Letter to the Editor

Letter to the Editor Finance & Development, December 2016, Vol. 53, No. 4

Large gains, small losses The June 2016 issue of Finance & Development contained some comments by Dani Rodrik about the gains and losses that arise from freer trade (“Rebel with a Cause”). Rodrik is quoted as saying that trade theory “shows that the larger the net gains, the larger the redistribution [that is needed]. It is nonsensical to argue that the gains are large while the amount of redistribution is small.” I wish to point out that these statements are not true in general for the reasons below. It is important to qualify these statements because they could be used to postpone liberalization.

Suppose that when a particular market is opened to trade, the domestic price falls and the good is imported. Since the price falls, producers are harmed, while consumers benefit. In technical terms, there is a loss in “producer surplus” and a gain in “consumer surplus.” The magnitude of the gain in consumer surplus and the loss in producer surplus depend, among other things, on the price elasticities of demand and supply, and there is no reason to believe that these are systematically related to each other. So, for a given price decline, the gain in consumer surplus will be very large and the loss in producer surplus will be very small when the price elasticities of demand and supply are both large. The gains and losses experienced by different groups from opening to trade depend on elasticity values, among other things, and it is an empirical matter just what these magnitudes are. It is quite possible that these elasticity values are such that the gains are large, while the losses, that is, “redistributions,” are small.

The level of domestic production relative to consumption, and hence imports, also matters for the size of the gains and...