Recent Land Reform in China

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) collectivized—or assigned ownership to a collective rather than to individuals—all land in 1950s. In a second round of land reforms 30 years ago, the CCP assigned small plots of land to each rural family. Families could use the land as they saw fit and sell the resulting crops but the state maintained ownership of the land itself. Selling the property was therefore out of the question.

Last week, the CCP announced a third round of land reforms, allowing farmers to "subcontract, lease, exchange or swap" their land-use rights. Although farmers cannot sell their land, they can lease their land to other farmers for up to 70 years in exchange for cash. For China, the reform represents another step away from communism and another step toward a market-based economy.

Proponents of the policy hope for four positive effects. First, exchange of land among farmers should lead to a more efficient allocation of resources. Previously, people who wanted to leave the farm for work in the cities left their plots of land in the care of elderly parents. Under the new policy, those people can subcontract their land-use rights to farmers who place a higher value on the rights to use the land.

Second, the reform should allow farmers to enjoy economies of scale—the cost reductions that result from higher levels of output. Before the reform, each rural family had a small plot of land, limiting the use of machinery and technology in farming. As a result, agriculture in China remains labor-intensive. The exchange of land-use rights will allow the development of more commercial-scale, larger farms, where farmers can take advantage of more advanced agricultural technology. As farming yields rise, so will China's total contribution to the world food supply.

Higher yields may contribute to the third potential benefit: higher incomes for families in the Chinese countryside. The incomes of some farmers will rise along with the output per acre. Those who would rather leave the countryside can now cash in their land-use rights and pursue better paying opportunities in the cities. The rising incomes should lower the income gap between rural and urban households, easing a social tension.

Finally, the new policy should provide more property protection to farmers. Before, without the rights to lease state-owned land, land grabs by local authorities left many rural families with little to nil in the way of compensation.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the policy will work as intended. Opponents of the measure worry about the effects of the reforms. They argue that the policy will force some farmers to lease property and join the ranks of cheap labor in the cities, increasing the income gap even more as land-use rights become concentrated in the hands of well-off farmers.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you believe that the new policy would provide adequate property protection for small farmers? Could land grabs still occur? Why or why not? Can you think of other economic or political challenges the reforms will create?

2. What new pressures will the cities face if many farmers lease their land and move to urban areas?

3. The ongoing financial crisis in developed countries overshadows the ongoing food crisis in developing countries. The food crisis refers to rising prices for basic food like rice and wheat. If China's land reforms work as intended, how might they affect the global food crisis?

2008 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences recently awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences (PDF) to Paul Krugman of Princeton University. Krugman showed how economies of scale can help to explain patterns of trade and the location of productive activity. His research into international trade developed a new trade theory that explained trade patterns that previous theories could not. The model that he developed for international trade also became useful for analyzing economic geography.

Before the publication of Krugman's seminal articles, international trade theory was dominated by the concepts of comparative advantage and factor-proportions. The former was due to the insights of David Ricardo, who emphasized opportunity costs as the basis for the gains from international specialization and exchange. Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin further developed the theory by examining cross-country differences in factors of production as the basis for trade patterns. These traditional theories are good at explaining observed trade patterns between a developed nation and a low-income nation.

However, these traditional trade theories are not able to explain the vast majority of trade flows among developed nations. These trade flows, called intra-industry trade, involve trade within the same industries. Such trade does not conform to the traditional theories because opportunity costs and factor proportions are often similar in the nations that exchange products from the same industry. For example, automakers in the U.S. export cars to Japan, and Japanese automakers export cars to the United States. This can't be explained by the Ricardian concept of comparative advantage.



Krugman was awarded this year's Nobel Prize in economics in part because his models of international trade can explain such intra-industry trade as resulting from monopolistic competition, economies of scale, and consumer preference for product diversity. Krugman's model can be illustrated in a graph like the one above, which examines the relationship between the number of firms, the average cost of production, and product price in monopolistically competitive industry. Specifically, the CC curves represent the relationship between firms' average cost of production and the number of firms in an industry, and the PP curve represents the relationship between product price and the number of firms in an industry.

Recall that in a monopolistically competitive industry, firms produce products (like cars) that may differ in quality and style. As more firms enter a given market, each produces less, and average costs increase; therefore, the CC curves are upward sloping. At the same time, more firms mean more competition, which drives prices down; therefore the PP curve is downward sloping.

Where does trade come in? Well, suppose there are automobile producers in the U.S. and Japan. If there is no trade between the two countries, only a certain number of car types will be supported by the sizes of these two markets. But if the two countries can trade, then firms in both countries can sell to consumers in both countries, because some American consumers will prefer Japanese cars and vice versa. This increase in the size of the market means that the automakers are able to produce more cars at lower average cost by taking advantage of economies of scale. In Krugman's model, this causes the CC curve to shift from CC1 to CC2. Consequently, the market equilibrium moves from A to B, which results in a lower equilibrium product price, P, and a greater number of firms, n, producing for the industry. Consumers also benefit from a wider range of available product varieties .

Another important aspect of Krugman's work that was cited by the Nobel committee is the extension of his model to explain the location of economic activity, work that is credited with developing the field of economic geography. It helps to explain the core-periphery pattern of urbanization and migration seen in much of the world. Krugman also made noteworthy contributions to research on strategic trade policy and currency crises. Several pages summarizing his research are presented in the Nobel Prize committee's scientific background paper (PDF).

Discussion Questions

1. Paul Krugman is, for an academic economist, relatively well-known by the public due to his numerous television appearances, books, and articles in the popular press. Some academic economists have been critical of contributions that are easily accessible to the public. Do you believe that such less-scholarly work by Krugman detracts from or adds to the respect he has gained for the contributions which have earned him the Nobel Prize?

2. In what industries besides automobiles do we observe trade patterns which conform to Krugman's theory?

3. What are some of the drawbacks to globalization? Do you think that globalization has had a negative effect on your life, a positive effect on your life, or has had little impact on you? Explain.

Do You "Appreciate" Wendy's Super Value Menu?

Despite your possible love for the Double Stack burger found on Wendy's $.99 Super Value Menu, the claim made in a recent Wendy's commercial that the burger "appreciates" in value after being purchased is seriously flawed on many levels according to standard economic theory.

Of the many economic fallacies in the commercial, the immediate one that comes to mind is the mix-up between the notions of appreciation and consumer surplus. Recall from your introductory economics courses that consumer surplus is the difference between what a consumer is willing to pay for a good and what he or she actually pays for it. Obviously, you would never buy something if its valuation to you as a consumer was less than the price you must pay. Therefore, according to standard economic theory, consumer surplus must always be at least zero—though it is typically positive for an individual consumer since it is unlikely that you actually pay the true valuation for any good you purchase.

That said, it is not surprising that the "Student" in the commercial won't accept exactly what he paid for the burger since that is not his true valuation of the good. For example, it's possible that his demand curve is of the following shape:

This demand curve implies that Student will pay up to $3 for one Double Stack burger, but then nothing beyond that. This also represents his value for the first Double Stack burger. In this case, Student would receive roughly $2 (= $3 – $1) in consumer surplus by purchasing the Double Stack burger for nearly $1. Obviously, there are an infinite number of possibilities for Student's demand curve, but the one thing we know for certain is that his value of the Double Stack burger is AT LEAST the cost of the burger—but there is nothing preventing his valuation from being higher.

Thus, the idea that Student would not accept a dollar in exchange for his burger has absolutely nothing to do with the proposed "appreciation" of the burger—in other words, Student's valuation of the Double Stack burger has not changed. Rather, this scenario is more reasonably explained by the gains in trade that the buyer receives from purchasing the good at a given price below his private valuation.

Discussion Questions

1. In economics, the notion of a shoe-leather cost—the cost to consumers of actually going to wherever the good is being sold—often plays a role in consumer and producer theory. How would your willingness to accept a dollar for a Double Stack burger change depending on whether you are currently at Wendy's or at home a few miles from the nearest Wendy's?

2. How would this discussion change if Wendy's was able to practice perfect (or first degree) price discrimination?

3. Wendy's often claims that their burger is underpriced and is therefore a value buy. If this were truly the case, why do we not see secondary markets for this good? Is Wendy's really charging the right price?

4. The endowment effect is the idea that people value a good or service more once their property right to it has been established. Is this example of such an effect? Why or why not?

On Economic Collapse

Early in the recent conflict between Israel and Lebanon, Kai Ryssdal, the anchor on the public radio program
"Marketplace," conducted two interviews: one with an Israeli civilian living in Haifa and another with a journalist living in Beirut. He didn't ask for their feelings and opinions about the war. Instead, he talked to them about the details of their everyday economic lives.

The parallels were striking. Each talked primarily about the supermarkets, or more particularly, what wasn't in the supermarkets. In Israel, there was no bread or milk, because the delivery drivers didn't want to risk being on the roads; in Lebanon, there were long lines for the little that remained. (Remember, too, that these interviews were early in the conflict--as the weeks went on, what little had stocked the shelves was long gone.)

Both interviewees talked about the dangers of travel on the roads. The Israeli military viewed Lebanese roads as strategic targets, and being on the open road in Israel left one vulnerable to rocket attacks.

When we learn about comparative advantage in economics, the theory is rosy. The market, after all, coordinates the efforts of complete strangers from many different countries to produce a product as seemingly simple as a pencil. Missing from most of these discussions are the assumptions underlying the free flow of international trade, including, most importantly, the assurance that the cargo and its transporter will arrive safely at their destination.

In other words, gains from trade can only be realized when the infrastructure is there to support it. It only takes a few days of shelling in the Middle East--or a few days without clean water and electricity in New Orleans--to remind us that the economic web we depend on can be quite fragile.

1. One of the arguments against free trade is that it is unreasonable to depend on foreign suppliers of essential goods like food and energy. Yet free trade also yields incredible benefits. How does an economist balance these two arguments? How would you go about finding the optimal level of domestic and foreign production? Why might the optimal choice for Israel be different than the optimal choice for, say, Singapore or the United States?

2. Economies of scale exist when a few large firms can produce a good or service at a much lower cost than many small firms. For example, massive farms have become the norm in the United States, where a century ago small farms dominated (but had much higher costs). How much of the food you eat comes from farms within 10 or 20 miles of your home? In the case of a major emergency, how long would it take for food shortages to become a major problem? Would the United States be better off if everyone still owned a farm--or are the gains from trade we've realized from specialization large enough to offset that change? How can you tell?

3. The interviewees talk about how expensive it is for Lebanese to evacuate Beirut, and how difficult it is to get cash from ATMs in Israel. Think about the implications of sustained political upheaval on economic growth. In some ways, war acts like a tax, making everything more expensive. Try drawing some supply and demand diagrams for various goods, and guess as to what happens to those markets in times of turmoil. What could the governments of Israel and Lebanon do, if anything, to help alleviate the economic suffering of their people?