is what happens to the amount that would be government revenue with a tariff. With an import
quota this is the amount that is the difference between the cost of imports purchased from foreign
exporters at the world price and the value of these quota-limited imports when sold in the
domestic market at the higher domestic price. (We presume that the holders of the import quota
rights are domestic and can continue to buy at the world price. If any foreign exporter tried to
charge more, the importers would turn to other export suppliers who would sell at the going
world price.)
If the government gives away these quota rights to import with no application procedure (fixed
favoritism), then the import price markup goes as extra profits to whoever is lucky enough to
receive the rights. If the government auctions the quota rights (import-license auction), then the
government gains the markup as auction revenues because bidders vie for these valuable import
rights. If the government uses elaborate applications procedures (resource-using application
procedures), then some of the markup amount is lost to resource usage in the application process,
leading to a larger net national loss because of the extra resource costs of the quota process.
For the large-country case, again the effects of imposing a quota are nearly all the same as the
equivalent tariff, except for what happens to what would be tariff revenue. Specifically, the
importing country can benefit from imposing an import quota, if the rectangle of gain from the
lower price paid to foreign exporters for the quota quantity imported is larger than the triangle of
losses from distorting domestic production and consumption.
If the domestic industry is a monopoly, then the effects of imposing a quota are different from the
effects of imposing a tariff. The box “A Domestic Monopoly Prefers a Quota” explains that a
quota cuts off foreign competition, so the quota permits the domestic firm to use its monopoly
power. The quota leads to a higher domestic price and greater net national losses.
The VER is usually not voluntary, but it is an export restraint. Because the government of the
exporting country must organize its exporters into a kind of cartel, they should realize that they
should raise the export price. If the exporters do raise the export price, then the exporters get the
amount that otherwise would be government revenue with a tariff, or the price markup with an
import quota. The net national loss is larger for the importing country with a VER because of this
additional rectangle loss. The box “VERs: Two Examples” discusses (1) the costs to the United
States of the VER on imports of Japanese automobiles and (2) the web of export restraints that
developed to limit international trade in textile and clothing products.
The chapter then examines three other NTBs based on product standards, domestic content
requirements, and government procurement. Product standards can be worthy efforts to protect
health, safety, and the environment. But they can also be written to limit imports and protect
domestic producers. Domestic content requirements mandate that a minimum percentage of the
value of a product produced or sold in a country be local value added (wages and domestically
produced components and materials). They can limit imports that do not meet the requirements,
and they can limit the import of components and materials used to produce the product.
Government purchasing practices are often an NTB because they are often biased against buying
imported products.