Large countries can improve their welfare by levying a tariff only if it does not:

A)  Encourage rent-seeking elsewhere in the economy.

B)  Discourage innovation.

C)  Lead to retaliation by the nation's trading partners.

D)  All of the above.

E)  None of the above.

answer

watching

184

views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Joshua StredderLv10

9 Nov 2020

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

A country may actually make itself better off by levying a tariff if:

A. other nations do not retaliate.
B. it is large enough to affect the world price when it imposes a tariff.
C. no rent-seeking behavior occurs.
D. there are no harmful effects on innovation.
E. all of the above.

maroonskunk787

Japanese officials are considering a new tariff on imported pork products from the USA in an attempt to reduce Japan's reliance on U.S. pork. Due to political pressure, the U.S. International Trade Representative's (ITR) office is also considering a new tariff on imported steel from Japan. Officials in both Japan and the U.S. must assess the social welfare ramification of their tariff decisions. Reports from a reliable think-tank indicate the following: if neither country imposes a new tariff, social welfare in Japan's economy will remain at $4.8 billion and social welfare in the U.S. will remain at $44 billion. If both countries impose a new tariff, welfare in the U.S. declines 0.5 percent to $43.78 billion and welfare in Japan declines by 0.8 percent to $4.76 billion. If Japan does not impose a tariff but the U.S. does, projected welfare in Japan is $4.66 billion while welfare in the U.S. is $ 44.2 billion. Finally, if the U.S. does not impose a tariff but Japan does, welfare is projected at $43.66 billion in the U.S. and $4.85 billion in Japan. Determine the Nash equilibrium outcome when policymakers in the two countries simultaneously but independently make tariff decisions in a myopic (one-shot) setting. Is it possible for the countries to improve their social welfare by "agreeing" to different strategies? Explain.