Tariffs The Real Exchange Rate And The Terms Of Trade

In this paper we investigate the relation between tariff changes, terms of trade changes and the equilibrium real exchange rate. For this purpose we use two models of a small open economy: (1) a three goods version of the Ricardo-Viner model; and (2) a three goods model with full intersectoral factor mobility. We show that, in general, it is not possible to know how the equilibrium real exchange rate will respond to these two disturbances. Moreover, we show that the traditional wisdom that establishes that a tariff hike will always result in a real appreciation, while a terms of trade worsening will generate an equilibrium real depreciation, is incorrect.

In this paper we investigate the relation between tariff changes, terms of trade changes and the equilibrium real exchange rate. For this purpose we use two models of a small open economy: (1) a three goods version of the Ricardo-Viner model; and (2) a three goods model with full intersectoral factor mobility. We show that, in general, it is not possible to know how the equilibrium real exchange rate will respond to these two disturbances. Moreover, we show that the traditional wisdom that establishes that a tariff hike will always result in a real appreciation, while a terms of trade worsening will generate an equilibrium real depreciation, is incorrect.

In this paper a minimal general equilibrium intertemporal model, with optimizing consumers and producers, is developed to analyze the process of real exchange rate determination. The model is completely real, and considers a small open economy that produces and consumes three goods each period. The model is also used to analyze the way in which the current account responds to several shocks. The working of the model is illustrated for the case of two disturbances: the imposition of import tariffs, and external terms of trade shocks. In the case of import tariffs, a distinction is made between temporary, anticipated, and permanent changes. It is shown that, without imposing rigidities or adjustment costs, interesting paths for the equilibrium real exchange rate can be generated. In particular "overshooting" and movements in opposite directions in periods one and two can be observed. Precise conditions under which temporary import tariffs will improve the current account are derived. Finally, several ways in which the model can be extended to take into account other issues such as changes in the fiscal deficit, and financial deregulation are discussed in detail.

We study the robustness of the Lerner symmetry result in an open economy New Keynesian model with price rigidities. While the Lerner symmetry result of no real effects of a combined import tariff and export subsidy holds up approximately for a number of alternative assumptions, we obtain quantitatively important long-term deviations under complete international asset markets. Direct pass-through of tariffs and subsidies to prices and slow exchange rate adjustment can also generate significant short-term deviations from Lerner. Finally, we quantify the macroeconomic costs of a trade war and find that they can be substantial, with permanently lower income and trade volumes. However, a fully symmetric retaliation to a unilaterally imposed border adjustment tax can prevent any real or nominal effects.

Although theory suggests that the real exchange rate should depreciate after a credible trade liberalization but could appreciate temporarily with a noncredible one, little empirical evidence exists. Unlike existing studies that use either indirect tests or unreliable openness measures, this paper uses an event study based on carefully documented trade liberalization in 45 countries. The result shows that real exchange rates depreciate after countries open their economies to trade. In countries with multiple liberalization episodes, however, real exchange rates appreciate during early episodes, suggesting that partial or noncredible trade liberalizations are associated with real appreciation.

A Foreign Affairs Best Book of the Year: “Tells the history of American trade policy . . . [A] grand narrative [that] also debunks trade-policy myths.” —Economist Should the United States be open to commerce with other countries, or should it protect domestic industries from foreign competition? This question has been the source of bitter political conflict throughout American history. Such conflict was inevitable, James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers, because trade policy involves clashing economic interests. The struggle between the winners and losers from trade has always been fierce because dollars and jobs are at stake: depending on what policy is chosen, some industries, farmers, and workers will prosper, while others will suffer. Douglas A. Irwin’s Clashing over Commerce is the most authoritative and comprehensive history of US trade policy to date, offering a clear picture of the various economic and political forces that have shaped it. From the start, trade policy divided the nation—first when Thomas Jefferson declared an embargo on all foreign trade and then when South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union over excessive taxes on imports. The Civil War saw a shift toward protectionism, which then came under constant political attack. Then, controversy over the Smoot-Hawley tariff during the Great Depression led to a policy shift toward freer trade, involving trade agreements that eventually produced the World Trade Organization. Irwin makes sense of this turbulent history by showing how different economic interests tend to be grouped geographically, meaning that every proposed policy change found ready champions and opponents in Congress. Deeply researched and rich with insight and detail, Clashing over Commerce provides valuable and enduring insights into US trade policy past and present. “Combines scholarly analysis with a historian’s eye for trends and colorful details . . . readable and illuminating, for the trade expert and for all Americans wanting a deeper understanding of America’s evolving role in the global economy.” —National Review “Magisterial.” —Foreign Affairs