Skip Nav

Economic Glossary - the Complete Economic Terms and Definitions

Use 'economics' in a Sentence

❶For example, if a person borrows money from a bank to pay for college, he or she pays back the amount borrowed plus interest. Long before both of them, Edgeworth , p.

John Black, Nigar Hashimzade, and Gareth Myles

Navigation menu
ec·o·nom·ic
Other Economics Terms

Viner examined several alternative definitions and concluded in favor of "price discrimination between national markets" p. This deliberately included selling for different prices in different foreign markets and selling at home for a lower price than abroad. He called the latter practice " reverse dumping ," and then had to identify the more common opposite practice as " export dumping.

The first anti-dumping law was enacted in Canada in , as part of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act of , according to Ciuriak As reported there, the legislation made no use of the words "dumping" or "anti-dumping," and merely provided that imports should be subject to a "special duty of customs equal to the difference between such fair market value and such selling price.

That the term caught on may not be surprising, but note that the other WTO -permitted unfair trade policy, directed at subsidized exports, is called a countervailing duty , not an anti-subsidy duty. DUP activity Bhagwati introduced this acronym for directly unproductive profit-seeking activity.

After listing a variety of activities that fit this description, including rent seeking , revenue seeking , and others, he said p. As used since, the term has been focused primarily on the real exchange rate.

The term was used by Corden and Neary , whose reference to it as " Edgeworth-Bowley box The origins of this were examined by Tarascio The diagram was first drawn by Pareto , based originally, though only very partially, on a diagram of Edgeworth Edgeworth's diagram was not a box at all, and was drawn on axes more approptiate to an offer curve than to exchange of fixed quantities of goods or factors.

Edgeworth's purpose was to define and depict the contract curve , which today we almost always draw within the box diagram. Bowley's name was added to the name of the diagram as a result of Bowley , who drew indifference curves for two individuals, one rotated clockwise 90 degrees and the other counterclockwise, thus forming the outline of a box, within which he showed Edgeworth's contract curve.

That is probably why his name came to be associated with Edgeworth's. However, Bowley did not claim originality, and while he cited Edgeworth for the contract curve, he neither named nor attributed the box diagram. Indeed, in his own diagram showing exchange, his focus was on the internal portion and he did not extend the axes of his two indifference maps far enough to touch or cross, and therefore did not actually produce a box. And had he done so, his box would have been a mirror image of the one we normally draw today.

It was Pareto , writing in Italian that was soon translated into French, who had actually been the first to draw and use the box diagram. It is unclear whether his contribution was known to Bowley and to others writing in English until later. His diagram, displaying indifference curves for two consumers, one drawn conventionally and one rotated degrees, formed the box very much as we know it today, for exchange between consumers.

With each consumer endowed with only one of the two goods, he showed a trade equilibrium as a common tangent to two indifference curves that were also tangent to a price line from the consumers' endowment point.

I have searched in Google Scholar for "Edgeworth box," "Edgeworth-Bowley box," "box diagram," and the joint appearance of "Edgeworth" and "box. Their Figure 2, p. Of this they said: This is done in Fig. Since this classic paper did not find its way into publication immediately see Deardorff and Stern , it seems very likely that Saumuelson introduced his version and name of the box to his colleagues and students in the years before this.

Whether he himself originated it or picked it up from others as an oral tradition, I do not know. Based on all of this, it appears that the box applied to consumption, as well as the Edgeworth production box , have both often been called just the Edgeworth Box , even though Edgeworth never drew either. Calling it the Edgeworth-Bowley box is only slightly less erroneous, since Bowley's version of the box was incomplete and perhaps accidental.

Pareto was more deserving of having his name on the consumption version of the box diagram than either Edgeworth or Bowley. Stolper and Samuelson, if they needed further recognition, should share credit for the application to production that has played such a large role in international trade theory.

And it seems likely that they, too, were the ones who led us to call it the Edgeworth or Edgeworth-Bowley box ever since. Some were intrigued, but hated the name. The graph shows paths over time of a developing country's imports, production, and exports of a product, similar to the product cycle. Fragmentation As used to mean a splitting up of production processes, the term fragmentation was first introduced by Jones and Kierzkowski , who start their analysis by noting p.

Such fragmentation spills over to international markets. Many other terms have been used with the same, or related, meanings, as listed here , but "fragmentation" seems to have caught on most widely. While he also does not call this a gravity model, he does mention the parallel: This analogy to gravity was actually resisted by another early user of the model, Linnemann He followed the above authors in setting out an equation much like the above, with Y 's replaced by "potential supply" and "potential demand" which he went on to explain interms of both GDP and population.

But in his footnote 43 pp. We fail to see any justification for this. The first to call this a gravity model seems to have been Waelbroeck , which includes p. Waelbroeck notes that "There is, as has been pointed out, an odd similarity between formulae 6 and 7 and the law of gravity, with Y i and Y j playing the role of masses, and this justifies christening the model as the gravity, or G, model. Predating all of this explicit application to bilateral trade between countries, however, the term "gravity model" was used in other social science contexts, and models of this form were used, under other names, in other applications.

Bramhall and Isard , in a chapter of a volume on regional science, discuss "gravity, potential, and spacial interaction models -- which for short we shall term gravity models. Another later source, Glejser and Dramais , cite gravity models as having been used for a long time in literatures on migration, tourism, and telephone calls as well as trade.

Stewart included in his "Empirical Mathematical Rules Concerning the Distribution and Equilibrium of Population" a formula similar to gravity, but called it "potential. Great Moderation This term, as applied to the moderating of economic fluctuations from the s to , seems first to have been used by Stock and Watson They used the word "moderation," not capitalized and without the adjective "great," throughout the paper, but the title of their section 3, p.

He cites several authors as having documented the decline in volatility, the first being Kim and Nelson who cite McConnell and Perez-Quiros , in a Fed working paper, as having documented the decline in a linear formulation rather than a structural shift.

McConnell and Perez-Quiros, in turn, start their paper with "The business press is currently sprinkled with references to the 'death' or 'taming' of the business cycle in the United States. The name for it as well as one of the more rigorous documentations of it were by Stock and Watson Grexit This term first appeared in print in Buiter and Rahbari DeTraci Regula, in an undated posting on About.

She also points out the prior existence of GrexIt. I'm told by someone who worked in the EU prior to that the term was in use there as early as Harberger triangle As a theoretical construction for measuring welfare costs due to market distortions, this idea goes back to Dupuit and independently to Jenkin He clearly identifies what we would today call the excess burdens of the tax on suppliers and demanders, using the familiar curvilinear triangles: Although several others had used this tool, Arnold Harberger made repeated use of it especially in Harberger applied to monopolies, in Harberger a applied to an excise tax, and in Harberger b applied to other distortions.

Although Chase referred twice to "Harberger's triangle," he did so in an edited volume where he was summarizing another of Harberger's papers that appeared there. The term "Harberger triagle" then did not appear in print, that I can find, until , even though several authors cited Harberger's papers and his method. In , Bruno and Habib included An alternative would be to use Harberger's measure based on the notion of the excess burden.

In the same year, Ippolito began his discussion with It is commonly alleged that the welfare costs of monopoly are the "Harberger triangles" generated by price-cost ratios that exceed unity [1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10], but this approach has been recently challenged by Tullock [9]. Both authors' use of quotation marks on the term suggests that it was not yet commonly used. One might have thought that some of the seven references cited by Ippolito would have used the term, but that was not the case.

I therefore date the term to Harberger triangles in trade Harberger himself first used his triangles to measure the costs of monopoly, and later for taxes and other market distortions. He did not apply it to tariffs or other distortions of international trade. The first I have found to do that was Johnson , p. Without citing any prior authors at all, so I cannot tell whether he thought this was new, he used data on trade and tariffs to calculate the benefits to the UK of moving to free trade with Europe: It will be approximately equal to the change in the value of imports from the Free Trade Area, multiplied by half the tariff rate previously levied.

This is motivated in the usual way from change in consumer surplus and tariff revenue. Johnson did not, of course, call this a Harberger triangle. Even after when the term became common as applied to domestic distortions, it was not applied to the costs of trade barriers until around Williamson used it to quantify the losses due to Britain's corn laws and remarked p.

I have found increasing use of the term since then in applications to tariffs and other trade barriers. For some reason, however, trade economists have tended to prefer the term deadweight loss to identify the costs measured by Harberger triangles in the tariff context.

Hirschman index This index of trade concentration first appeared in Hirschman Michaely misunderstood it as being identical to the Gini coefficient and called it that in his application to exports, while acknowledging that Hirschman had also used it for that purpose.

As Hirschman pointed out, his formula reflects not just unequal distribution but also fewness , its value rising the smaller is the number of goods in the summation. I have calculated both measures in a spreadsheet and can confirm that they do indeed yield different values and that the Hirschman index does indeed fall as the number of goods rises, while the Gini coefficient does not.

In spite of this, several others followed Michaely in calling it the Gini coefficient or Gini index, until Hirschman published his correction in Hirschman also pointed out that his index differed from what had come to be called the Herfindahl index of industrial concentration only by Hirschman's inclusion of the square root. Herfindahl had introduced his index in Herfindahl In spite of the fact that Herfindahl himself acknowledged Hirschman's prior contribution, his index was named the Herfindahl Index by Rosenbluth and the name stuck, even though Rosenbluth later tried to correct the error.

Today February , the Herfindahl index is said by Wikipedia to be "also known as Herfindahl-Hirschman index. As for the Hirschman index itself and its use for quantifying concentration of trade, it is difficult to search for it without the Herfindahl, but I was able to find a few sources that use it. For example, Ng , p. Home market effect This effect was both introduced and named by Krugman , so there is not much more to say. However, Krugman spoke on p. The two effects that he demonstrated were the following: First, in a model with increasing returns to scale IRS , p.

It says that if the two countries have sufficiently dissimilar tastes each will specialize in the industry for which it has the larger home market. Then, under "very special assumptions and on the analysis of special cases," p. Nonetheless, the analysis does seem to confirm the idea that, in the presence of increasing returns, countries will tend to export the goods for which they have large domestic markets. These, to me, seem to be two sides of the same coin, predicting across countries which will export in an IRS industry, and across industries, which a given country will export.

It is worth noting also, as Krugman did in his final sentence, that these results were anticipated by Linder and by Grubel Linder did stress the importance of the demand in the home market in order for a country's industry to succeed and export p.

Allowing then for IRS as well as differences in the distribution of income across countries, he noted that a country with a preponderance of low-income consumers would "specialize in the production of the low price and low quality model, supplying its own population and exporting to meet the demands of [the other country's] population with below average income.

Long before both of them, Edgeworth , p. I have not read Mill and am taking Edgeworth's word for this. Infant industry protection Several sources cite Alexander Hamilton as the first to argue in favor of tariffs to protect infant industries, on the grounds that their costs are initially so high that they will only be able to compete if protected, and that they will then be able to reduce their costs sufficiently to prosper without assistance.

Hamilton's purpose was indeed to argue both for the importance of manufactures and for the need to use policy to promote manufactures. However, in parts of this document he states a clear preference for using "bounties" -- i. I have searched the document and do not find the basis for this. There is a discussion of reasons for using tariffs mostly called "duties" , but none seems to capture the infant industry reasoning. Most cite List , writing in German, as providing the first explicit case for infant industry protection, and this seems right.

In Chapter 12 of the translation by Sampson S. It is true that protective duties at first increase the price of manufactured goods; but it is just as true, and moreover acknowledged by the prevailing economical school, that in the course of time, by the nation being enabled to build up a completely developed manufacturing power of its own, those goods are produced more cheaply at home than the price at which they can be imported from foreign parts.

It may be that List was taking this argument from "the prevailing economical school," but more likely he was just applying the insights from that literature to trade policy. It was Mill who made the case first in English: The superiority of one country over another in a branch of production often arises only from having begun it sooner.

A country which has this skill and experience yet to acquire, may in other respects be better adapted to the production than those which were earlier in the field. But it cannot be expected that individuals should, at their own risk, or rather to their certain loss, introduce a new manufacture, and bear the burthen of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes are traditional.

A protecting duty, continued for a reasonable time, will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment. Mill apparently had some second thoughts about this case, as he changed "will" in the last sentence to "might" in his 7th edition. And an editor quotes him from a letter in saying Even on this point I continue to think my opinion was well grounded, but experience has shown that protectionism, once introduced, is in danger of perpetuating itself Nonetheless, Mill has continued to be the major figure cited as making the case for infant industry protection.

The term "infant industry protection" Neither Mill nor any of the earlier authors used the term "infant industry protection," but instead spoke in various ways of firms and industries that were newly established. Hamilton spoke only once of an "infant manufacture" and List only once of "infant manufactures. On page appears the following: But the necessities and the requisite independence of a new people rising into greatness in a new world, inexorably demanded protection for its infant industry, and the aid of government in support of the various arts and manufactures during the period of their weakness and immaturity.

This did not specify the form of that protection, and went on to say that "the aid they sought from the government was designed to be only temporary. Taussig made the case for what he only called "young industries," but I found four other authors, around the same time, referring positively or negatively to protection of "infant industries.

Mill's test was that the protection be temporary, as Mill added in his 7th edition: Bastable's test was that the benefit from protection must exceed its cost, or as stated by Kemp, p. The onus of proof rests with those who advocate their employment, and they are bound to show 1 that the industry to be favoured will after a time be self-supporting, and 2 that the ultimate advantage will exceed the losses incurred during the process. J-Curve Magee seems to have been the first to do careful theoretical analysis of this phenomenon of the trade balance first worsening before it improves after a devaluation.

But he was certainly not the first to use the term, as he cited a passage from the Wall Street Journal describing "what economists call a J-curve" in reference especially to the aftermath of the devaluation of the British pound in A search through Google Scholar finds the term "J-curve" used frequently in other contexts, but the first use of the term applied to effects of a currency devaluation seems to have been at a conference the proceedings of which I have not yet seen and by Posner Both of these use the term as though it is already familiar, so I suspect that it had entered common use before this in the economic press.

Kaldor-Hicks criterion Kaldor was the first to state this criterion, but he was followed in the next issue of the same journal by Hicks who built on Kaldor and developed the idea more fully.

One could easily, based on reading Kaldor and the fact that Hicks did not claim to have had the idea himself, conclude that this should be called simply the "Kaldor criterion.

Most notable was Scitovszky , who pointed out that the "principle enunciated in Mr. Kaldor's first-quoted article" p. It was Little a, b who first called it the Kaldor-Hicks criterion. In a, he credited Hicks with going beyond Kaldor by explicitly using it as a criterion for an increase in welfare, and then, throughout the last half of the paper, called it the Kaldor-Hicks criterion. Later the same year Little b addressed Scitovszky's criticism, and used that terminology throughout.

Lerner diagram The Lerner Diagram was first drawn by Lerner in an unpublished seminar paper a "term paper" according to his teacher Lionel Robbins in He used unit-value isoquants together with unit isocost lines to show the relationship between goods prices and factor prices in the H-O model.

That paper was reproduced, "as it was originally written" according to the journal editor, as Lerner It appears that Findlay and Grubert were the first to make extensive use of the diagram, attributing it as "a diagram introduced by Mr. Lerner in his brilliant paper on factor price equalization in international trade.

Some including myself, until I learned better have called it the Lerner-Pearce diagram , giving credit also to Pearce Bierwag , in footnote 2, p. In fact, although Pearce was debating Lerner regarding the likelihood of factor price equalization, he used unit isoquants , not unit-value isoquants, for the purpose.

Since these do not align in equilibrium with a single unit isocost line, they cannot be used in the same way, and they do not achieve the essential simplicity of Lerner's construction. Pearce did use the diagram with unit-value isoquants in his comment on Lerner , but there he wass clearly following Lerner.

Marshall-Lerner condition The condition was first stated in words by Marshall as characteristic of two offer curves that intersect in an unstable equilibrium, which he showed in his Fig. For they assume the total elasticity of demand of each country to be less than unity, and on average to be less than one half , throughout a large part of its schedule. Nothing approaching this has ever occurred in the real world: So this first statement of the M-L condition dates back at least that far, perhaps half a century before its formal publication.

The next appearance of the condition was twenty years later still, in Lerner The context was very different from that of Marshall, as Lerner was not looking at the market for international exchange. Rather, his purpose was to determine whether a mechanism for maintaining full employment through the gold standard would be stable. The mechanism would start with a fall in the price level due to the outflow of gold associated with a negative trade balance.

To be successful, that fall in price level would need to reduce the trade deficit, thus increasing aggregate demand. But then, "There are other circumstances that render the automatic maintenance of full employment still more precarious.

For this to be true, he says, The critical point is where the sum of the elasticity of demand for imports plus the elasticity of demand for exports is equal to unity. This then, in words, was precisely the statement that has come down to us as the Marshall-Lerner condition. He also points out that a fall in the value of the currency would serve the purpose no better, as it would be subject to exactly the same result for the same reason. This latter interpretation, separated from the concern with employment, captures what is probably the most familiar statement of what the condition is about: A number of authors have chosen to name the condition after Robinson as well as Marshall and Lerner, presumably on the grounds that Robinson preceded Lerner in examining the same question of a devaluation and the balance of trade.

Setting this to be greater than zero is not, of course, what we know as the Marshall-Lerner condition. It is not hard to get that condition from it, however: In any case, in her second edition of the same work, Robinson , she cited Lerner and stated the familiar result. There is one other source that might have been expected to reach the result before Lerner Machlup , who dealt in great detail with "The Theory of Foreign Exchanges.

However, he did not mention that if both demands were sufficiently inelastic, then the equilibrium would be unstable. Therefore he did not find his way to the third familiar implication of the Marshall-Lerner condition: From all of this, the name "Marshall-Lerner condition" seems appropriate, since both of those authors stated the condition, independently and in different contexts, and no other author seems to have done so.

Who gave it the name? Searching the literature around this time, I find Polak citing the condition, but only as "the well-known formula. This condition is usually expressed in terms of elasticities of demand for imports and of demand for exports. It is now often referred to as the "Lerner condition", although it has been mentioned by Marshall and formulated with even greater precision later by Mrs.

However, the first I have found to call it the Marshall-Lerner condition was Hirschman His purpose was to show that the condition is actually incorrect for determining the effect of a devaluation on a non-zero trade balance as was implicit in Robinson , and he concludes: Our results permit the following conclusions: His use of quotation marks around the term suggests he was introducing it.

And indeed a search in Google Scholar for "Marshall-Lerner" in the period finds Hirschman's as the only valid entry. I conclude that it was Hirschman who gave it the name that stuck.

Meade Index Meade a did not put his calculation into the form of an index, except in an appendix, but rather suggested adding up the increases in trade and the decreases in trade separately, each weighted by tariffs, and concluding that there had been a gain from trade in his context of formation of a customs union if the former were larger than the latter. In his example of the duty on Dutch and Belgian beer, Meade said p.

Of course if tariffs on all other products were universally zero, then the contributions to his calculation for them would also be zero. Hence, this is a simple way of taking account of the second-best nature of a tariff reduction when tariffs on other products are not zero.

In his Appendix II pp. It seems to have been Vanek , p. Most Favored Nation The term goes back more than two centuries. The earliest use I've found with Google Scholar was from , but the idea entered into international commercial treaties long before. The term itself can be misleading, since when applied to a country it may be interpreted as favoring that country over others. In fact, the meaning is rather to not treat the country worse than others.

It may have been this tendency to misinterpret that led the United States to replace it with permanent normal trading relations in , during the lead-up to granting China permanent MFN treatment in Erler says that the practice of treating trade partners no worse than others goes back to the 15th century.

Erler writes in German, so I thank my friend Willi Kohler for providing the following: He argues that the first appearance of MFN was in the 15th century, when the territorial state was about to replace the city states, such as the Hanseatic League, that had so far dominated trade in northern and central Europe. The trade policy stance of these territorial states would soon be dominated by mercantilism. But this did not preclude MFN treatment.

For instance, a treaty signed on August 17, , by Henry V of England and Duke Johann of Burgundy stipulates that English captains shall be allowed to land their ships in Flemish ports "in the same way as the French, the Dutch and the Scottish captains would do.

Further, they shall be treated with the same "caution and graciousness" as these other merchants. This pretty much seems like true MFN treatment. But its first use by more or less that name was in the Treaty of Utrecht , which was actually a group of several treaties ending the War of the Spanish Succession One of those, the Navigation and Commerce Treaty between England and France, included the following passage: Furthermore, it is agreed and concluded, as a general rule, that all That passage does indeed appear in the treaty, reproduced in Magnusson , p.

Wikipedia explains the change as follows, but gives no source: The impetus for the change in terminology came from irritation voiced by some Americans that various totalitarian governments around the world enjoyed being a MFN of the United States.

I have also been told informally but authoritatively that the change was made because the US was in negotiations with China on accession to the WTO, and President Clinton did not want to say that we would "most favor" China. As one course says, "It was marketing. To a normal person, most-favored sounds like specially good treatment while MFN really is normal.

It was first published in an Appendix attached to Book III, Chapter VIII, of Marshall , but as he explained in an opening footnote, Much of it had been designed to form part of an Appendix to a volume on International Trade, on which a good deal of work was done, chiefly between and Marshall himself said he should share credit with others, but he names only Auspitz and Lieben , "in which use is made of diagrams similar to mine, which they had constructed independently. But based on Marshall's above statement, he was the first.

He did not however name it. This article was published in three parts, in the second of which, Edgeworth Part II he showed the curves in various configurations and used the verb "offer" to explain what they represented.

Then in the third part, Edgeworth Part III , discussing a similar diagram of Auspitz and Lieben , he says "Accordingly their supply- or offer- curve is never inelastic in our sense of the term Several subsequent authors also used the term, perhaps following Edgeworth or perhaps coming to it on their own. Some used it not to represent international trade, but rather for the supplies and demands of individual consumers.

Bowley however was quite explicit, both in using the diagram which he said had been used "by many writers in the fundamental treatment of foreign trade" p. He cited Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics for the concept and mathematics of the equilibrium, but apparently not for the offer curve.

Bradley , and Housing Policy and Finance with D. She undertakes research in economics and econometrics. His main research areas are public economics, labour economics, and microeconomics. Access to the complete content on Oxford Reference requires a subscription or purchase.

Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription. Please subscribe or login to access full text content. If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code. For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs , and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.

Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice. Publications Pages Publications Pages. Search within my subject specializations:

Related Words

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

The Economist offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science, technology and the connections between them.

Privacy FAQs

An authoritative and comprehensive dictionary containing 2, key economic terms with clear, concise definitions. It covers all aspects of economics including economic theory, applied microeconomics and macroeconomics, labour economics, public economics and public finance, monetary economics, environmental economics, and many others.

About Our Ads

Economic Glossary is a list of over 2, common economic terms definitions. With our Economics dictionary, you look up economic definitions . How to use this dictionary: The page below contains most of the key terms from an introductory Economics course. To read a definition scroll your cursor over a .

Cookie Info

economics terms dictionary free download - Economics Terms Dictionary, Economics Terms Dictionary, Dictionary of Economic Terms . Scottish political economist and moral philosopher. His inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was one of the earliest attempts to study the historical development of industry and commerce in Europe.