Over at the Economy Lab in the Globe which Failed, which itself has gone from bad to worse, one of the economists they keep in their stable has either produced an extraordinarily naive analysis or a dishonest one. I am going to go with naive for the sake of professional courtesy. Not that that is the MO of economists but I am atheist fan of Jesus and not an economist…so here goes.
To be honest I can’t figure out which vintage trade model Gordon is using. My informed gut tells me something like an off the shelve H-O-S intro text book model of free trade. That would fit with his own vintage and the fact that he is an econometrician. Although that creates a paradox because, as surely Gordn knows, the H-O-S free trade theorem preforms dismally–by even economic standards–in econometric work outs. In layman’s terms: the work-horse model of free trade which is standard in introductory economics texts fails at a predictive level.
There are any number of reasons for this but just for fun here are few in no particular order:
- The economies entering into trade were in a state of autarky (self sufficiency) and full employment. Both of which are patently false. More often than not nations pursue trade in the search for a remedy to chronic underemployment and unemployment and have already been engaged in trade.
- Product and capital markets are perfectly competitive. Again patently false.
- Factors (capital and labour) are perfectly mobile within a national jurisdiction but not between. You might get me to agree on labour but the whole point of neoliberal globalisation and its animating quintessential core is the free movement of capital.
- As a corollary, capital (investors) is made up of 100% domestic nationals. Extremely dubious assumption with respect to mining, oil and gas and a whole host of other sectors.
- There are no firms. While capital and labour are the only inputs (and resource endowments) there are no firms. Just one large something or other allocating labour and capital according to their scarcities. A model without firms that actually do the trading? Bizarre me thinks. This becomes particularly important with respect to determining who benefits from the gains of trade.
- Capital is a natural endowment. Which translated means that for the standard model the explanation is that some countries have lots of capital some do not. Why that is; the model does not care. But saying that you don’t care is far cry from saying anything remotely interesting. Capital is after all nothing other than produced means of production in its physical form and its ephemeral and essential form a complex social relation. Sorry I can’t really simplify that at this time. But to get a sense of what I am getting at just recall that the origins of Canada is a colonial enterprise in which colonial settlement was driven by the desire to expropriate natural resources from the original inhabitants. The origins of Canada, and its rich endowment of natural resources is thus the history of politically constituted property and not some “natural” process of economic development.
O.k. so that is that. Of course the OEM version of free trade theory is going to be a predictive disaster. Why anybody bothers to teach it outside of using it is an example of what happens when liberal geeks go wild is beyond me. But let me do a real world work-out.
Let us take Newfoundland and Labrador as a historical case in point. Here is region that has leaped from one natural resource boom to another and it has always ended in some form of administration. The failure to develop a modern diversified economy in which resources play a role but not the primary role. Contrast the fortunes of early diversifiers in the union, who did so via a tariff wall and you get the picture.
In Newfoundland and Labrador Gordon’s advice is being followed as the mining and oil and gas sectors account for around 40-45% of provincial output but only 4-5% of direct employment including temporary construction employment. Neither the oil, nor the profits touch land (outside of royalties taxes and wage payments which are all relatively low) in that province because of the weak to non-existent processing of raw materials.
Gordon thinks this is the road map to economic success, I think it leads to ruin. He is willing to bet standard trade theory on it, I am going with history.
Here is why. Two seconds of reflection will reveal that in Newfoundland and Labrador almost every single assumption built into the standard free trade model is violated: most certainly 1 through 6 outlined above. Perhaps most interestingly is that Newfoundland and Labrador would not have a comparative advantage in oil and gas had it not been for the federal and provincial governments. I am sure Gordon was decrying Hibernia as white elephant back in the day. The problem is today the two levels of government are fighting over the allocation of royalty payments as the project is paid in full and is churning out lucrative profits for all involved.
Maybe Gordon can write something about that in his next post to the Economy Lab. I won’t hold my breath. My discipline right or wrong and all that jazz.