| RESOURCES FOR THE INQUIRING MIND
HOME GLOBALIZATION FILMS
from G101 & G102
About Mini Courses
Online Education 101
Get your "A" Now!
The Complicity Problem
Income Tax Brackets
Effective Tax Rates
Game: Your REAL taxes
Global Warming 101
Gore vs. Skeptics
Business Ethics 101
Basic Business Ethics
Critical Thinking 101
Intro to Critical Thinking
The Magic Mountain
Film Theory Links
Film Info Links
Aristotle's Six Elements
Visual Narrative: Ran
Seven Mistakes of
What Works and
Films and Communism
Help support this site by placing book or merchandise orders through us to Amazon.
We mentioned that the concept of absolute advantage seems to imply that entities (countries, corporations, people) ought to seek economic opportunities where they have absolute advantages over competitors (e.g., through obtaining a monopoly). The concept of absolute advantage tends to support a WINER-LOSER psychology of trade.
In contrast, the concept of comparative advantage, developed by economist David Ricardo in 1817, shows how a WIN-WIN psychology of trade can be supported. Ricardo's theory has the crucially important result that even when a nation does not have an absolute advantage in the production of particular goods or services with another nation, it can still be in the self-interest of that nation to engage in international trade.
Ricardo's theory is important for understanding Globalization because it provides a powerful theoretical basis for the idea that free trade among nations is to everyone's advantage. Ricardo's theory is also important because it encourages nations to specialize in specific areas, and developing countries need to have a reliable theory that will guide them in finding the appropriate areas of specialization.
Here is an example based on Ricardo's. Consider two countries, England and Portugal. Both countries produce wine and cloth, and both are currently trading these. Assume that Portugal is more efficient at producing both products; i.e., it can produce more with less input. Portugal therefore has an absolute advantage over England in these areas. Does it pay for England to continue to trade with Portugal in these commodities? Since England does not have absolute advantage, and presumably, cannot hope to obtain absolute advantage, should it just give up trying to produce these commodities and import them from Portugal? Or should it try to stop trading with Portugal altogether -- or perhaps just erect severe traiffs against Portugal -- since it cannot "win" in trading?
Ricardo shows how both sides can benefit, or "win," by adjusting the efforts of their labor forces. We have to make some assumptions to simplify the model, but the fundamental points Ricardo makes are still valid today.
Assume the labor costs for these commodities are as follows:
Hours Required to Produce 1 Gallon of Wine 1 Yard of Cloth Portugal 80 90 England 120 100
Also assume that the current exchange prices for these commodities are equal. That is, one gallon of wine will buy one yard of cloth.
Observe that if Portugal diverts relatively more of its labor to wine production, it can, in effect, obtain cloth more cheaply. The reason is as follows: if Portugal spends 90 hours producing wine (instead of cloth), it produces 1 and 1/8 (1.125) gallons of wine with that labor. If the wine is exported to England, it purchases 1.125 yards of cloth. It is a more efficient for Portugal to export wine and trade it for cloth than to produce cloth domestically. Stated another way, if you are a laborer in Portugal, 90 hours of labor allows you to produce 1 yard of cloth domestically, or purchase 1.125 yards of cloth through international trade.
What about England? England can gain by producing relatively less wine and diverting its resources to cloth production. It takes 120 hours to produce 1 gallon of wine, but in those same 120 hours England can produce 1.20 yards of cloth, and this can be exchanged for 1.20 gallons of wine.
In regard to contemporary Globalization, it is important to note the following about Ricardo's model:
Created on ... February 16, 2004. Revised on 18:58 2/13/2005