1 Introduction to the Leontief Paradox

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1 Introduction to the Leontief Paradox Introduction to the Leontief Paradox: The Heckscher-Ohlin theorem gave a generalisation that the capital-abundant counties tend to export capital-intensive goods while labour- abundant countries tend to export the labour- intensive goods. W.W. Leontief put this generalisation to empirical test in 1953 and found the results that were contrary – to the generalisation provided by the H-O theory. Leontief made use of 1947 input-output tables related to the U.S. economy. 200 groups of industries were consolidated into 50 sectors, of which 38 traded their products directly on the international market. He took only two factors of production— labour and capital. His main empirical results are stated in Table. 8.1. Table 8.1, shows that import replacement industries in the U.S. had been employing 30 percent more of capital than the export industries. The capital-labour ratio was higher in the import- replacement industries than the export industries. It suggested that the exports of United States, generally recognised as the capital-abundant country, were labour-intensive. Leontief therefore, concluded, “American participation in the international division of labour is based on its specialisation in labour intensive rather than capital-intensive lines of production. In other words, this country resorts to foreign trade in order to economize its capital and dispose of its surplus labour rather than vice-versa.” In brief, capital-abundant countries export labour- intensive goods and labour-abundant countries export capital-intensive goods. This reflects what is called as ‘Leontief Paradox’ as this conclusion goes against H-O theory. Although the United States is a capital-abundant country, yet its specialisation is found in the labour-intensive commodities. The conclusion derived by Leontief not only surprised himself but startled the academicians throughout the world. The economists undertook intense research for re-examining both the H-O theory and Leontief paradox. The attempts were also made on empirical grounds to reconcile the Leontief analysis with the H-O theory. Several economists investigated the causes of bias in Leontief’s work and exposed the methodological and statistical weaknesses and inaccuracies in his analysis. Loentief Paradox and Evidence Related to Other Countries: 1 The Loentief paradox brought into focus the crucial issue of the validity or otherwise of H-O theory. Many economists conducted Loentief type studies related to other countries. The evidence is, however, not conclusive one way or the other. While some of the empirical studies put a question mark on the validity of H-O theory, the others have gone in favour of it. A study attempted by Tatemato and Ichimura concerning Japan has confirmed the Leontief paradox. Japan even though a labour-abundant country, imported labour-intensive goods like raw materials and exported capital-intensive goods such as automobiles, computers, T.V. sets, watches etc. According to these writers, this pattern of trade is not consistent with the H-O theory. They attributed such a trade pattern to the fact that almost 75 percent of Japan’s exports were directed to the Third World countries which were more capital- scarce that Japan. From their viewpoint, Japanese exports to them were capital-intensive. In contrast to the United States, Japan was labour- abundant and capital-scarce. Consequently her exports to the advanced countries like the United States had a lower capital-labour ratio. In this way, their findings confirmed the validity of H-O theory. The H-O theory found support from a study made by W. Stopler and K. Roskamp concerning the erstwhile East Germany in 1956. Almost 75 percent of her trade was with the countries of the communist block. East Germany was relatively more capital-abundant than the latter. At the same time, her exports to these countries were relatively capital- intensive and imports labour-intensive. D.F. Wahl conducted a study related to the trade pattern of Canada in 1961. This study showed that Canadian exports to the U.S.A, the major trading partner of Canada, were relatively more capital- intensive than her imports. It lent support to the Leontief paradox and contradicted the H-O theory. Another study that provided support to the Leontief paradox was made by R. Bhardwaj in 1961 concerning India’s trade pattern. He showed that Indian exports, in general, were more labour- intensive, while imports were capital-intensive. However, in her trade with the United States, the exports were capital-intensive and imports were labour-intensive. Thus, even this study ran counter to the H-O theory. There can be certain reasons for greater capital- intensity of exports by India and some other LDC’s to the United States. Firstly, these countries depend greatly on the technology imported from the advanced countries, as they do not themselves have an indigenous technology suited to their own factor endowments. The imported technology is highly capital-intensive. As a result, the exported goods have a relatively high capital- labour ratio. Secondly, India relied heavily on the imports of food grains and many other consumer products from the United States until 1970’s. That accounted for high labour-intensity of her imports from the United States. Thirdly, there is a substantial direct foreign investment by MNC’s owned by the United States and the European countries in India and other LDC’s. They generally operate in the export sector and produce goods through highly capital-intensive techniques. That can be one of the reasons for high capital-intensity of their exports, even though they are capital-scarce. Fourthly, there is factor price distortion in the LDC’s, i.e., the factor prices existing in these countries do not necessarily reflect their factor proportions. 2 There is the possibility that labour is over-priced and capital is underpriced in the LDC’s on account of such factors as strong trade union pressures, minimum wage laws, capital consumption allowances and other subsidies on capital and duty free imports of technology and capital goods from abroad. As the over-pricing of labour and underpricing of capital cause factor-price distortion, there is likelihood that the labour-surplus and capital-scarce countries like India export capital- intensive goods and import labour-intensive goods. The Leontief paradox was supported by the study made by M. Diab in 1956 concerning the United States trade with Canada, Britain, Netherlands, France and Norway. This study, relying on Colin Clark’s data, demonstrated that the United States was having a low capital-labour ratio in her exports than the above-mentioned countries. L. Tarshis approached the whole problem indirectly by comparing the internal commodity prices in different countries. The study revealed that the price ratio of capital-intensive relative to labour- intensive goods was lower in the United States and higher in other countries. Since the United States is a relatively capital-abundant country, the result is fully consistent with Heckscher-Ohlin theory. In the empirical studies made by E.E. Leamer in 1980 and 1984, it is suggested that the comparison of K-L ratio in the multi-factor world should be in production versus consumption rather than in exports versus imports. Applying this approach to 1947 Leontief’s data, Learner concluded that K-L ratio was indeed greater in the United States production than the United States consumption. That strengthened the H-O theory and refuted Leontief paradox. The study made by Stern and Maskus in 1981 for the year 1972 confirmed the H- O theory even when natural resource industries were excluded. In a 1987 study, however. Bowen, Learner and Sveikauskas, employed more complete 1967 cross- sectional data on trade, factor input requirements and factor endowments of 27 countries, 12 factors (resources) and several commodities. They concluded that H-O trade theory was valid in about fifty percent cases. It is now sufficiently clear that the empirical studies concerning the Leontief paradox or H-O theory, have provided conflicting conclusions. Until convincing or more conclusive evidence becomes available in support of Leontief paradox, the H-O theory must be deemed as valid. Reconciliation between Leontief Paradox and Heckscher-Ohlin Theory: Although the conclusion given by Leontief was in contradiction to the generalisation given by H-O theory, yet Leontief never attempted to supplant the factor proportions theory. He rather tried to explain the reasons due to which he arrived at a result different from that provided by the H-O theory. Many other economists too attempted to reconcile the Leontief paradox with the H-O theory of international trade. The more prominent explanations in this context are as follows: (i) Labour Productivity: 3 Leontief himself tried to bring about reconciliation between his paradox and H-O theory through the argument that the United States, though a labour-scarce country in strictly quantitative or conventional terms, is actually a labour-abundant country. The productivity of labour in the United States is about three times that of labour in the foreign countries. The higher productivity of the American labour was attributed by him to better organization and entrepreneurship in the United States than in other countries. In view of this, it is not surprising that the labour- abundant United States exports those products, which have relatively greater labour-intensity. There is no doubt that the productivity of labour is higher in the United States than in other countries. But the multiple of three, as assumed by Leontief was clearly arbitrary. In a study conducted by Kreinin in 1965, it was revealed that the productivity of American labour was more than that of the foreign labour only by 20 to 25 percent and not by 300 percent. Given such a situation, the United States cannot be regarded as a labour-abundant country.
Recommended publications
  • Strategic Trade and Investment Policies: Implications for the Study of International Political Economy
    Strategic Trade and Investment Policies: Implications for the Study of International Political Economy Jeffrey A. Hart and Aseem Prakash 1. INTRODUCTION USINESS gurus point out that successful firms often carefully strategise B about what to sell, where to sell, how to sell, and how and where to manufacture their goods and services.1 Suppose a country, drawing inspiration from such firms, were to formulate a set of economic policies to become globally competitive in leading economic sectors. How specific or encompassing would such policies be and what might be the justifications for them? Even though the theory and practicality of such policies — the strategic trade and industrial policies (STIPs) — is contested, they retain their appeal for politicians and policymakers. In this paper we discuss how and why STIPs have created a new agenda for the study of international political economy. State intervention to directly guide industrial activity is called industrial policy and to guide foreign trade is called trade policy. Industrial policies differ from macroeconomic policies in that they target only a subset of the economy. Whereas macroeconomic policies (such as tax rates, level of deficit spending and interest-rate policies) generally do not discriminate among types of firms or industries, industrial policies (such as R&D subsidies, tax subsidies, preferential loans and credit allocations) are targeted at specific firms or industries. JEFFREY A. HART is Professor in the Department of Political Science, Indiana University. ASEEM PRAKASH is Assistant Professor in the School of Business, George Washington University. This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 37th annual convention of the International Studies Association, San Diego, California, April 16–20, 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • Past Exams Questions
    International Business Economics Instructions: 3 points demand: Determine whether the statement is true or false and motivate your answer; 9 points demand: short essay. 1. Globalisation: • Describe the globalisation process and discuss its link with poverty and inequality (9 points). • “The extreme poverty has shrunk in the last 20 years”. Comments. (9 points) • Describe the main features of the globalisation process. (9 points) • The world poverty has decreased. Globalisation has increased. Hence we can infer that to reduce the poverty level we should decrease globalisation. (9 points) 2. Causes and consequences of international trade: the principle of comparative advantage (differences in relative labour productivity). 2.1 The Ricardian Model: Comparative and Absolute Advantages. • A country cannot have comparative advantages in producing all goods/in all its sectors. (3 points) • A country cannot have a comparative and absolute advantage in the same goods. (3 points) • A country cannot have an absolute advantage in all its sectors. (3 points) • A country cannot have a comparative disadvantage in producing all goods. (3 points) • If a country has a comparative advantage in producing a good, it cannot have an absolute advantage on the same production. (3 points) • China has an absolute and comparative advantage in all its sectors. (3 points) • Thanks to the comparative advantage’s theory we can explain the “inter-industry” but not the “intra-industry” (i.e. of similar goods) trade. (3 points) • A country has a comparative advantage in producing a good if its labour force produces it relatively more efficiently than workers in the other country. (3 points) • A country has a comparative advantage in a sector if the workers employed in that sector are relatively more productive than the labour force in another country.
    [Show full text]
  • Paradoxes Situations That Seems to Defy Intuition
    Paradoxes Situations that seems to defy intuition PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 07:26:17 UTC Contents Articles Introduction 1 Paradox 1 List of paradoxes 4 Paradoxical laughter 16 Decision theory 17 Abilene paradox 17 Chainstore paradox 19 Exchange paradox 22 Kavka's toxin puzzle 34 Necktie paradox 36 Economy 38 Allais paradox 38 Arrow's impossibility theorem 41 Bertrand paradox 52 Demographic-economic paradox 53 Dollar auction 56 Downs–Thomson paradox 57 Easterlin paradox 58 Ellsberg paradox 59 Green paradox 62 Icarus paradox 65 Jevons paradox 65 Leontief paradox 70 Lucas paradox 71 Metzler paradox 72 Paradox of thrift 73 Paradox of value 77 Productivity paradox 80 St. Petersburg paradox 85 Logic 92 All horses are the same color 92 Barbershop paradox 93 Carroll's paradox 96 Crocodile Dilemma 97 Drinker paradox 98 Infinite regress 101 Lottery paradox 102 Paradoxes of material implication 104 Raven paradox 107 Unexpected hanging paradox 119 What the Tortoise Said to Achilles 123 Mathematics 127 Accuracy paradox 127 Apportionment paradox 129 Banach–Tarski paradox 131 Berkson's paradox 139 Bertrand's box paradox 141 Bertrand paradox 146 Birthday problem 149 Borel–Kolmogorov paradox 163 Boy or Girl paradox 166 Burali-Forti paradox 172 Cantor's paradox 173 Coastline paradox 174 Cramer's paradox 178 Elevator paradox 179 False positive paradox 181 Gabriel's Horn 184 Galileo's paradox 187 Gambler's fallacy 188 Gödel's incompleteness theorems
    [Show full text]
  • A Test of the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem on India Exports
    A TEST OF THE HECKSCHER-OHLIN THEOREM ON INDIA EXPORTS A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In Economics By Amith Jay Shetty 2014 SIGNATURE PAGE THESIS: A TEST OF THE HECKSCHER-OHLIN THEOREM ON INDIA EXPORTS AUTHOR: Amith Jay Shetty DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2014 Economics Department Dr. Carsten Lange _________________________________________ Project Committee Chair Professor of Economics Dr. Bruce Brown _________________________________________ Professor of Economics Dr. Craig Kerr _________________________________________ Professor of Economics ii ABSTRACT The Heckscher-Ohlin model is a general equilibrium mathematical model of international trade. The model states that countries will export products that will utilize their abundant and cheap factors of productions and import products that utilize the countries’ scarce factors. This paper will test that theory against the international trade data between India and the United States. India is known to be a labor abundant country, which should result in India exporting labor-intensive goods to the United States. Using 126 commodities and labor statistics taken from both countries, this paper will find if the 2009 trade data between India and the United States are consistent with the Heckscher- Ohlin model. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page .............................................................................................................. ii Abstract ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Growth, Capitalism and Unknown Economic Paradoxes
    Sustainability 2012, 4, 2818-2837; doi:10.3390/su4112818 OPEN ACCESS sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Article Economic Growth, Capitalism and Unknown Economic Paradoxes Stasys Girdzijauskas *, Dalia Streimikiene and Andzela Mialik Vilnius University, Kaunas Faculty of Humanities, Muitines g. 8, LT-44280, Kaunas, Lithuania; E-Mails: [email protected] (D.S.); [email protected] (A.M.) * Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +370-37-422-566; Fax: +370-37-423-222. Received: 28 August 2012; in revised form: 9 October 2012 / Accepted: 16 October 2012 / Published: 24 October 2012 Abstract: The paper deals with failures of capitalism or free market and presents the results of economic analysis by applying a logistic capital growth model. The application of a logistic growth model for analysis of economic bubbles reveals the fundamental causes of bubble formation—economic paradoxes related with phenomena of saturated markets: the paradox of growing returnability and the paradoxes of debt and leverage trap. These paradoxes occur exclusively in the saturated markets and cause the majority of economic problems of recent days including overproduction, economic bubbles and cyclic economic development. Unfortunately, these paradoxes have not been taken into account when dealing with the current failures of capitalism. The aim of the paper is to apply logistic capital growth models for the analysis of economic paradoxes having direct impact on the capitalism failures such as economic bubbles, economic crisis and unstable economic growth. The analysis of economic paradoxes and their implication son failures of capitalism provided in the paper presents the new approach in developing policies aimed at increasing economic growth stability and overcoming failures of capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Factores Determinantes Do Comércio Internacional
    Factores determinantes do comércio internacional: a abordagem empírica Autor(es): Fontoura, Maria Paula Publicado por: Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra URL persistente: URI:http://hdl.handle.net/10316.2/26229 Accessed : 11-Oct-2021 02:11:40 A navegação consulta e descarregamento dos títulos inseridos nas Bibliotecas Digitais UC Digitalis, UC Pombalina e UC Impactum, pressupõem a aceitação plena e sem reservas dos Termos e Condições de Uso destas Bibliotecas Digitais, disponíveis em https://digitalis.uc.pt/pt-pt/termos. Conforme exposto nos referidos Termos e Condições de Uso, o descarregamento de títulos de acesso restrito requer uma licença válida de autorização devendo o utilizador aceder ao(s) documento(s) a partir de um endereço de IP da instituição detentora da supramencionada licença. Ao utilizador é apenas permitido o descarregamento para uso pessoal, pelo que o emprego do(s) título(s) descarregado(s) para outro fim, designadamente comercial, carece de autorização do respetivo autor ou editor da obra. Na medida em que todas as obras da UC Digitalis se encontram protegidas pelo Código do Direito de Autor e Direitos Conexos e demais legislação aplicável, toda a cópia, parcial ou total, deste documento, nos casos em que é legalmente admitida, deverá conter ou fazer-se acompanhar por este aviso. impactum.uc.pt digitalis.uc.pt Factores Determinantes do Comércio Internacional: A Abordagem Empírica* 1. Introdução 'T m always surprised that any model works" (HELPMAN, cito por DODWELL, 1994, p. 9) Dispomos actualmente de um conjunto vasto de artigos de análise empírica relativos às teorias do comércio internacio­ nal (TC!) explicativas dos padrões de comércio observados.
    [Show full text]
  • Editors' Introduction and Summary
    Editors' Introduction and Summary THIS IS THE FIFTH ISSUE OF BrookingsPapers on EconomicActivity, a publicationthat appearsthree times a yearand contains the articles,reports, and highlightsof the discussionfrom conferencesof the BrookingsPanel on EconomicActivity. Financed by grantsfrom the AlfredP. SloanFoun- dation and the Alex C. WalkerFoundation, the panelwas formedto pro- mote professionalresearch and analysisof key developmentsin U.S. eco- nomic activity.Prosperity and pricestability are its basic subjects. The expertiseof the panel is concentratedon the "live" issues of eco- nomic performancethat confront the maker of public policy and the executivein the privatesector. Particular attention is devotedto recentand currenteconomic developments that aredirectly relevant to the contempo- raryscene or especiallychallenging because they stretchour understanding of economictheory or previousempirical findings. Such issues are typically quantitativein character,and the researchfindings are often of a statistical nature.Nonetheless, in all the articlesand reports,the reasoningand the conclusionsare developedin a form both intelligibleto the interested,in- formednonspecialist and usefulto the macroeconomicexpert. In short,the papers aim at several objectives-meticulous and incisive professional analysis,timeliness and relevanceto currentissues, and lucid presentation. The four principalarticles and seven shorterreports presented in this issue were preparedfor the fifth conferenceof the Brookingspanel, held in Washingtonon September9-10,
    [Show full text]
  • List of Paradoxes 1 List of Paradoxes
    List of paradoxes 1 List of paradoxes This is a list of paradoxes, grouped thematically. The grouping is approximate: Paradoxes may fit into more than one category. Because of varying definitions of the term paradox, some of the following are not considered to be paradoxes by everyone. This list collects only those instances that have been termed paradox by at least one source and which have their own article. Although considered paradoxes, some of these are based on fallacious reasoning, or incomplete/faulty analysis. Logic • Barbershop paradox: The supposition that if one of two simultaneous assumptions leads to a contradiction, the other assumption is also disproved leads to paradoxical consequences. • What the Tortoise Said to Achilles "Whatever Logic is good enough to tell me is worth writing down...," also known as Carroll's paradox, not to be confused with the physical paradox of the same name. • Crocodile Dilemma: If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father guesses that the child will not be returned? • Catch-22 (logic): In need of something which can only be had by not being in need of it. • Drinker paradox: In any pub there is a customer such that, if he or she drinks, everybody in the pub drinks. • Paradox of entailment: Inconsistent premises always make an argument valid. • Horse paradox: All horses are the same color. • Lottery paradox: There is one winning ticket in a large lottery. It is reasonable to believe of a particular lottery ticket that it is not the winning ticket, since the probability that it is the winner is so very small, but it is not reasonable to believe that no lottery ticket will win.
    [Show full text]
  • Ma Finalsemester Subject Code: Maeco502 International Economics
    1 M.A (ECONOMICS) MA FINALSEMESTER SUBJECT CODE: MAECO502 INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS 2 BOARD OF STUDIES 1. Prof. S.K Nayak Head Chairman (Ex-officio) Dept. of Economics, RGU Member 2. Prof. A. Mitra Dept. of Economics, RGU Member 3. Prof. (Ms.) V. Upadhyay Dept. of Economics, RGU Member 4. Prof. N.C Roy Dept. of Economics, RGU Member 5. Prof. M P Bezbaruah Dept. of Economics, Guwahati University, Guwahati Member 6. Dr. RajuMondal Dept. of Economics, Assam University, Silchar, Assam Member Secretary 7. Dr. LijumNochi Dept. of Economics, RGU Authors: - Prof. S.K. Nayak, Dept. of Economics, RGU & Dr. R.K. Mandal, Dept. of Economics, DNGC, Itanagar (Unit: I & II) Prof. S.K. Nayak, Dept. of Economics, RGU & Dr. A.I. Singh, Dept. of Economics, DNGC, Itanagar (Unit: II & X) Dr. Lijum Nochi & Mr. Nyage Riba, Dept. of Economics, RGU (Unit: IV & V) Dr. D.B. Gurung, Dept. of Economics, RGU (Unit: VI, VII & VIII) Dr. Kaju Nath, NIT, Agartala (Unit: IX) 3 SYLLABI-BOOK MAPPING TABLE PAPER NO: MAECO502 INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS SYLLABI Mapping in Book UNIT- I: COMPARATIVE COST AND OPPORTUNITY COST MODELS Ricardo’s Model of Comparative Advantages - Modified Ricardian Theory (Elaboration and Refinement) - Haberler’s Opportunity Cost Theory - Trade under Increasing, Decreasing And Constant Cost Conditions UNIT-II: TRADE, FACTOR ENDOWMENTS AND FACTOR PRICE Leontief Paradox - Stolper-Samuelson Theorem: Factor Price Equalization Theorem - International Trade and Imperfect Competition UNIT- III: TERMS OF TRADE Meaning of Terms of Trade UNIT-IV: TARIFF Arguments
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of the Leontief Paradox. Diarmaid Smyth Senior Sophister
    A Critique of the Leontief Paradox. Diarmaid Smyth Senior Sophister The exploitation of comparative advantage is one of the central tenets of classical trade theory. When Leontief found evidence of a lack of applicability to the real world, a flurry of research was begun to explain these results. Diarmaid Smyth discusses the apparent paradox and explains how the gap between theory and practice was eventually bridged. Introduction The Heckscher-Ohlin (H-O) theorem is one of the most celebrated theorems of International economics. According to the theorem, countries will tend to have a comparative advantage (CA) in the production of those goods that make intensive use of their abundant factor of production. Therefore, a nation will seek to export those goods that use its abundant factor relatively intensively in return for imports of those goods that use its scarce factor relatively intensively. In 1953, Wassily Leontief, using an input-output matrix, sought to test the validity of the theorem with respect to American trade in 1947. At the time, US workers visibly worked with more capital per capita than all other nations, so in accordance with the theorem it was predicted that the US would have a CA in the production of capital intensive goods and should, therefore, export these. However, Leontiefs startling results cast huge doubt on the H-O theorem as US imports were found to be more capital intensive than its exports. This famous conclusion was labelled as the Leontief paradox. The purpose of this paper is to explain why, in fact, the paradox occurred, by primarily focusing on what are known as the natural resource and human capital explanations before going on to discuss the critical importance and modern day relevance of the factor content of trade approach.
    [Show full text]
  • International Trade: Evolution in the Thought and Analysis of Wassily Leontief
    August 19, 2000 DRAFT International Trade: Evolution in the Thought and Analysis of Wassily Leontief by Faye Duchin Department of Economics Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 110 8th St. Troy, NY USA Summary. Leontief’s 1933 article on the use of indifference curves in the analysis of foreign trade is widely cited as a fundamental contribution to neoclassical theory. Twenty years later, he collected the data for a simple input-output computation. The results exhibited the famous trade “paradox” that placed the modern theory of factor proportions seriously in doubt, laying the groundwork for today’s more heterodox “new trade theory.” After the passage of yet another 20 years, Leontief published his Nobel Memorial lecture, which described in embryonic form the input-output model of international exchange he was to construct several years later. A total of only eight publications about international trade exemplify the dramatic evolution in Leontief’s thought and analysis about economic structure and interdependence over a period of several decades. The early work, both theoretical and empirical, garnered widespread attention within the profession. By contrast, the post-1973 work with its emphasis on structure and scenario analysis has had more influence on issue-oriented research, notably in the area of the environment, and holds great promise as the framework of choice for a new generation of interdisciplinary scholars. ************ Between 1933 and 1977, Wassily Leontief published 4 articles, 2 reviews of the work of other economists, his Nobel Memorial Lecture, and a book on the subject of international trade. Despite the short length of this list, the subject was central to his concern with economic interdependence.
    [Show full text]
  • Mgs 726 Course Title: Global Economic Environment
    NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES COURSE CODE: MGS 726 COURSE TITLE: GLOBAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES COURSE GUIDE GLOBAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Course Code MGS 726 Course Title Global Economic Environment Course Developers/Writers Dr C.I. Okeke (NOUN) Mrs.E.A. Adegbola (NOUN) Mr. S.O Israel- Cookey (NOUN) Mrs Temi Olajide-Arise (NOUN) Miss Remi Adelowo (NOUN) Programme Leader Mr S.A Araga (NOUN) Course Editor Programme Coordinator Mrs Ihuoma Efugi (NOUN) COURSE GUIDE MGS 726 CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 3 Course Contents 3 Course Aims 3 Course Objectives 4 Working through This Course 4 Course Materials 4 Study Units 5 Textbooks and References 5 Assignment File 5 Assessment 6 Tutor-Marked Assignment 6 Final Examination and Grading 6 How to get the Best out of this Course 7 Facilitators/Tutors and Tutorials 7 Useful Advice 7 Summary 7 MGS 726 COURSE GUIDE INTRODUCTION MGS 726: Global Economic Environment is a one semester course work having three credit units. It is available to students on PGD degree programme in the School of Management Sciences at the National Open University of Nigeria. The course is made up of 16 units covering essential topics in Global Economic Environment. The topics treated include: global culture and multilateral negotiations, global power and wealth distribution and multilateral negotiations among others. This course guide tells you what the course is all about, the relevant textbooks you should consult, and how to work through your course materials to get the best out of it. It also contains some guidelines on your tutor-marked assignments.
    [Show full text]