-
I am the Dong-Soo Hahn Professor of Global Affairs and Economics at Yale University. My appointment is in the Economics Department and the Jackson School. I study international trade and economic development. I hold affiliations at NBER, JPAL, BREAD, and IGC …
-
Working Papers Trade and Development in a Fracturing World ❲abstract❳ In a fracturing world, how can low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to leverage trade for economic development? Drawing on recent research at this intersection, this review argues that countries should look inward toward domestic reforms in key factor markets. I review evidence on how trade in LMICs is shaped by frictions in labor, capital, material, land, and information markets, and highlight areas where the evidence base remains thin. I also discuss research showing that trade itself can alter these underlying distortions. I concluded with a discussion of vertical policies relevant for LMICs—particularly the role of services—and suggest areas where further research is needed to assess whether development can be service-led. The Value of De Minimis Imports, r/r Quarterly Journal of Economics ❲abstract, summary❳ A U.S. consumer can import $800 worth of goods per day free of tariffs and administrative fees. Fueled by rising direct-to-consumer trade, these "de minimis" shipments have exploded in recent years, yet are not recorded in Census trade data. Who benefits from this type of trade, and what are the policy implications? We analyze international shipment data, including de minimis shipments, from three global carriers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Lower-income zip codes are more likely to import de minimis shipments, particularly from China, which suggests that the tariff and administrative fee incidence in direct-to-consumer trade disproportionately benefits the poor. Theoretically, imposing tariffs above a threshold leads to terms-of-trade gains through bunching, even in a setting with complete pass-through of linear tariffs. Empirically, bunching pins down the demand elasticity for direct shipments. Eliminating §321 would reduce aggregate welfare by $10.9-$13.0 billion and disproportionately hurt lower-income and minority consumers. P. Fajgelbaum …