Talk:New trade theory

Problems

There are several problems with this page. The biggest one is in the opening sentence. If we define New Trade Theory (NTT) as those theories that take into account internal and external economies of scale then NTT is not a critique of free trade in and of itself. Yes, one can derive results from NTT that show that free trade can make a country worse off, but many of the results provide more support for free trade. "International Economics" by Krugman/Obstfeld provides many of these arguments. I would edit the page myself but my knowledge of NTT is limited. However, I do know what I just wrote above. Stankweed111 06:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Every theory is a collection of something. The opening part says almost nothing on the subject.--AsiBakshish (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the biggest problem is that the "history" section trails off mid-paragraph. Looks like vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.109.191 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The story of path-dependent industrial concentrations can sometime lead to monopolistic competition or even situations of oligopoly." Or even oligopoly? Oligopoly would, in almost all cases, precede monopoly. The terms monopoly and oligopoly should be reversed to make sense. 76.88.1.215 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Shiozawa? Looks like undue promotion, or controversial at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.201.120 (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Roson's comment on this article

Dr. Roson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Add in the intro:
The main motivation of the NTT is related to the fact that most of the trade takes place between economies similar in terms of development and structure, contrary to what the neoclassical Ricardian theory of comparative advantages would suggest.
Under "New" new trade theory add:
Arkolakis, Costinot and Rodriguéz-Clare (2012) argue that the NNTT does not reveal substantial new gains from trade, especially if the model parameters are calibrated using the same data sets of more conventional models.
Recently, some authors have embodied NNTT specifications in CGE models [link] of international trade (Zhai (2008), Balistreri and Rutherford (2013), Dixon, Jerie and Rimmer (2016), Roson and Oyamada (2016)).
References:
Arkolakis, C., Costinot, A., and A. Rodriguéz-Clare (2012) "New Trade Models, Same Old Gains?", American Economic Review 2012, 102(1): 94–130.
Balistreri, E. and T. Rutherford. 2013. Computing general equilibrium theories of monopolistic competition and heterogeneous firms. In Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling, ed. Dixon P.B. and D.W. Jorgenson. Elsevier chapter 23, pp. 1513–1570.
Dixon, P., Jerie, M., and M. Rimmer (2016) "Modern Trade Theory for CGE Modelling: The Armington, Krugman and Melitz Models", Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Vol. 1(1), pp. 1-110.
Roson, R. and K. Oyamada (2016)) "Implementing a Computable General Equilibrium Model with Heterogenous Firms and Endogenous Productivity", International Journal of Computational Economics and Econometrics, forthcoming.
Zhai, Fan. 2008. “Armington meets Melitz: Introducing firm heterogeneity in a global CGE model of trade.” Journal of Economic Integration pp. 575–604.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Roson has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Roberto Roson & Kazuhiko Oyamada, 2014. "Introducing Melitz-Style Firm Heterogeneity in CGE Models: Technical Aspects and Implications," Working Papers 2014:04, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My friend invented it first

What's going on with the paragraph that says some guy at MIT came up with the theory first and showed it to some other guy, but they decided it wasn't important and never wrote a paper about it or anything? No citation, no evidence? John Moser (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]