Professional Documents
Culture Documents
International Trade 4th Edition Feenstra Solutions Manual
International Trade 4th Edition Feenstra Solutions Manual
Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankdeal.com/download/international-trade-4th-edition-feenstra-solutions-
manual/
International Trade 4th Edition Feenstra Solutions Manual
1. In this problem you will use the World Development Indicators (WDI) database from the
World Bank to compute the comparative advantage of two countries in the major sectors of
gross domestic product (GDP): agriculture, industry (which includes manufacturing, mining,
construction, electricity, and gas), and services. Go to the WDI website at
http://wdi.worldbank.org, and choose “Online tables,” where you will be using the sections
on “People” and on the “Economy.”
a. In the “People” section, start with the table “Labor force structure.” Choose two
countries that you would like to compare, and for a recent year write down their total
labor force (in millions) and the percentage of the labor force that is female. Then
calculate the number of the labor force (in millions) who are male and the number who
are female.
Answer:
b. Again using the “People” section of the WDI, now go to the “Employment by sector”
table. For the same two countries that you chose in part (a) and for roughly the same year,
write down the percent of male employment and the percent of female employment in
each of the three sectors of GDP: agriculture, industry, and services. (If the data are
missing in this table for the countries that you chose in part (a), use different countries.)
Use these percentages along with your answer to part (a) to calculate the number of male
workers and the number of female workers in each sector. Add together the number of
male and female workers to get the total labor force in each sector.
Answer:
France 4 2 31 10 65 88
Thailand 44 39 23 18 33 43
c. In the “Economy” section, go to the table “Structure of output.” There you will find
GDP (in $ billions) and the % of GDP in each of the three sectors: agriculture, industry,
and services. For the same two countries and the same year that you chose in part (a),
write down their GDP (in $ billions) and the percentage of their GDP accounted for by
agriculture, by industry, and by services. Multiply GDP by the percentages to obtain the
dollar amount of GDP coming from each of these sectors, which is interpreted as the
value-added in each sector, that is, the dollar amount that is sold in each sector minus the
cost of materials (not including the cost of labor or capital) used in production.
Answer:
2014 GDP (billion $) Agriculture (%) Industry (%) Service (%)
France 2829.2 2 19 79
Thailand 404.8 20 37 53
d. Using your results from parts (b) and (c), divide the GDP from each sector by the labor
force in each sector to obtain the value-added per worker in each sector. Arrange these
numbers in the same way as the “Sales/Employee” and “Bushels/Worker” shown in
Table 2-2. Then compute the absolute advantage of one country relative to the other in
each sector, as shown on the right-hand side of Table 2-2. Interpret your results. Also
compute the comparative advantage of agriculture/industry and agriculture/services (as
shown at the bottom of Table 2-2), and the comparative advantage of industry/services.
Based on your results, what should be the trade pattern of these two countries if they
were trading only with each other?
Answer:
Comparative
Advantage
Thailand has a comparative advantage in both Service and Industry. Suppose that a farmer
spends 1,000 hours per year in agriculture production. Multiplying the marginal product of an
hour of labor in agriculture by 1,000, to obtain the marginal production of labor per year and
dividing by the marginal production of labor in Service gives us the opportunity cost of Service.
In France, this ratio is 0.63, indicating that $0.63 must be foregone to obtain an extra dollar of
sales in Agriculture. In Industry, the ratio is 0.73 in France. These ratios are much smaller in
Thailand, only 0.35 for Service and 0.27 for Industry. As a result, Thailand has a lower
opportunity cost of both Industry and Service. Therefore, if assuming the two countries are
trading only with each other, France will export Agriculture while Thailand will export Service
and Industry.
2. At the beginning of the chapter, there is a brief quotation from David Ricardo; here is a
longer version of what Ricardo wrote:
Language: English
by
STERLING BROWN
Most American readers would take this to refer to the Negro, but it was
spoken of the Irish, in a play dealing with one of the most desperate
periods of Ireland’s tragic history. The Jew has been treated similarly by
his persecutors. The African, and especially the South African native, is
now receiving substantially the same treatment as the American Negro.
Literature dealing with the peasant and the working-class has, until
recently, conformed to a similar pattern.
The blind men gathered about the elephant. Each one felt the part of the
elephant’s anatomy closest to him, the trunk, tusk, eyes, ear, hoof, hide
and tail. Then each became an authority on the elephant. The elephant
was all trunk, or all hoof or all hide, or all tail. So ran their separate
truths. The single truth was that all were blind. This fable, pertinent to
our study, might be continued to tell how some of the blind men returned
to their kingdoms of the blind where it was advantageous to believe that
the elephant was all trunk or tusk.
We shall see in this study how stereotypes—that the Negro is all this,
that, or the other—have evolved at the dictates of social policy. When
slavery was being attacked, for instance, southern authors countered with
the contented slave; when cruelties were mentioned, they dragged
forward the comical and happy-hearted Negro. Admittedly wrong for
white people, slavery was represented as a boon for Negroes, on
theological, biological, psychological warrant. Since Negroes were of
“peculiar endowment,” slavery could not hurt them, although,
inconsistently, it was their punishment, since they were cursed of God. A
corollary was the wretched freedman, a fish out of water. In
Reconstruction, when threatened with such dire fate as Negroes’ voting,
going to school, and working for themselves (i.e., Negro domination),
southern authors added the stereotype of the brute Negro. Even today
much social policy demands that slavery be shown as blessed and fitting,
and the Negro as ludicrously ignorant of his own best good.
Many authors who are not hostile to the Negro and some who profess
friendship still stress a “peculiar endowment” at the expense of the
Negro’s basic humanity. Some antislavery authors seemed to believe that
submissiveness was a mystical African quality, and chose mulattoes for
their rebellious heroes, attributing militancy and intelligence to a white
heritage. Many contemporary authors exploit the Negro’s quaintness, his
“racial qualities.” Whether they do this for an escape from drab,
standardized life or out of genuine artistic interest or, in the case of
Negro authors, out of race pride, their work suffers from the narrowness
of allegory. It must be added that these authors play into the hands of
reactionaries, who, once a difference is established, use it to justify
peculiar position and peculiar treatment.
Whether the Negro was human was one of the problems that racked the
brains of the cultured Old South. The finally begrudged admission that
perhaps he was, has remained largely nominal in letters as in life.
Complete, complex humanity has been denied to him. He is too often
like characters in the medieval allegories: now Loyalty, or Mirth, or
Servility, or Quaintness, or Exuberance, or Brutishness, or Lust. Only
seldom is he shown as Labor or Persecution, although he was brought
here to supply the first, and as payment received the second.
Since there is no stereotype without some basis in actuality, it goes
without saying that individuals could be found resembling Page’s loyal
Uncle Billy or Stark Young’s William Veal, or Dixon’s brutal Gus, or
Scarlet Sister Mary or Van Vechten’s Lasca, or even Uncle Tom and
Florian Slappey. But when, as is frequent, generalizations are drawn
from these about a race or a section, the author oversteps his bounds as
novelist, and becomes an amateur social scientist whose guesses are
valueless, and even dangerous. Fiction, especially on so controversial a
subject as the American Negro, is still subjective, and novelists would do
well to recognize that they are recording a few characters in a confined
social segment, often from a prejudiced point of view. They cannot, like
Bacon, take all for their province.
Fortunately for American fiction, however, there have been authors, even
from the outset, who heard the Negro speak as Shakespeare heard
Shylock:
He hath disgraced me ... laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation ... cooled
my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew.... If you prick us, do we not
bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us,
shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
Here we have the first comic Negro in American fiction, assured of long
employment from Irving to Octavus Roy Cohen. Salmagundi likewise
includes Caesar, a “weatherbeaten wiseacre of a Negro,” who henpecks
his masters, tell stories of ghosts, goblins and witches, and, like a good
man Friday, accompanies his master to his sparking and dancing. Caesar
is repeated in The Knickerbocker History of New York (1809) as an old
crone who would croak:
a string of incredible stories about New England witches—grisly ghost horses without heads,—
and hairbreadth escapes, and bloody encounters among the Indians.
This passage is the first and most influential example of a scene soon to
be hackneyed. Caesar in Guy Rivers (1834) is subservient, but cunning
and philosophical. The Partisan (1835) gains in interest because of the
presence of Tom, who is such a good cook that Porgy, his gourmet
master, will not brook his being abused. Tom repays by keeping his
master fat and happy “so long as dere’s coon and possum, squirrel,
patridges and dub, duck in de ribber, and fish in de pond.”
Simms’ Richard Hurdis (1838) shows slaves accompanying their masters
on the move to the Alabama frontier, dancing, singing, sometimes
listening to a fellow slave’s impromptu verses:
In them he satirized his companions without mercy ... and did not spare his own master, whom he
compared to a squirrel that had lived upon good corn so long that he now hungered for bad in his
desire for change.
Other humorists tell of frontier surgery upon slaves; if they were not ill
before, they were near death’s door after the barbarous operations.
The tone of the humorists is burlesque, which often sinks to the level of
present-day “darky” jokes. Nevertheless, southern humor is significant.
The assumption that Negroes are especially designed as butts for rough
practical jokes is probably closer to the reality of the antebellum South
than the sentimentality of more ambitious works.
True to the manner of cracker-box philosophers, Artemus Ward attacks
the sentimentalized and the unconventional, and delivers many of the
“common-man’s” jibes at abolitionists and Negroes. “The Octoroon” is,
at least, a refreshing departure from the shopworn tragic mode.
“Hush—shese a Octoroon!”
“No! sez I ... yu don’t say so! How long she bin that way?”
“From her arliest infuncy,” sed he.
“Wall, what upon arth duz she do it fur?” I inquired.
“She kan’t help it.... It’s the brand of Kane.”
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Why were early American novels “tied to Mother England’s leading
strings?”
2. What tradition of English literature might account for Irving’s and
Cooper’s humorous treatment of the Negro?
3. Since Simms was proslavery, what is inconsistent about his showing
Negroes being set free as reward for heroic services?
4. What historical incidents could have suggested Melville’s Benito
Cereno?
5. What in Poe’s life might have occasioned his attitude toward the
Negro?
6. In which of the works mentioned is the Negro character a foreground
character?
CHAPTER II
THE PLANTATION TRADITION: PRO-SLAVERY FICTION
The Plantation Tradition. The growth and accuracy of the plantation
tradition have been excellently studied in The Southern Plantation
(1925) by Francis Pendleton Gaines. Gaines attributes the tradition’s
hold on America to a love of feudalism,(in spite of our profession of
democracy), the charm of the Negro characters as “native” literary
material, and a romantic wish for an Arcadian past. He proves that “the
tradition omits much plantation truth and exaggerates freely certain
attractive features of the old life.” But the tradition goes on unabashed;
over a century old, it still guarantees best selling fame.
The setting is familiar:
The old plantation; a great mansion; exquisitely gowned ladies and courtly gentlemen moving
with easy grace upon the broad veranda behind stalwart columns; surrounding the yard an almost
illimitable stretch of white cotton; darkies singingly at work in the fields, Negro quarters, off on
one side, around which little pickaninnies tumbled in gay frolic.