rd ed.). London: Worth Publishers. Mankiw, G. (2016).Principles of Macroeconomics(6th ed.). London: Cengage Learning.