Trade and Labor Market Dynamics: General Equilibrium Analysis of the China Trade Shock
Abstract
We develop a dynamic trade model with spatially distinct labor markets facing varying exposure to international trade. The model captures the role of labor mobility frictions, goods mobility frictions, geographic factors, and input‐output linkages in determining equilibrium allocations. We show how to solve the equilibrium of the model and take the model to the data without assuming that the economy is at a steady state and without estimating productivities, migration frictions, or trade costs, which can be difficult to identify. We calibrate the model to 22 sectors, 38 countries, and 50 U.S. states. We study how the rise in China's trade for the period 2000 to 2007 impacted U.S. households across more than a thousand U.S. labor markets distinguished by sector and state. We find that the China trade shock resulted in a reduction of about 0.55 million U.S. manufacturing jobs, about 16% of the observed decline in manufacturing employment from 2000 to 2007. The U.S. gains in the aggregate, but due to trade and migration frictions, the welfare and employment effects vary across U.S. labor markets. Estimated transition costs to the new long‐run equilibrium are also heterogeneous and reflect the importance of accounting for labor dynamics.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Industries more exposed to trade with China have seen lower incomes for affected workers.
“Industries more exposed to trade with China have seen higher exit of plants (Bernard, Jensen, and Schott 2006), larger contractions in employment (Pierce and Schott 2016; Acemoglu et al. 2016), and lower incomes for affected workers (Autor et al. 2014; Galle, Rodríguez-Clare, and Yi 2017; Caliendo, Dvorkin, and Parro 2019; Autor, Dorn, and Hanson 2019).”
From Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure (2020) · cites this paper as Caliendo, Dvorkin, and Parro 2019
Cites
Import Competition and the Great US Employment Sag of the 2000s
Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G. H., & Price, B. (2016) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/682384 · Cited by 1,113 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Importing Political Polarization? The Electoral Consequences of Rising Trade Exposure
Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G., & Majlesi, K. (2020) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20170011 · Cited by 1,063 · see citing works
The Economics of Internal Migration: Advances and Policy Questions
Jia, N., Molloy, R., Smith, C., & Wozniak, A. (2023) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20211623 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
- Authors
- Caliendo, L., Dvorkin, M., & Parro, F.
- Affiliations
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (US)
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- The Econometric Society
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 741-835
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2742700152
- Cited by
- 632
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 81 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 125.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Econometrica (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Global trade and economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economic Theory and Policy
- Keywords
- input-output linkages, manufacturing employment decline, welfare effects of trade, transition costs, dynamic trade model, model calibration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review