imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (135 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[International economics]]''' ==
| | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ''by [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] and [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]]
| | <small> |
| | | ==Footnotes== |
| ----
| |
| '''International economics''' is concerned with the effects upon economic activity of international differences in productive resources and consumer preferences and the institutions that affect them. It seeks to explain the patterns and consequences of transactions and interactions between the inhabitants of different countries, including trade, investment and migration.
| |
| | |
| For definitions of terms shown in italics in this article see the Related Articles subpage.
| |
| | |
| ===International trade===
| |
| | |
| ====Scope and methodology====
| |
| The economic theory of international trade differs from the remainder of economic theory mainly because of the comparatively limited international mobility of the capital and labour
| |
| <ref>[http://www.econlib.org/library/npdbooks/Viner/vnstt10.html "A note on the scope and method of the theory of international trade" in the appendix of Jacob Viner ''Studies in the Theory of International Trade'' : Harper and Brothers 1937]</ref>. In that respect, it would appear to differ in degree rather than in principle from the trade between remote regions in one country. Thus the methodology of international trade economics differs little from that of the remainder of economics. However, the direction of academic research on the subject has been influenced by the fact that governments have often sought to impose restrictions upon international trade, and the motive for the development of trade theory has often been a wish to determine the consequences of such restrictions. | |
| | |
| The branch of trade theory which is conventionally categorized as "classical" consists mainly of the application of deductive logic, originating with Ricardo’s Theory of ''Comparative Advantage'' and developing into a range of theorems that depend for their practical value upon the realism of their postulates. "Modern" trade theory, on the other hand, depends mainly upon ''empirical analysis''.
| |
| | |
| ====Classical theory====
| |
| The law of ''[[comparative advantage]]'' provides a logical explanation of international trade as the rational consequence of the comparative advantages that arise from inter-regional differences - regardless of how those differences arise. Since its exposition by John Stuart Mill <ref>[http://www.econlib.org/Library/Ricardo/ricP2a.html#Ch.7,%20On%20Foreign%20Trade,%20comparative%20advantage David Ricardo ''On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation'' Chapter 7 John Murray, 1821. Third edition.(First published: 1817)]</ref> the techniques of neo-classical economics have been applied to it to model the patterns of trade that would result from various postulated sources of comparative advantage. However, extremely restrictive (and often unrealistic) assumptions have had to be adopted in order to make the problem amenable to theoretical analysis. The best-known of the resulting models, the [[Heckscher-Ohlin theorem]] (H-O)
| |
| <ref>[http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch60/T60-8.php The Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem]</ref> depends upon the assumptions of no international differences of technology, productivity, or consumer preferences; no obstacles to pure competition or free trade and no scale economies. On those assumptions, it derives a model of the trade patterns that would arise solely from international differences in the relative abundance of labour and capital (referred to as factor endowments). The resulting theorem states that, on those assumptions, a country with a relative abundance of capital would export capital-intensive products and import labour-intensive products. The theorem proved to be of very limited predictive value, as was demonstrated by what came to be known as the "[[Leontief Paradox]]" (the discovery that, despite its capital-rich factor endowment, America was exporting labour-intensive products and importing capital-intensive products <ref>Wassily Leontief, ''Domestic Production and Foreign Trade: The American Capital Position Re-examined'' Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. XCVII p332 September 1953</ref>) Nevertheless the theoretical techniques (and many of the assumptions) used in deriving the H-O model were subsequently used to derive further theorems. The [[Stolper-Samuelson theorem]] <ref>[http://www.ucd.ie/economic/staff/pneary/pdf/stolpers.pdf The Stolper-Samuelson theorem]</ref> <ref>Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson ''Protection and Real Wages''' Review of Economic Studies, 9: 58-73. 1941</ref> , which is often described as a corollary of the H-O theorem, was an early example. In its most general form it states that if the price of a good rises (falls) then the price of the factor used intensively in that industry will also rise (fall) while the price of the other factor will fall (rise). In the international trade context for which it was devised it means that trade lowers the real wage of the scarce factor of production, and protection from trade raises it. Another corollary of the H-O theorem is Samuelson's factor price equalisation theorem <ref> Paul Samuelson: "International Trade and the Equalization of Factor Prices", '' The Economic Journal'' June 1949</ref> which states that as trade between countries tends to equalise their product prices, it tends also to equalise the prices paid to their factors of production. Those theories have sometimes been taken to mean that trade between an industrialised country and a developing country would lower the wages of the unskilled in the industrialised country. (But, as noted below, that conclusion depends upon the unlikely assumption that productivity is the same in the two countries). Large numbers of learned papers have been produced in attempts to elaborate on the H-O and Stolper-Samuelson theorems, and while many of them are considered to provide valuable insights, they have seldom proved to be directly applicable to the task of explaining trade patterns.
| |
| | |
| ''[[International economics|.... (read more)]]''
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: center;" | [[International economics#References|notes]]
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| |}
| | </small> |
Latest revision as of 10:19, 11 September 2020
Napoleon (Napoleon Bonaparte or, after 1804, Napoleon I, Emperor of the French) was a world historic figure and dictator of France from 1799 to 1814. He was the greatest general of his age--perhaps any age, with a sure command of battlefield tactics and campaign strategies, As a civil leader he played a major role in the French Revolution, then ended it when he became dictator in 1799 and Emperor of France in 1804 He modernized the French military, fiscal, political legal and religious systems. He fought an unending series of wars against Britain with a complex, ever-changing coalition of European nations on both sides. Refusing to compromise after his immense defeat in Russia in 1812, he was overwhelmed by a coalition of enemies and abdicated in 1814. In 1815 he returned from exile, took control of France, built a new army, and in 100 days almost succeeded--but was defeated at Waterloo and exiled to a remote island. His image and memory are central to French national identity, but he is despised by the British and Russians and is a controversial figure in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.
Rise to Power
Once the Revolution had begun, so many of the aristocratic officers turned against the Revolutionary government, or were exiled or executed, that a vacuum of senior leadership resulted. Promotions came very quickly now, and loyalty to the Revolution was as important as technical skill; Napoleon had both. His demerits were overlooked as he was twice reinstated, promoted, and allowed to collect his back pay. Paris knew him as an intellectual soldier deeply involved in politics. His first test of military genius came at Toulon in 1793, where the British had seized this key port. Napoleon, an acting Lieutenant-Colonel, used his artillery to force the British to abandon the city. He was immediately promoted by the Jacobin radicals under Robespierre to brigadier-general, joining the ranks of several brilliant young generals. He played a major role in defending Paris itself from counter-revolutionaries, and became the operational planner for the Army of Italy and planned two successful attacks in April 1794. He married Josephine (Rose de Beauharnais) in 1796, after falling violently in love with the older aristocratic widow.[1]
- ↑ Englund pp 63-73, 91-2, 97-8
