Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
ECMC41 Problems and Solutions About International Trade This set of problems deals with the effects of tariffs and quotas on the welfare of Canadians. A tariff is a tax on a particular imported good, often called a customs duty. A quota is an annual limit on the number of units of a particular good that may be imported into a country. Tariffs and quotas are measures a government may use to try to protect its own producers from competitors in foreign countries. Problems (with solutions provided) 1. The market for graphic chips for computers is perfectly competitive in Canada and there is no international trade. The demand curve for these chips is given by P = 1000 – 0.1Q, where P is the price in dollars and Q is number of chips traded per month. The domestic (i.e., from domestic Canadian producers) supply is given by P = 100 + 0.05Q. What is the equilibrium price, equilibrium quantity of computer chips traded per month, and the amount of consumer surplus and producer surplus? What is the overall welfare gain to society? 2. Now, international trade is opened between Canada and other countries that produce graphic computer chips. Graphic chips are perfectly elastically supplied on international markets at a price of $200. After trade is opened up, what is the new equilibrium price of graphic chips in Canada, and what is the equilibrium quantity of graphic chips traded? How much of this quantity is imported, and how much is produced by Canadian domestic suppliers of computer chips? What is the amount of consumer surplus and producer surplus? Who is made better off and who worse off by international trade? What is the overall welfare gain to society? 3. Canadian domestic suppliers of graphic chips complain to the Canadian government that they are being driven out of business by cheap foreign imports and that there are job losses in politically sensitive regions of the country. The Canadian government responds by levying a tariff of $200 per chip (or, what is equivalent, a tariff of 100% on the value of imported chips). What is the effect of this tariff on equilibrium price and quantity in this market in Canada? How many imports are there now each month? What is the amount of consumer and producer surplus? Who is better off and who is worse off? What is the overall gain to society of this new arrangement? What is the deadweight loss to society? 4. Imagine now that the Canadian government is defeated in an election by the Liberal party. Prime Minister Stephane Dion decides to get rid of the 100% tariff on computer chips and replaces it with a subsidy to Canadian domestic graphic chip producers of $200 per chip. What is the effect of this new policy – is it better or worse for Canadians? In particular, what is the new equilibrium price and quantity of computer chips traded on the Canadian market? What is the consumer surplus and producer surplus, and how does it compare to the previous situation with the tariff? Taking into account the cost of the subsidy to Canadian taxpayers, what is the overall gain to society from the computer chip industry, and what is the amount of deadweight loss? A Couple of Extra Problems with No Solutions 5. What would the effect of a tariff be if the tariff was not large enough to stop all trade? In particular, what would be the effect (on price, quantity, imports, consumer surplus, producer surplus, deadweight loss, etc.) of a tariff of $100 per chip (or a tariff of 50% on the value of a chip)? 6. What would be the effect of a quota that reduced imports of computer chips by the same amount as this tariff of $100 per chip? Would all of the effects be the same, or would some be different? Answers to Problems 1. P = 1000 – 0.1Q = 100 + 0.05Q, so 0.15Q = 900 or Q* = 6000 per month. Substituting into the demand curve, we get P* = 1000 - .1(6000) = $400. That means consumer surplus is [(1000 – 400) x 6000]/2 = $1.8 million per month and producer surplus is [(400 – 100) x 6000]/2 = $900,000 per month. The total gain to society is the sum of consumer and producer surpluses or $2.7 million per month. 2. With an international price of $200, the domestic Canadian equilibrium price of $400 is no longer sustainable. Canadian consumers will buy from some Canadian producers (those that can match this international price), but will buy many imported computer chips. The new equilibrium price will be $200. The new quantity traded will be where 200 = 1000 – 0.1Q, or Q* = 8000. That means the new consumer surplus will be [(1000 – 200) x 8000]/2 = $3.2 million per month. Domestic production of computer graphic chips will be where 200 = 100 + 0.05Q, or Qdom = 2000. Imports will make up the difference or 8000 – 2000 = 6000 units per month. The total producer surplus for domestic producers will now be [(200 – 100) x 2000]/2 = $100,000. Clearly consumers are better off from trade, while Canadian domestic producers of computer chips are worse off. The overall welfare gain to society from the production, consumption and import of computer chips is CS + PS = $3.3 million per month. 3. The tariff of $200 (on top of the international price of $200) will raise the price of imported chips to $400 per chip. Since Canadian domestic suppliers can supply the entire Canadian demand at a price of $400, there will be no incentive for anyone to import chips from international sources. There will be no imports of computer chips into Canada. The result of this tariff would return us to the situation in Question #1. In other words, there would be, compared to the situation with free international trade, a transfer of $800,000 from consumer surplus into producer surplus (received by Canadian domestic producers), and there would be an overall reduction of consumer surplus from $3.2 million to $1.8 million (a reduction of $1.4 million). The overall gain to society would be $2.7 million (as in Question #1). In other words, the deadweight loss from imposing this tariff would be $600,000. Note that normally we do deadweight loss calculations by comparing welfare gains under some other market arrangement to the ideal, which is perfect competition. Once we consider the effects of international trade, perfect competition without trade (in one country) is not the ideal. Instead, perfect competition with international trade becomes the ideal standard (because the gains to society are larger). 4. A subsidy is like a negative tax. A tax on suppliers will shift the supply curve upwards; a subsidy to suppliers will shift the supply curve downwards. A subsidy of $200 per chip will mean that the effective supply curve of the domestic Canadian producers is not P = 100 + 0.05Q, but is P = -100 + 0.05Q. A subsidy to domestic producers does not halt international trade; international suppliers will still produce and sell computer chips at $200 each. At this price, domestic suppliers will now be able to sell more chips: 200 = -100 = 0.05Q, so Qdom = 6000 units. Since, as calculated above, the total purchases of chips by Canadians at a price of $200 will be 8000 units, this implies that imports are 8000 – 6000 or 2000 units per month. Although the new supply curve (with the subsidy taken into account) represents the prices consumers will have to pay to domestic suppliers, the production costs paid by these suppliers are still given by the old supply curve. In order to calculate producer surplus, we need to use this old supply curve. Producer surplus is defined as the difference between price and the marginal costs paid by suppliers. Part of the supply curve (which represents marginal costs) is below the price (and therefore contributes positively to producer surplus), but part of it is above the price (and is subtracted from producer surplus). For instance, we can calculate that when Qdom = 6000, 100 + 0.05(6000) = $400, so marginal costs are $200 above the price. In addition, producers receive revenue from the subsidy that must be included in the measure of producer surplus. Therefore, producer surplus is {[(200 – 100) x 2000]/2} - {[(400 – 200) x (6000 – 2000)]/2} + (200 x 6000) = $100,000 - $400,000 + $1,200,000 = $900,000. The consumer surplus is [(1000 – 200) x 8000]/2 = $3.2 million per month. The cost to taxpayers for the subsidy to domestic producers is (200 x 6000) = $1.2 million. The overall welfare gain to society will therefore be $3.2 million + $900,000 - $1.2 million or $2.9 million. If we compare this to the situation with free international trade (no restrictions and no subsidies), the welfare gain with the subsidy to Canadian producers is $400,000 less. Therefore, the deadweight loss is $400,000. How does this compare to the use of a tariff to protect Canadian producers? Note that in both cases, Canadian producers produce 6000 chips per month, and, in both cases, the amount of producer surplus received is $900,000. So, Canadian domestic producers are equally well off. However, with the subsidy, the overall welfare gains to society are $2.9 million, rather than $2.7 million. This results from a much larger consumer surplus ($3.2 million, rather than $1.8 million), offset by $1.2 million in costs to taxpayers for the subsidy. Still, the gain to society is higher; in other words, the deadweight loss is lower with the subsidy ($400,000), rather than with the tariff ($600,000).