Cited by 632Global trade and economicsLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityEconomic Theory and Policy

Trade and Labor Market Dynamics: General Equilibrium Analysis of the China Trade Shock

Caliendo, Lorenzo, Dvorkin, Maximiliano, Parro, Fernando·2019·Econometrica

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

Crossref · 10.3982/ecta13758

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caliendo, L., Dvorkin, M., & Parro, F.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (US)
Venue
Econometrica
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