Comment on Suzuki's rebuttal of Batra and Casas

TL;DR

This paper critically examines Suzuki's rebuttal to Batra and Casas, clarifying the validity of the Rybczynski result in a three-factor two-good trade model and demonstrating flaws in Suzuki's argument.

Contribution

The paper refutes Suzuki's claims by showing his assumptions and equations are inconsistent, reaffirming the original Rybczynski result in the model.

Findings

Suzuki's assumptions are mathematically inconsistent

The Rybczynski result remains valid under the original model

Suzuki's dissenting proof is invalid

Abstract

Batra and Casas (1976) claimed that 'a strong Rybczynski result' arises in the three-factor two-good general equilibrium trade model. In subsequent comments, Suzuki (1983) contended that this could not be the case. Among his comments, Suzuki found that the set of three equations holds for the Allen-partial elasticity of substitution under the assumption of perfect complementarity, and he applied these to his analysis. In the following, I demonstrate that these are impossible, hence his dissenting proof is not plausible.