Production Cost Asymmetry, Minimum Access and Reciprocal Dumping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we propose a bilateral dumping model in which the minimum access level is endogenous. Regions compete with one another using Cournot conjectures and engage in interregional dumping as in Brander and Krugman’s (1983) reciprocal dumping model. International trade is hindered by restrictive Tariff rate Quota (TRQs). The model features two regions and one product. We derive the conditions under which it is optimal to observe interregional trade and those under which trade does not exist. The results show that the world price and the difference in production costs between regions play an important role in determining whether bilateral trade exists. In the presence of bilateral trade, the region with the largest market size will obtain the largest share of import volumes permitted under the minimum access system while in the absence of interregional trade, the distribution of import permits between regions will also depends on the product cost asymmetry. When only the most efficient region exports to the least efficient region, production costs asymmetry, transaction costs and world price level determine whether the smaller or larger region obtains the larger share of product import allowed under minimum access commitment. In all cases, we show that in a country like Canada, creation of “artificial barriers” to interprovincial trade of products under supply management system lowers the welfare of at least one of the regions, along with the global welfare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".