¿El que pierde gana? La guerra comercial sino-estadunidense en perspectiva

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Rémy Herrera
Zhiming Long
Zhixuan Feng
Bangxi Li

Resumen

Después de una presentación de la evolución de la balanza comercial sino-estadunidense (sección I), proponemos dos métodos para medir el intercambio desigual entre los Estados Unidos y China: uno en consideración del contenido laboral directamente incorporado en el intercambio (sección II); el otro, inspirado en Ricci (2018), se centra en el valor internacional y utiliza tablas de entradas-salidas (sección III), lo que permite esbozar una síntesis de análisis sectorial (sección IV).

Palabras clave:
comercio internacional, guerra comercial, intercambio desigual, marxismo, valor laboral, tabla insumo-producto, F16, F45, N70

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Métricas PlumX

Citas

Amin, S. (1974). Accumulation on a World Scale. A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment. Nueva York: Monthly Review Press.

Banco Mundial (2020). World Bank Open Data. Recuperado de: https://data.worldbank.org/

Emmanuel, A. (1972). Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. Nueva York: Monthly Review Press.

Feng, Z. (2018). International value, international production price and unequal exchange. En K. Tomoko, Y. Linhui, C. Qiang y Z. Feng (eds.), Economic Growth and Transition of Industrial Structure in East Asia. Singapur: Springer.

Gibson, B. (1980). Unequal exchange: Theoretical issues and empirical findings. Review of Radical Political Economics, 12(3), 15-35. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F048661348001200303

Meng, J. (2015). Two kinds of melt and their determinations: Critical notes on Moseley and the new interpretation. Review of Radical Political Economics, 47(2), 309-316. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0486613414532770

Nakajima, A., e Izumi, H. (1995). Economic Development and unequal exchange among nations: Analysis of the U. S., Japan, and South Korea. Review of Radical Political Economics, 27(3), 86-94. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F048661349502700309

National Bureau of Statistics of China (1993-2019). China Statistics Yearbooks. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (2007). China Labor Statistics Yearbooks. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (2008-2017). China Population and Employment Statistics Yearbooks. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (1981, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017). Input-Output Tables of China. Beijing: China Statistics Press.

OCDE (2020). OECD Database. Recuperado de: https://data.oecd.org/emp

OIT (2020). ILOStat database. OIT. Recuperado de: https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/

ONU (2020). UN Comtrade database. Recuperado de: https://comtrade.un.org/data/

Prebisch, R. (1959). Commercial policy in the underdeveloped countries. American Economic Review, 49(2), 251-273.

Ricci, A. (2018). Unequal exchange in the age of globalization. Review of Radical Political Economics, 51(2), 225-245. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0486613418773753

Singer, H. W. (1950). The distribution of gains between investing and borrowing countries. American Economic Review, 40(2), 473-485.

U. S. Department of Commerce (varios años). Trade in Goods with China. Washington, D. C.: United States Census Bureau.

Webber, M. J., y Foot, S. P. H. (1984). The Measurement of Unequal Exchange. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 16(7), 927-947. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fa160927

Xu, X., y Hang, Y. (2018). Understanding Sino-US Trade Imbalance: a Statistical Perspective. Economic Perspectives, 7, 27-36.