Ariell Reshef

Skill Biased Heterogeneous Firms, Trade Liberalization, and the Skill Premium

We propose a theory that rising globalization and rising wage inequality are related because trade liberalization raises the demand facing highly competitive skill-intensive firms. In our model, only the lowest-cost firms participate in the global economy exactly along the lines of Melitz (2003). In addition to differing in their productivity, firms differ in their skill intensity. We model skill-biased technology as a correlation between skill intensity and technological acumen, and we estimate this correlation to be large using firm-level data from Chile in 1995. A fall in trade costs leads to both greater trade volumes and an increase in the relative demand for skill, as the lowest-cost/most-skilled firms expand to serve the export market while less skill-intensive non-exporters retrench in the face of increased import competition. This mechanism works regardless of factor endowment differences, so we provide an explanation for why globalization and wage inequality move together in both skill-abundant and skill-scarce countries. In our model countries are net exporters of the services of their abundant factor, but there are no Stolper-Samuelson effects because import competition affects all domestic firms equally.

Why Does Capital Flow to Rich States

The magnitude and the direction of net international capital flows do not fit neoclassical models. The fifty U.S. states comprise an integrated capital market with very low barriers to capital flows, which makes them an ideal testing ground for neoclassical models. We develop a simple frictionless open economy model with perfectly diversified ownership of capital and find that capital flows among the states are consistent with the model. Therefore, the small size and wrong direction of net international capital flows are likely due to frictions associated with national borders, not to inherent flaws in the neoclassical model.

Trade and Harmonization: If Your Institutions Are Good, Does it Matter If They Are Different?

Good institutional quality (function) and similar institutional design (form) can promote international trade by reducing transactions costs. The authors evaluate the relative importance of function versus form in a gravity model, using an indicator of different legal systems as a proxy for differences in form, together with indicators of overall institutional quality. They find that good institutions promote trade much more than similar legal systems and have much more explanatory power. This effect is economically large-up to 10 times the effect of different legal systems. Moreover, better infrastructure matters as much as good institutions.

Net Capital Flows and Productivity: Evidence from U.S. States

We study net capital flows between U.S. states. We present a simple neoclassical model in which total factor productivity (TFP) varies across states and over time and where capital freely moves across state borders. In this framework capital flows to states that experience a relative increase in TFP thus creating net cross-state capital ownership positions. Net ownership positions converge to zero over time in the absence of further TFP movements. While TFP can not be directly observed, we can identify states with high TFP growth as states with high output growth. By comparing the level of personal income to output, we construct indicators of net capital flows into a state. We then examine empirically if the level of net capital flows between states following relative movements in TFP corresponds to the predictions of the model and whether net ownership positions tend to converge to zero. Our empirical results imply large flows of capital between states; for example, we find that a state with annual per capita output growth 1 percent higher than the average state over 10 years would attract capital in the amount of

Wages and Human Capital in the U.S. Financial Industry: 1909-2006

9,900 per capita over those 10 years. These magnitudes are in close agreement with the predictions of the model. We conclude that frictions associated with borders are likely to be the main explanation for “low” international capital flows.