60 Krugman/Obstfeld/Melitz • International Economics: Theory & Policy, Tenth Edition
were often complex and overlapped across industries, in some cases leading to exorbitantly high rates of
protection. Furthermore, protection often led to an inefficiently small scale of production within countries
by creating competition over monopoly profits that would not have existed without protection. By the late
1980s, most countries had shifted away from the strategy, and the chapter includes a case study of Mexico’s
change from import substitution to a more open strategy.
Since 1985, many developing countries have abandoned import substitution and pursued (sometimes
aggressively) trade liberalization. The chapter notes two sides of the experience. On the one hand, trade
has gone up considerably and changed in character. Developing countries export far more of their GDP
than prior to liberalization, and more of it is in manufacturing as opposed to primary commodities. On the
other hand, the growth experience of these countries has not been universally good, and it is difficult to tell
if the success stories are due to trade or due to reforms that came at the same time as liberalization. While
countries such as the “Asian Tigers,” China and India, have experienced spectacular rates of growth
following trade liberalization, only part of this growth can be attributed to trade reform. Furthermore,
countries such as Brazil and Mexico that have also moved toward freer trade have not experienced the same
rates of economic growth.
◼ Answers to Textbook Problems
1. The countries that seem to benefit most from international trade include many of the countries of the
Pacific Rim: South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia, and others. Though
the experience of each country is somewhat different, most of these countries employed some kind
of infant industry protection during the beginning phases of their development but then withdrew
protection relatively quickly after industries became competitive on world markets. Concerning
2. The Japanese example gives pause to those who believe that protectionism is always disastrous.
However, Japanese success does not demonstrate that protectionist trade policy was responsible for
3. a. The initial high costs of production would justify infant industry protection if the costs to the
society during the period of protection were less than the future stream of benefits from a mature,
low-cost industry.
b. An individual firm does not have an incentive to bear development costs itself for an entire
industry when these benefits will accrue to other firms. The first firm will not factor in how its