Evaluating of the Hecker-Ohlin-Vanek Theorem in Iranian Economy

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD student in Economics, Faculty of Economics and Political Science, Shaid Beheshti University

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

Measuring the share of exports and imports of each factor in exports and imports of goods and services according to Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek theorem is important, and its measurement at the micro level and at the level of economic activities is doubly important to identify the trade patterns of countries. This study examine the validation of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek (HOV) theorem by examining the factor content of trade for six factors: Labor (unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled), physical capital, research and development, and energy in the Iranian economy. Using the input-output table, the HOV hypothesis was examined by relating the relative abundance and scarcity of factors to the factor content of trade . The validation test was conducted using micro data for 78 activity sectors in agriculture, industry and services using the 2011 and 2016 input-output tables in the Iranian economy. The results show for Iran's economy in 2011 and 2016 that the factor content of trade was negative in 34.61% of activities (27 sectors) and the factors were imported. In 60.25% of the activities (47 sections), it was positive and had a relative surplus of factors, so the factors were exported. In each of the years studied, in 4 subsectors of the services sector, there was no factor trade. In addition, the results show that in 2011 the greatest influence on the production process was from unskilled labor and physical capital, while in 2016 physical capital and spending on research and development predominated.
JEL Classification: F0, F14, F20.

Keywords

References

  1. بانویی، علی‌اصغر و محمودی، مینا (۱۳۸۱). اهمیت درآمد مختلط و ربط آن به توان اشتغال‌زایی بخش‌ها در قالب نظام شبه‌ماتریس حسابداری اجتماعی. فصلنامۀ برنامه‌ریزی و بودجه، ۷(۲)، ۸۷-۱۲۰.‌
  2. پندآزمای، سارا، جلایی، عبدالمجید و زاینده‌رودی، محسن (۱۳۹۵). تحلیل نظریۀ هکچر- اوهلین در تجارت خارجی ایران و آلمان (رهیافت الگوی تعادل عمومی قابل‌محاسبه). فصلنامۀ علمی-پژوهشی تحقیقات مدلسازی اقتصادی، ۱۲(۴۳)، ۱۳۹-۱۶۴.‌
  3. جهانگرد، اسفندیار (۱۳۸۴). ارزیابی روش‌های تعدیل جدول داده-ستانده در ایران.‌ فصلنامۀ پژوهش‌های اقتصادی، ۵(۳)، ۹۰-۱۰۹.
  4. مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی (۱۳۹۶). جداول داده-ستاندۀ سال‌های ۱۳۸۰ و ۱۳۸۵ به قیمت ثابت (پایه‌های آماری و روش محاسبه). معاونت پژوهش‌های اقتصادی. دفتر مطالعات اقتصادی، ۱۵۸۰۴.
  5. مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی (۱۳۹۶). پایه‌های آماری بهنگام‌سازی جدول داده-ستانده برای سال ۱۳۸۵ (ویرایش دوم). معاونت پژوهش‌های اقتصادی. دفتر مطالعات اقتصادی، ۱۲۴۵۳.
  6. تقوی، مهدی، جهانگرد، اسفندیار و صفوی، راشد (۱۳۹۰). بررسی و تحلیل مدل هکچر- اهلین- ونک (HOV) در اقتصاد ایران. فصلنامۀ تحقیقات مدلسازی اقتصادی، ۳، ۴۵-۶۹.
  7. شاکری، عباس و امیدوار، سیروس (۱۳۸۷). آزمون نظریۀ هکچر-اوهلین درمورد صادرات و واردات چین. پژوهشنامۀ اقتصادی، ۱۰(۴)، ۸۳-۱۰۳.‌
  8. کریمی، اوژن (۱۳۸۴). بررسی تأثیر عوامل تولید بر تجارت خارجی ایران. فصلنامۀ پژوهش‌ها و سیاست‌های اقتصادی، ۱۴(۳۷)، ۴۳-۶۸.‌
  9. عقیلی، فریباالسادات، طیبی، سیدکمیل و آذربایجانی، کریم (۱۳۹۷). ارزیابی نظریل هکچر- اهلین- ونک (HOV) در گسترش روابط تجاری ایران با دامنه‌ای از شرکای تجاری خود. فصلنامۀ تحقیقات مدلسازی اقتصادی، ۵۴(۲)، ۳۲۱-۳۴۴.
  10. وبگاه بانک مرکزی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، cbi.ir.
  11. وبگاه مرکز آمار ایران، amaorgr.ir.
  12. وبگاه مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی، ماتریس حسابداری اجتماعی سال ۱۳۹۰ اقتصاد ایران، majlis.ir.
  13.  
  14. Allen, R. I. G., & Gossling, W. F. (Eds.). (1975). Estimating and Projecting Input Output Coefficients (No. 2). Input-Output Publishing Company.
  15. F. (2012). Is Leontief Paradox Satisfied in Foreign Trade in Iran? The 20th International Input-Output. Conference, Bratislava, Slovakia, 26-29, June 2012.
  16. Bowen, H. P., Leamer, E., & Sveikauskas, L. (1987). Multicounty, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory. American Economic Review, 77(5), 791-809.
  17. Bowen, H. P., Leamer, E. E., & Sveikauskas, L. (1986). Multicountry, multifactor tests of the factor abundance theory (No. w1918). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  18. Cabrer, B., Contreras, D., & Miravete, E. (1991). Aggregation in input–output tables: how to select the best cluster linkage. Economic Systems Research, 3(2), 99-110.
  19. Davis, D. R., & Weinstein D. E. (2001). An Account of Global Factor Trade. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1423-1453.
  20. Davis, D. R., Weinstein, D. E., Bradford, S. C., & Shimpo, K. (1996). The Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Model of Trade: Why Does It Fail? When Does It Work? (No. w5625). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  21. E., & Los, B. (2011). A Correct Method to Determine the Factor Content of Trade. 19th International Input-Output Conference, 13-17.
  22. Dornbusch, R., Fisher, S., & Samuelson, P. (1977), “Comparative Advantage, Trade and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods.” American Economic Review, 67, 823-839.
  23. Guo, B. (2015). Heckscher-Ohlin Trade, Leontief Trade, and Factor Conversion Trade When Countries Have Different Technologies.
  24. Howe, E. C., & Johnson, C. R. (1989). Linear aggregation of input-output models. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 10(1), 65-79.
  25. Hu, H., Wang, S., & He, J. L. (2020). Comparative Advantages of Free Trade Port Construction in Shanghai under the Belt and Road Initiative. International Journal of Financial Studies, 8(1), 6.
  26. Jagdambe, S. (2019). Consistency Test of Revealed Comparative Advantage Index: Evidence from India’s Agricultural Export. Foreign Trade Review, 54(1), 16-28.
  27. Fahimifard, H., Karimzadeh, M., Falahi, M., & Seifi, A. (2020). Examination of Iran's Factor Content of Trade using International Input–output Tables. International Economics Studies, 50(1), 13-28.
  28. Feenstra, R. C. (2016). Advanced International Trade (Theory and Evidence). Princeton. Princeton University Press; ISBN 978-0-691-16164-8.
  29. Feenstra, R. C., & Hanson, G. H. (2000). Aggregation Bias in the Factor Content of Trade: Evidence from U.S. Manufacturing. American Economic Review, 90(2), 155-160.
  30. Feenstra R. C., & Taylor, A. M. (2008). International Trade, New York: Worth Publishers,
  31. Fisher, E. (2011). Heckscher-Ohlin Theory When Countries Have Different Technologies. International Review of Economics and Finance, 20, 202–210.
  32. Leamer, E. E. (1995). The Heckscher-Ohlin Model in Theory and Practice.
  33. Leamer, E. E. (1980). The Leontief Paradox, Reconsidered. Journal of Political Economy, 88(3), 495–503.
  34. Leontief, W. (1956). Factor Proportions and the Structure of American Trade: Further Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 38(4), 386–407.
  35. Marshall, K. G. (2011). The factor content of Chinese trade. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 20(6), 769-787.
  36. Maskus, K. E., & Nishioka, S. (2009). Development‐Related Biases in Factor Productivities and the HOV Model of Trade. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D'économique, 42(2), 519-553.
  37. Nishioka, S. (2006). An explanation of OECD factor trade with knowledge capital and the hov model. University of Colorado at Boulder, Working Paper, (05-06).
  38. De Mendivil Ribierre, C. O. (2015). Essays on the Factor Content of Trade and Education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota).
  39. Requena, F., Artal, A., & Castillo, J. (2008). Testing Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Model Using Spanish Regional Data. International Regional Science Review, 31(2), 159-184.
  40. Ricardo, D. (1817). Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Ruffin, R. (2002). David Ricardo's Discovery of Comparative Advantage. History of Political Economy, 34(4), 727-748.
  42. Schumacher, R. (2012). Adam Smith's Theory of Absolute Advantage and the Use of Doxography in the History of Economics. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 5(2), 54-80.
  43. Siddiqui, K. (2018). David Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage and Developing Countries: Myth and Reality. International Critical Thought, 8(3), 426-452.
  44. Srivastava, A. (2012). Heckscher Ohlin Vanek Theorem: An Excess Supply Approach. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) Paper, (38279).
  45. Srivastava, A., & Mathur, S. K. (2014). Validity of Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Hypothesis: A Complete and Partial Test Approach. Korea and the World Economy, 15(3), 355-393.
  46. Stone, S., Cepeda, R. H. C., & Jankowska, A. (2011). The Role of Factor Content in Trade: Have changes in factor endowments been reflected in trade patterns and on relative wages.
  47. Trefler, D. (1993). International Factor Price Differences: Leontief was Right. Journal of Political Economy, 101(6), 961- 987.
  48. Trefler, D. (1995). The Case of the Missing Trade and Other Mysteries. American Economic Review, 85(5), 1029-1046.
  49. Trefler, D., & Zhu, S. C. (2000). Beyond the Algebra of Explanation: HOV for the Technology Age. American Economic Review, 90(2), 145-149.
  50. World Bank. World Development Indicators, the World Bank Group. (2015) data.worldbank.org/indicator.
  51. Wu, T., Tomassin, P. J., & Mukhopadhyay, K. (2017). Using HOV Theorem to Predict the Factor Intensities in Canadian Agricultural Trade. International Journal of Applied Economics, 14(1), 45-64.
  52. Zimring, A. (2015). Testing the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Theory with a Natural Experiment. Available at SSRN 2697697.
  53. Zimring, A. (2019). Testing the Heckscher–Ohlin–Vanek Theory with a Natural Experiment. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D'économique, 52(1), 58-92.
Journal of Economic Research (Tahghighat- E- Eghtesadi)
Volume 56, Issue 2 - Serial Number 135
December 2021
Pages 347-401

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 May 2021
  • Revise Date: 02 October 2021
  • Accept Date: 18 November 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics