Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Organizational Responses Canadian Centre for Policy […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Boots Riley in Winnipeg May 11 February 22, 2019
    Founder of the political Hip-Hop group The Coup, Boots Riley is a musician, rapper, writer and activist, whose feature film directorial and screenwriting debut — 2018’s celebrated Sorry to Bother You — received the award for Best First Feature at the 2019 Independent Spirit Awards (amongst several other accolades and recognitions). "[A] reflection of the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA-BC welcomes Emira Mears as new Associate Director February 11, 2019
    This week the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office is pleased to welcome Emira Mears to our staff team as our newly appointed Associate Director. Emira is an accomplished communications professional, digital strategist and entrepreneur. Through her former company Raised Eyebrow, she has had the opportunity to work with many organizations in the […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study explores media coverage of pipeline controversies December 14, 2018
    Supporters of fossil fuel infrastructure projects position themselves as friends of working people, framing climate action as antithetical to the more immediately pressing need to protect oil and gas workers’ livelihoods. And as the latest report from the CCPA-BC and Corporate Mapping Project confirms, this framing has become dominant across the media landscape. Focusing on pipeline […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Study highlights ‘uncomfortable truth’ about racism in the job market December 12, 2018
    "Racialized workers in Ontario are significantly more likely to be concentrated in low-wage jobs and face persistent unemployment and earnings gaps compared to white employees — pointing to the “uncomfortable truth” about racism in the job market, according to a new study." Read the Toronto Star's coverage of our updated colour-coded labour market report, released […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Competitiveness vs. Comparative Advantage

This post is in response to the following excellent comment from Stephen Moore, the man who will trounce Ralph Goodale in the next federal election (or at least do better than I did):

April 2007 testimony before the parliamentary committee on International Trade saw Industry Canada, DFAIT reps and others stress the importance of the SPP (Security & Prosperity Partnership) to making sure the “North American platform” is competitive in “global value chains.”

At times they seemed to stress the idea of North America as a global competitor against rising economic blocs like India, China, etc.

So here’s Lee Gill of Industry Canada:

“The security and prosperity partnership thing is part of that [globalization]. As Anthony [Burger] points out, it’s essential that we get our act together within North America so that we can compete with the Chinas of the world, the Indias of the world, in a way that we can both take advantage of our comparative advantages and improve the standard of living of Canadians.”

At the same time, however, Lee Gill of Industry Canada seemed later to point in the opposite direction, stressing connections rather than competition between economic blocs:

“That’s the way we really need to think of the future, in terms of working around the world, working as global supply chains, rather than as an independent economic bloc.”

As a complete layperson, I feel a bit puzzled by all of this: could one of you explain what a “global value chain” is, and also how Canada (and North America) can both compete against China as a separate economic bloc, while at the same time ceasing to think of China as a separate economic bloc, but rather as a link in a “chain”?

Here’s something else Gill said:

“we have to think of ourselves in terms of a North American bloc and we also have to think of ourselves in terms of a world trading bloc.”

Is the issue sectoral? Are we supposed to think of ourselves as “North Americans” in some sectors of the economy and as non-North Americans in others?

Sorry for this uninformed question, but any help you could provide on why the SPP is needed to help North America benefit from “international value chains” would be appreciated.

My understanding is that “global value chains” refer to the division of production processes among countries (i.e. “vertical specialization” between countries as opposed to “vertical integration” within countries). The implication is that we should accept, or perhaps even encourage, the relocation of factories to China and India because they will remain part of “global value chains” that sustain some (unspecified) high-value activity in Canada.

I have met Gill at a couple of conferences and think that he is a good guy. However, the testimony quoted by Stephen reflects an important tension in the conventional economic wisdom.  Is production allocated according to “competitiveness” or “comparative advantage”?

The notion that Canada must cut taxes, deregulate, etc. to successfully compete against other countries for internationally mobile investment contradicts the notion that, under free trade, production will naturally be distributed according to comparative advantage in a mutually beneficial manner (possibly involving “global value chains”). In this latter view, a country becoming more “competitive” will simply drive up its exchange rate by an offsetting amount, bringing things back to the balance determined by comparative advantage.

As Jim Stanford noted in his recent debate with Burger’s office, the “competitiveness” argument assumes a demand-constrained world in which some factors of production (including workers) will be unemployed and some countries can lose from free trade. The “comparative advantage” argument assumes a supply-constrained world in which all factors of production are fully employed and all countries gain from free trade.

There may be legitimate arguments for both views, but they are mutually exclusive. In the American Economic Review (1993), Paul Krugman strongly defended comparative advantage and dismissed competitiveness as “pop internationalism.” Krugman has since revised his position. Jim and I tend to take the view that competitiveness matters and should be strengthened through industrial policy.

The political right wants to have it both ways. Many of the same individuals (possibly including Burger) who use “comparative advantage” to argue that free trade is good and industrial policy is bad also use “competitiveness” to argue for tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

UPDATE (August 22): To answer Stephen’s final question, I cannot speak for Gill, but I think that a sectoral distinction is quite important. “Comparative advantage” is meaningful for natural resources and agricultural products. Due to geography, geology, climate, etc., particular countries are naturally better-suited to producing some commodities than others. This concept is more nebulous for manufacturing and tradable services. Whatever comparative advantages exist in these industries largely reflect man-made infrastructure, training, agglomeration, etc. “Competitiveness” seems to be more relevant in such sectors.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Chris
Time: August 26, 2007, 3:42 am

I just saw a Senate Committee on Ag and Forestry (I think May 2 2007) with a forestry association head, who said that the idea of “vertical specialized” activity in Canada as sustaining the industry was a complete myth; everyone still manufactured everything in the value chain in China, even things like IKEA who trumpet that they make their stuff in Sweden.

Comment from Michael Barkusky
Time: April 22, 2008, 12:07 am

I agree that the political right talks out of both sides of its mouth when it argues for a national competitiveness strategies (NCS), yet justifies globalization as welfare enhancing by the theory of comparative advantage (TTCA). And despite the mutually contradictory economic assumptions on which an NCSs and TTCA rest, both, ironically, conceived of welfare in broad collectivist terms, pretty inappropriately for champions of cosmopolitan individualism ! Finally, as Herman Daly argued, Ricardo’s TCA (and the textbook examples) assumed financial capital is largely immobile as between countries. That is hardly a realistic assumption today. Were it not for our immobile stocks of NATURAL capital, the combination of free trade and mobile financial capital might have left Canada, for example, with a lot more downward pressure on wages. I suppose we might still have had a comparative advantage in SOMETHING, but in what ?

I lean more towards the view of the world as supply-constrained rather than demand constrained, but the factors that constrain aggregate supply, surely, are natural capital fund service factors, and natural resource flow potential, not a global shortage of labour or financial capital. The supply of the latter two, absent immigration and currency controls, is likely highly elastic.

Write a comment





Related articles