Question 1 (d)

Trade can make everyone better off

4 marks

Time to write
About 8 minutes
Topic
Gains from trade and comparative advantage

Question

Question 1 (d) · 4 marks

'Trade can make everyone better off'. Explain using an example.

Reworded from the university paper; the task is the same. The original paper belongs to the University of Delhi. See DU's question bank.

Before you write

Read off the question and its marks

8 minfor 4 marks

Read from the question

  • exampleExamples are asked for: one short example with each point.

Write it in this order

  1. Read; underline the asks; jot your points 1 min
  2. 1 Statement of the principle 1 mark 2 min
  3. 2 Reason: specialisation by comparative advantage 1 mark 2 min
  4. 3 Worked example showing both sides gain 1½ marks 2 min
  5. 4 Conclusion ½ mark 1 min

Try it first. About 8 minutes for 4 marks. Write it out, then open the solution.

Solution

Hover or tap a marked figure, like 72,000, to see how it is made and where else it appears.

The principle. Trade can make everyone better off is one of the principles of economics. Trade is not a contest in which one side's gain is the other's loss: when people or countries trade, each can specialise in what it does best and both end up with more goods, and consumers get a wider choice at lower prices.

Why both sides gain: comparative advantage. A producer has a comparative advantage in a good if it can produce it at a lower opportunity cost, that is, by giving up less of the other good. Even a producer who is better at making everything (an absolute advantage in both goods) has a comparative advantage in only one of them, and gains by specialising in it and trading for the other. Total output rises when each specialises according to comparative advantage, so the gains can be shared.

Example (our own). Meera and Kabir run two small farms near Nashik. In a day Meera can pick 60 kg of grapes or 30 kg of onions; Kabir can pick 20 kg of grapes or 20 kg of onions. Meera is better at both (an absolute advantage in both).

  • Opportunity costs. One kg of onions costs Meera 2 kg of grapes but costs Kabir only 1 kg, so Kabir has the comparative advantage in onions. One kg of grapes costs Meera 0.5 kg of onions and Kabir 1 kg, so Meera has the comparative advantage in grapes.
  • Without trade, Meera spends two-thirds of each day on grapes and one-third on onions (40 kg grapes, 10 kg onions); Kabir spends half on each (10 kg grapes, 10 kg onions). Together: 50 kg grapes, 20 kg onions.
  • With specialisation, Kabir grows only onions (20 kg) and Meera spends nine-tenths of the day on grapes (54 kg) and one-tenth on onions (3 kg). Together: 54 kg grapes and 23 kg onions, more of both.
  • The trade. Meera gives Kabir 12 kg of grapes for 8 kg of onions, a price of 1.5 kg of grapes per kg of onions, between their opportunity costs (1 for Kabir, 2 for Meera). Meera ends with 42 kg grapes and 11 kg onions (against 40 and 10); Kabir ends with 12 kg grapes and 12 kg onions (against 10 and 10). Both have more of both goods.

Conclusion. Because opportunity costs differ, specialisation and trade raise total output, and a price between the two opportunity costs lets every trading party gain. That is the sense in which trade can make everyone better off.

Where the 4 marks sit

#ComponentMarks
1Statement of the principle1
2Reason: specialisation by comparative advantage1
3Worked example showing both sides gain1.5
4Conclusion0.5
Total4
Keyboard: ← → previous and next question, / search

Report a problemopens an email to admin@getkunji.com with the question ID6517-Q1dalready filled in.