Revisiting the Marriage of Monopolistic Competition and Factor Proportions Theories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reconsiders the factor proportions-driven model of trade under a monopolistic competition framework when cost functions are non-homothetic. The pattern of trade is fully analyzed for a two-country, two-sector, and two-factor monopolistic competition model with transport costs. The main results of this transformed cost assumption that differ from previous literature include: (a) the average firm size in relatively capital-abundant countries is smaller; (b) controlling for industry demand, capital-abundant countries support a larger number of varieties in equilibrium; and (c) capital-abundant countries use more capital-intensive techniques in every sector. This model also generates many features of modern trade that cannot be solely explained by traditional horizontal differentiation models using a single factor or even two factors, assuming a homothetic cost function: (1) capital-abundant countries export higher priced varieties; (2) varieties produced using higher capital-intensive techniques have higher prices; (3) capital accumulation leads to increased relative prices over time; and (4) the higher priced manufacturing goods sold by richer countries also capture larger market shares relative to lower priced exports.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".