Strategic trade refers to international trade under market imperfections. The purpose of the article is to comprehend general equilibrium implications of trade liberalization on Indian macroeconomic aspects under alternative market structures. We applied computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling as our relevant methodology following Shoven and Whalley, (1984). Constructing a four sector social accounting matrix (SAM) for India, the article attempts to purport the effects of liberalized trade over different macroeconomic aspects under monopolistic competition and compared the results with the same obtained under benchmark perfect competition scenario. Our study reveals that trade under imperfect competition could not produce any greater domestic output, expansion of trade in terms of volume of export and import and gains from trade as compared to standard perfect competition scenario.
BalassaB. (1966). Tariff reductions and trade in manufacturers. American Economic Review, 56, 466–473.
2.
Baldwin & Krugman (1988). Market access and international competition: A simulation study of 16K random access memories. In FeenstraR. (Ed.), Empirical Research in International Trade, Cambridge: MIT Press.
3.
Boardway & Treddnick (1978). Variable returns to scale in production and patterns of specialization. American Economic Review, 71, 221–230.
4.
BranderJ. A. (1981). Intra-Industry trade in identical commodities. Journal of International Economics, 11, 1–14
5.
BranderJ. A.SpencerB. J. (1985). Export subsidies and international market share rivalry. Journal of International Economics, 18, 83–100.
6.
BrownFredWhalleyJohn (1980). General equilibrium evaluation of tariff–cutting proposals in the Tokyo round and comparisons with more extensive liberalization of world trade. The Economic Journal, 90(December), 836–866.
7.
Brown & Stern (1989). Computable general equilibrium estimates of the gains from U. S. Canada Trade Liberalization. In GreenawayDavidHyelakeThomasThortonRobert J. (Eds). Economic aspects of regional trading agreements (pp. 69–108). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester, Wheatsheaf.
8.
CordenW. M. (1970). A note on economies of scale, the size of the domestic market and the pattern of trade. In McDougall and SnapeR.A (Eds), Studies in International Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
9.
CordenW. M. (1974). Trade policy and economic welfare. Oxford: Clarendon.
10.
Cox & Harris (1992). North American free trade and its implications for Canada: Results from a CGE model of North American trade. The World Economy, 15(1), 31–44.
11.
Deardorff & Stern (1981). A disaggregate model of world production and trade: An estimate of the impact of the Tokyo round. Journal of Policy Modeling, 3, 127–152.
12.
DixonP. B.ParmenterB. R.SuttonJ.VincentD. P. (1982). ORANI: A multi sectoral model of the Australian economy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
13.
Eastman.H-CStykoltS. (1966). The tariff and competition in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
14.
GrubelH. G.LloyedP. J. (1975). Intra-industry trade: The theory and measurement of international trade in differentiated products. New York: Wiley.
15.
HarrisR.CoxD. (1984). Trade, industrial policy, and Canadian manufacturing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
16.
HelpmanE. (1981). International trade in the presence of product differentiation, economies of scale and monopolistic competition: A Chamberlinian–Heckscher–Ohlin approach. Journal of International Economics, 11, 305–340.
17.
HelpmanE. (1982). Increasing Returns, Imperfect Markets, and Trade Theory, Discussion Paper. Tel Aviv University.
18.
HelpmanE.KnigmanP. R. (1985). Market Structure and ForeignTrade. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
19.
KrugmanP. R. (1979). Increasing returns monopolistic competition, and international trade. Journal of International Economics, 9, 469–479.
20.
KrugmanP. R. (1980). Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. American Economic Review, 70, 950–959.
21.
KrugmanP. R. (1981). Intraindustry specialization and the gains from trade. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 959–973.
22.
KrugmanP. R. (1994). Rethinking International Trade. Cambridge, MA, London, England: MIT Press.
23.
Lancaster (1980). Intra-industry trade under perfect monopolistic competition. Journal of International Economics, 10, 151–175.
24.
OjhaV. P.PalB. D.PohitS.RoyJ. (2009). Social Accounting Matrix for India. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1457628
25.
PandaM.QuizonJ. (2001). Growth and distribution under trade liberalization in India. In GuhaA.KrishnaK. L.LahiriA. K. (Eds). Trade and Industry: Essays by NIPFP-Ford Foundation Fellows, New Delhi: National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
26.
PandaM.GaneshKumar, A. (2008). Impact of trade liberalization on poverty and food security in India. Working Paper No.-WP: 2008–013. Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.
27.
ParikhK. S.NarayanaN. S. S.PandaM.KumarGanesh A. (1997). Agricultural trade liberalization: Growth, welfare and large county effects. Agricultural Economics, 17(1), 53–78.
28.
PohitS.BiswasP. K.KumarR.JhaJ. (2009). International experience of ethanol as transport fuel: Policy implications for India,Energy Policy, 37, 4540–4548.
29.
SalujaM. R.YadavB. (2006). Social accounting matrix for India 2003–04. India Development Foundation, Project funded by Planning Commission, Government of India. Retrieved from http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/sereport/ser/ser_sam
30.
ShovenJ. B.WhallyJ. (1984). Applied general equilibrium models of taxation and international trade. Journal of Economic Literature, XXII(3), 1007–1051.
31.
WonnacottR. J. (1975). Industrial strategy: a canadian substitute for trade liberalization?Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, 8(4), 536–547.
32.
Wonnacott & Wonnacott (1967). Free trade between United States and Canada.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
