Vol. 19 No. 40 (2024)

Artículos

Autarky vs globalization: a measure of loss profitability of the national industry

Published 2024-07-18 — Updated on 2024-07-28

  • Gaspar Núñez Rodríguez
    • ,
  • Antonio Kido Cruz

Gaspar Núñez Rodríguez
Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Escuela Superior de Economía

Antonio Kido Cruz
Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo image/svg+xml

Abstract

In this work it is argued that the difference between the multipliers of the Inverse Leontief Matrix calculated with the Total Input-Output Matrix MIP-T, and the multipliers obtained from the Internal (National) MIP, constitute a measure of the loss of profitability of the national produc­tive apparatus, which we call the National Multiplier Decrease Measure (MDMN). We propose an econometric model to estimate the elasticity of said difference with respect to the import of inputs. The estimation of the model confirms a significant and high relationship between the two variables, this result is reinforced by calculating the elas-ticity of inter­nal multipliers with respect to the import of inputs. The elasticities are used to analyze the decrease in the internal multiplier effect, generated by the import of inputs. The economic policy implications are of significant importance, mainly with respect to the measures taken for the alleged gains that the complete liberalization of international trade brings with it according to its promoters.

Keywords

Inverse Leontief matrix, imports, multiplier effect, input-output matrix

PDF (Spanish)

References

  1. Anderson, J., y E. Van Wincoop (2004). Trade costs. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(3): pp. 691-751.
  2. Arkolakis, C.; A. Costinot, y A. Rodriguez-Clare (2012). New trade models, same old gains? American Economic Review, 102 (1): 94-130.
  3. Aroche, F., y M. A. Márquez (2016). Una red económica norteamericana. Ensayos, revista de economía, vol. 35 (1) pp. 59-90, Disponible en: <http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2448-84022016000100059&lng=es&nrm=iso>. ISSN 2448-8402.
  4. Bernard, A., J. Eaton; J. Bradford, y S. Kortum (2003). Plants and productivity in international trade. American Economic Review, 93(4): pp. 1268-90.
  5. Blaum, J.; C. Lelarge, y P. Michael (2017). Firm size and the intensive margin of import demand. Centre for Economic Policy Research Working Paper 12237.
  6. Costinot, A.; y A. Rodriguez-Clare (2014). ‘Trade theory with numbers: quantifying the consequences of globalization. En Gopinath, E. Helpman, G. y Rogoff, K (eds.): Handbook of International Economics, vol. 4., pp. 197-261.
  7. Cuello, F.; F. Mansouri, y G. Hewings (1992). The identification of structure at the sectoral level: A reformulation of the Hirschman-Rasmussen key sector indices. Economic Systems Research, 4(4).
  8. Chaney, T (2008). Distorted gravity: The intensive and extensive margins of international trade. American Economic Review, 98(4): 1707-21.
  9. Eaton, J., y S. Kortum (2002). Technology, geography, and trade. Econometrica 70(5):1741-1779.
  10. Eaton, J.; S. Kortum, y F. Kramarz (2011). An anatomy of international trade: Evidence from French firms. Econometrica 79(5): 1453-98.
  11. Grossman, G., y E. Helpman (1994). Protection for sale. The American Economic Review, pp. 833-850.
  12. Gujarati, D., and D. Porter (2009). Basic Econometrics, Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill.
  13. INEGI (2013). Informe 2013, actividades y resultados. Aguascalientes: INEGI.
  14. INEGI (2021). Informe de sectores económico. Aguascalientes: INEGI.
  15. Krugman, P. (1995). Dutch tulips and emerging markets. Foreign Affairs, vol. 74, No. 4.
  16. Melitz, M., y O. Giancarlo (2008). Market size, trade, and productivity.” Review of Economic Studies, 75(1): 295-316.
  17. Miller, R. E., y P. D. Blair (2009). Inputs-Outputs Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Ossa, R. (2014). Trade wars and trade talks with data. American Econonomic Review, 104 (2), 4104-4146.
  19. Ossa, R. (2015). Why trade matters after all. Journal of International Economics, 97(2): 266-277.
  20. Rasmussen, P. (1956). Studies in Inter-Sectoral Relations. Copenhagen: Einar Harks.
  21. Ruiz-Nápoles, P. (2020). El teorema de Heckscher-Olhin y la economía mexicana. Una visión crítica de la economía neoliberal. El trimestre económico, vol. LXXXVII(1), núm 345, pp. 99-131, DOI: 10.20430/ete. v87i345.929.
  22. Samuelson, P. (1939). Interactions between the multiplier analysis and the principle of acceleration. Review of Economic Statistics, 21, pp. 75-8.
  23. Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the World Economy; Suggestions for an International Economic Policy. New York: Book Twentieth Century Fund, Recuperado de: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/16826.