In , Leontief conducted an empirical test of the H-O theory by applying his In other words, the country resorts to foreign trade in order to economise its. This result has come to be known as the Leontief Paradox. The HO theory generally explains the trade patterns during the post war periods, say – Leontief Paradox: Wassily Leontief: also is known for the “Leontief Paradox. In international trade: Factor endowments: the Heckscher-Ohlin theory.

Author: Grolar Faugar
Country: Sweden
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 25 October 2005
Pages: 34
PDF File Size: 12.42 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.76 Mb
ISBN: 987-9-87160-806-3
Downloads: 9147
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Meshura

It also ignores the fact that some trade-items are intensive in natural resources. Human capital is created by education. As GDP increases, the share of services increases.

The Leontief Paradox to Heckscher-Ohlin Theory | Economics

There is complementarity between capital and natural resources in the field of production. By common consent the United States is the only country that is most abundantly endowed with capital. A tariff is a tax on imports and it tends to restrict imports. We cannot make a statement “A labor-abundant country will export the labor-intensive product” in a three-good, three-factor world because labor-intensity is not defined.

Therefore, consumption bias would have reinforced the HO prediction that US would import the labor-intensive goods. Ellsworth, the comparison instituted by Leontief between capital-abundant and labour-abundant countries in irrelevant. These analyses show that presence of human capital can play an important role in determining trade patterns between coutries. By concentrating on certain specifications of these products, the producers in these countries have been able to take advantage of economies of scale and expand two-way trade.

Inthe Russian economist Wassily Leontief, at that time affiliated with Harvard University published a paper containing the most notable empirical contradiction with the HOV theory. Apart from that, the model is depending on vulnerable and unrealistic assumptions.


Larger agricultural exports from Canada, Australia and most of the less developed countries are land-intensive essentially because of an abundance of land. This result has come to be known as the Leontief Paradox. For instance, the Linder hypothesis states that demand plays a more important role than comparative advantage as a determinant of trade—with the hypothesis that countries which share similar demands will be more likely to trade.

However, the inclusion of human capital could eliminate the paradox. When comparing the trade patterns of a market economy and a command economy, this explanation may be important. Stefan Valavanis-Vail Nihonbashi fish market. He confirmed Leontief paradox and found that the U.

Leontief paradox – Wikipedia

theoty Leontief put this generalisation to empirical test o and found the results that were contrary — to the generalisation paradxo by the H-O theory. His work, assisted by the first use of computer-aided calculations, comprised data on the structure of U. The HOV Theorem states that if trade is balanced, a country exports the services of its abundant factors through trade in goods.

Help Center Find new research papers in: Services tend to be nontraded goods. The paradox was attacked by Valvaris-Vail on the ground that it was based on the input-output table showing the fixed input-output co-efficients. Vanek proved that natural resources and capital which is consistent with the fact that US imports are more natural resource intensive than exports Vaghefi et al Leontief reviewed Minhas’s book and pointed out that only 17 out of possible reversals did occur for the relevant range of factor prices.

Romney Robinson explained Leontief paradox without repudiating the Heckscher-Ohlin theory on the basis of relative patterns of demand existing in ot United States and other countries.

He rather tried to explain the reasons due to which he arrived at a result different from that provided by the H-O theory. The Leontief paradox was supported by the study made by M.

  DIN 75220 PDF

Leontief paradox

Buchanan has criticized Leontief for having neglected the role of natural resources in the determination of trade pattern. It is true that this test is indirect, because technology differences have not so far been recognised as the basis for trade, but still the relative comparative advantages of different countries may be influenced by the research and development expenditure. East Germany’s exports were capital-intensive.

Similarly, a labour-abundant country may export capital-intensive goods, if the income elasticity of demand for such goods is high in that country. Almost 75 percent of her trade was with the countries of the communist block. Introduction to the Leontief Paradox 2. Tariffs and transport costs tend to reduce the volume of trade, but not reverse the pattern of trade.

Before all else, why does the model fails? The reasoning used by Leontief has an analytical flaw in the sense that it is an application of a two-factor model to a multi-factor situation. The only two factors explicitly taken into account are labour and capital. In his analysis, Leontief took only one country into account only computed factor requirements for marginal changes in the production of American exports and import competing goods.

From their viewpoint, Japanese exports to them were capital-intensive.

S foreign trade and its factor content. Enter the email address you signed up with and we’ll email you a reset link. Baldwin pointed out that the exclusion of even natural-resource industries was not enough to repudiate the paradox. At first, there was no dispute over the H.