Taxes and Entry Mode Decision in Multinationals: Export and FDI with and without Decentralization
|
|
- Martin Ball
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Taxes and Entry Mode Decision in Multinationals: Export and FDI with and without Decentralization Yoshimasa Komoriya y Chuo University Søren Bo Nielsen z Copenhagen Business School Pascalis Raimondos x Queensland University of Technology November, 206 Abstract We use a duopoly model to simultaneously consider both foreign direct investment (FDI) and decentralization decisions, featuring transfer pricing. To investigate the relationship between corporate taxes and the optimal entry mode for the foreign market, we examine and compare rms pro t in each of three entry modes: export, FDI with decentralization, and FDI with centralization. We nd that, even when a host country does not have any advantage, FDI can be undertaken because of a strategic incentive. We also nd that trade liberalization promotes decentralization of multinationals and that a tougher regulation of transfer pricing may expand the region of no centralization. Keywords: decentralization; foreign direct investment; transfer pricing JEL Classi cation: F2, F23, H25 Very preliminary! This is one of our ongoing research projects undertaken while Komoriya was visiting the Department of Economics in the Copenhagen Business School as a visiting scholar. Komoriya would like to thank the department for its hospitality. y Faculty of Economics, Chuo University, Hachioji, Tokyo , Japan; komoriya@tamacc.chuou.ac.jp z Department of Economics, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg 2000, Denmark; sbn.eco@cbs.dk x Economics and Finance, QUT Business School, Brisbane QLD 4000, Australia; pascalis.raimondos@qut.edu.au
2 Introduction Transfer pricing is one of the pro t-shifting instruments for multinationals. In addition to the pro t-shifting role, transfer pricing may have other roles. In oligopoly settings, multinationals have an incentive to manipulate their intra- rm prices for a ecting competition that their subsidiaries are facing. This manipulation of intra- rm price is denoted the strategic role of transfer pricing. The strategic role of transfer pricing is widely known after Schjelderup and Sørgard (997). The motivation of their research is as follows: In the IO-literature on MNE behaviour both delegation of authority to local a liates and strategic interaction are discussed. [t]he focal point in the IO literature on MNEs, however, is on foreign direct investments, not on pro t shifting through transfer pricing (Schjelderup and Sørgard, 997, pp.278) 2. With this motivation, Schjelderup and Sørgard (997) nd this new role of transfer pricing. However, foreign direct investments (FDI) is taken as a given in their analysis. Therefore, in this paper, we consider both of FDI decision and pro t shifting, focusing on the strategic motive of transfer pricing. Decentralization is the key of the strategic role of transfer pricing. In the model of Schjelderup and Sørgard (997), in addition to FDI, decentralization is also taken as a given. Although Nielsen et al. (2008) examine decentralization decisions, that is, they investigate whether multinationals decentralize or not, FDI is taken as a given even in their analysis. Therefore, in this paper, we simultaneously consider both FDI and decentralization decisions of multinationals, featuring transfer pricing. In the literature, Porter (202) analyzes e ects of a corporate tax on choices between FDI and export. In a duopoly setting, taking rms choices between export and FDI into account, Porter (202) shows the possibility that an increase in the host country s corporate tax can create its desirable situation where the more e cient rm undertakes FDI and the less e cient rm does not. Although, as far as we know, Porter (202) is one of the rare papers that focus on e ects of corporate tax on choices between export and FDI, she does not consider pro t shifting and transfer pricing. Amerighi and Peralta (200) investigate choices of modes for serving two countries. A rm has two alternatives in their model. One is to have a plant in one country and to serve both the local and foreign markets from the plant. The other alternative is to have two plants and to serve markets from the local plants. They combine the proximity-consentration trade-o with a tax-saving incentive. Although, as far as we know, Amerighi and Peralta (200) is the rst paper that shows the relationship between the pro t shifting and FDI incentive, they do not focus on strategic incentives for undertaking FDI because they use a monopoly model. In our paper, we rst examine multinationals pro t in each of three entry modes into a foreign market: export, FDI with decentralization, and FDI with centralization (without decentralization). Second, to investigate FDI incentives in decentralization and centralization cases and a See for, example, Göx and Schiller (2007). 2 See, for example, Horstmann and Markusen (992) and Motta (992). 2
3 decentralization incentive, we compare after-tax pro t between entry modes. Finally, we show the relationship between corporate tax rates and the optimal entry mode for the foreign market by simultaneously considering FDI and decentralization decisions. First, we nd that, even when a host country does not have any advantage, that is, even when there is no di erence in marginal production cost between the home and host countries, there is no tax di erence, and trade costs are not incurred on export, FDI can be undertaken due to a strategic incentive. Second, we also show that centralized multinationals do not appear in free trade at least in our current setting and that trade liberalization promotes decentralization of multinationals. And nally, we nd that a tougher regulation of transfer pricing may expand the region of no centralization. Section 2 introduces our model and shows pro ts and welfare in each of the three modes and Section 3 investigates FDI incentives in decentralization and centralization cases and a decentralization incentive. Section 4 shows the relationship between corporate tax rates and the optimal entry mode for the foreign market. Section 5 discusses e ects of trade cost and Section 7 discusses that of transfer pricing cost. Section 7 o ers conclusions. 2 The Model In this section, we introduce our model. There are two countries (home and foreign) and two rms ( rm and rm 2). Only rm serves the home market and both rms serve the foreign market. The two rms compete in Cournot fashion. The output levels of rm in the home and foreign markets are, respectively, q and Q, and the output level of rm 2 in the foreign market is Q 2. We use linear demand functions, p = a bq in the home market and P = A BQ in the foreign market, where q q and Q Q + Q 2. p and P are, respectively, the market prices in the home and foreign markets. Marginal costs for production of the two rms are c and c 2. We assume c = c 2 = 0 for simpli cation. Firm has three entry modes for serving the foreign market: Export, FDI with decentralization, and FDI with centralization. The following subsections show each of the three modes. 2. Export Case In this mode, rm is an exporting rm and it competes with the rival ( rm 2) in the foreign market. Governments in the home and foreign countries tax locally earned pro t at t h and t f, respectively. After-tax pro ts of rm and rm 2 are, respectively, where is a trade cost. We nd = ( t h ) [(a bq )q + (A BQ BQ 2 )Q Q ] ; 2 = ( t f ) [(A BQ BQ 2 )Q 2 ] ; q = a 2b ; Q = A 2 3B 3 ; Q 2 = A + 3B
4 in the equilibrium. The after-tax pro ts are By assuming = 0, we have = ( t h ) 2 = ( t f ) and de ne (2) as EX in the following part FDI with decentralization " a 2 4b # (A 2)2 + ; () (A + )2 : a 2 = ( t h ) 4b + A2 ; (2) In this mode, rm is a decentralized MNE 4. Before-tax pro ts from production and sales on the part of rm in the home and foreign countries and rm 2 are, respectively, h = (a bq )q + mq ; f = (A BQ BQ 2 )Q mq ; f2 = (A BQ BQ 2 )Q 2 ; where, m is a intra- rm price (transfer price). The transfer price m can deviate from the marginal production cost (of zero). If it is set di erent from zero, the company is assumed to incur transfer pricing cost. After-tax pro ts of rm and rm 2 are, respectively, = ( t h ) h + ( t f ) f u 2 m2 F; 2 = ( t f ) f2 : The third and fourth terms of are the transfer pricing cost and the FDI xed cost. parameter u governs the change in transfer pricing cost, if the deviation from zero is enlarged. In this case, the headquarters of rm sets the transfer price before its subsidiary and rm 2 choose their output levels. We solve this model using backward induction. In the second stage, we have In the rst stage, d dm d dm q = a 2b ; Q = A 2m 3B ; Q 2 = A + m 3B : d dm = A (4t f 3t h ) 4m 2t f 3t h Bu ; 4 = 2t f 3t h Bu < 0: 3 We relax this assumption in section 5. 4 In this subsection, we assume 4t f 5t h + + 3Bu > 0 for obtaining non-negative output levels of both rms. If Bu > 4, we can obtain non-negative output levels. 3 The 4
5 The second order condition holds with the assumption of 4t f the level of the transfer price is m = A (4t f 3t h ) 4 2t f 3t h Bu: 5t h ++3Bu > 0. In equilibrium, Given corporate tax rates, the absolute value of the transfer price jmj decreases in u. If tax rates are not vastly di erent (t f is not much greater than t h ), m will lie below marginal cost of zero, in that case, the transfer price increases in u. Generally, the more pronounced are transfer pricing costs, the closer m is to zero. If t h = t f = t, m = A 4 + 9ABu 6 t Bu > A 4 : Although this equation shows the existence of the strategic motive of transfer pricing, the strategic motive is muted because of the transfer pricing cost 5. And the transfer pricing costs are present, even though there is no tax rate di erence. Equilibrium outputs are and the after-tax pro ts are If t h = t f = t, A [2 ( t h ) + 3Bu] Q = 4B 2t f 3t h Bu = A A [8 (t f t h ) + 3Bu] 2B 8B 2t f 3t h Bu; Q 2 = A (4t f 5t h + + 3Bu) 4B 2t f 3t h Bu = A 4B + A [8 (t f t h ) + 3Bu] 6B 2t f 3t h Bu = ( t h) a 2 4b + i A h( 2 t h ) 2 + 2Bu ( t f ) 8B 2t f 3t h F; (3) 4Bu 2 = ( t f ) A 2 (4t f 5t h + + 3Bu) 2 6B 2t f 3t h Bu 2 > 0: = ( t) We de ne (3) as DC in the following part. 2.3 FDI with centralization " a 2 4b + A2 ( 8B # t + 2Bu) t Bu F: (4) In this mode, rm is a centralized MNE 6. Before-tax pro ts of rm in the home and foreign countries and rm 2 and after-tax pro ts of the two rms are the same as those in the decentralization case. Unlike in the previous case, the headquarter of rm chooses both its transfer price and output level, and rm 2 chooses its output level simultaneously. 5 When m = A 4, Q is equal to the output level of the Stackelberg leader. 6 In this subsection, we assume t f t h 2 + Bu tf > 0, for non-negative output levels of both rms. 5
6 = (t f t h ) = ( t f ) (A 2BQ BQ 2 ) + m (t f t h ) 2 = ( t f ) (A BQ 2BQ 2 ) = 2B ( t f ) < 2 2 = (t f t h ) 2 + 2Bu ( t f ) = 2B ( t f ) < 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 2Bu ( t f ) > 0 holds with the assumption of (t f t h ) 2 + Bu ( t f ) > 0. From F.O.C., we have m = (t f t h ) Q ; u Q = ( t f ) (A BQ 2 ) + m (t f t h ) ; 2B ( t f ) Q 2 = A BQ : 2B Thus, in the equilibrium, transfer price and outputs are, respectively, m = Q = A (t f t h ) ( t f ) 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) ; Au ( t f ) 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) = A 3B + 2A (t f t h ) 2 h i; 3B 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) h i A (t f t h ) 2 + Bu ( t f ) Q 2 = h i B 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) = A 3B h 3B A (t f t h ) 2 i: 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) As already mentioned in Nielsen (204), the output of rm is consist of two parts. If t h = t f = t, because m = 0, the output of each rm equals a Cournot output level. And we also have q = a 2b. 6
7 The after-tax pro ts are = ( t h) a 2 4b 2 = + h i A 2 u ( t f ) 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 2Bu ( t f ) h i 2 F; (5) 2 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) h i 2 ( t f ) A 2 (t f t h ) 2 + Bu ( t f ) h i 2 > 0; B 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) If t h = t f = t, We de ne (5) as C in the following part. a 2 = ( t) 4b + A2 F: (6) 3 Comparison of three modes In this section, we investigate FDI incentives in each of the two FDI modes and decentralization incentives of multinationals. 3. Export and FDI with decentralization In this subsection, we compare EX and DC for investigating the FDI incentive for decentralization case. The condition for FDI is DC > EX, [ ( t h) (6t f 5t h ) 8Bu (t f t h )] 72 2t f 3t h Bu > F (A 2 =B) : ( t If ( t h ) (6t f 5t h ) 8Bu (t f t h ) < 0, that is, t f t h > h ) 2 2[8( t h )+u], rm chooses Export. This means that rm chooses Export when t f is su ciently high relative to t h. If t f t h < ( t h ) 2 2[8( t h )+u] = t h 6 t h t h Bu not depends on the relative size of the xed cost, F A 2 =B < t h 6, whether rm chooses FDI or. When F is low enough, when A is high enough, and/or when B is low enough, a rm chooses to be a decentralized multinational rm 7. Otherwise, rm chooses Export. If t h = t f = t, from (2) and (4), DC > EX ", A2 8B, # ( t + 2Bu) 8 t Bu > F 9 A 2 ( t) 72B t + 9 > F: 4Bu This means that rm chooses FDI when F is low enough and in particular when F = 0. 7 Because we use P = A BX for the demand function in the foreign market, A (A=B) governs pro t opportunities in that market. 7
8 When A = B =, F = 0, u =, and t h = 0:3, the condition for FDI ( DC > EX ) is t f 72 ( t f ) > 0: Below, Figures has been drawn using these values for A, B, F, u, and t h. FDI premium t_f Figure. Additional pro t of FDI with decentralization (t h = 0:3) In Figure, rm chooses FDI when t f < et f ' 0:3678. Because we assume t h = 0:3, we can nd that, even when t f > t h, can rm chooses FDI. Proposition Even in a case without the foreign country s production cost and tax advantages and trade cost, FDI may take place. Even when the tax rate in the foreign country is higher than that in the home country, FDI can be superior to export because of a (purely) strategic incentive, if the tax di erence is small. Whent f > t h, there is no FDI incentive coming from tax-saving incentive. However, in the above gures, rm chooses FDI if the tax di erence is small. Although Amerighi and Pelarta (200) shows a tax-saving FDI incentive, they do not consider this strategic incentive for FDI. 3.2 Export and FDI with centralization In this subsection, we compare EX and C to investigate the FDI incentive for the centralization case. The condition for FDI is C > EX n A 2 (t f t h ), o 8 ( t h ) (t f t h ) 3 + 3Bu ( t f ) [(3t f 8t h + 5) (t f t h ) 6Bu ( t f )] h i 2 > F: 8B 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) 8
9 If t h = t f and F > 0, from (2) and (6), rm does not prefer FDI with centralization to Export because C = EX F. When A = B =, F = 0, u =, and t h = 0:3, the condition for FDI ( C > EX ) is (0t f 3) 5240t f + 325t 2 f t3 f > 0: 90 90t f + 00t 2 f 4 Figure 2 has been drawn using these values. Because, with our parameters, t f 2 [0; 0:77468) meets the assumption of (t f t h ) 2 + Bu ( t f ) > 0, we cut o the rage above t f = 0:7 from the gure. FDI premium t_f Figure 2. Additional pro t of FDI with centralization (t h = 0:3) In Figure 2, when t h = t f, C = DC because of F = 0. And FDI with centralization is better than Export only in the case where the tax rate in the host country is lower than that in the home country (t f < t h ). 3.3 FDI with decentralization and FDI with centralization In this subsection, we compare DC and C for investigating the decentralization incentive 8. The condition for decentralization is DC > C, i A h4 2 ( t h ) 2 (t f t h ) 4 Bu ( t f ) h i 2 > 0; 8B 2t f 3t h Bu 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) 8 This subsection is based on Nielsen et al. (2008). 9
10 where 4 ( t h ) ( t f t h + 2) (t f t h ) 2 Bu ( t f ) 8t f + 6t h + t 2 f 6t 2 h + 6t f t h +. As Nielsen (2008) showed, decentralization is preferable to centralization when the two countries have the same tax level. If t h = t f = t, from (4) and (6), DC C = A2 8B = " ( t + 2Bu) t Bu 8 9 A 2 ( t) 72B t + 9 > 0: 4Bu Thus, FDI with decentralization is preferred to FDI with centralization when the two countries have the same tax level. is When A = B =, F = 0, u =, and t h = 0:3, the condition for decentralization ( DC > C ) 84880t f t 2 f 32800t 3 f t4 f > 0: 40 (40t f + 47) 90t f + 00t 2 f 4 Figure 3 illustrate the additional pro t from decentralization, using the parameter values above. # Dec. premium t_f Figure 3. Additional pro t of decentralization (t h = 0:3) In Figure 3, rm chooses FDI with decentralization when t f < t f ' 0:3863 0
11 4 Optimal entry mode for the foreign market In this section we explore the optimal entry mode of rm. We directly compare the following three pro ts, EX = ( t h) a 2 4b + ( t h) A 2 ; DC = ( t h) a 2 A h( 2 t h ) 2 + 2Bu ( t f ) + 4b 8B 2t f 3t h F; 4Bu C = ( t h) a 2 4b h i A 2 u ( t f ) 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 2Bu ( t f ) + h i 2 F; 2 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) when a = 2, b =, A = B =, F = 0, u =, and t h = 0:3 in this section. We have EX = 0:77778; DC = 84t f (40t f + 47) ; C = 48582t f 8865t 2 f t3 f + 500t4 f : 2 90t f + 00t 2 f 4 Figure 4 shows these pro ts ( EX is black thin straight line, DC is red thin line, and C is blue bold line). i Profit Figure 4. Comparison of pro t in the three modes (t h = 0:3) t_f
12 Firm prefers decentralized FDI to centralized FDI when t f < t f ' 0:3863, prefers decentralized FDI to Export when t f < et f = ' 0:36 78, and prefers centralized FDI to Export when t f < bt h = 0:3. The order of the three pro ts are EX > C > DC for t f > 0:3863, EX > DC > C for < t f < 0:3863, DC > EX > C for 0:3 < t f < , and DC > C > EX for t f < 0:3. Thus, we have the following proposition. Proposition 2 Given the parameter values, in the case of no foreign country s advantage and no trade cost, when the rm chooses FDI, the rm also implements decentralization. This proposition implies no centralized multinationals appear in free trade. Because the FDI xed cost decreases DC and C (shifts the red thin line and blue bold line downward) and it does not a ect the decentralization incentive, this proposition would remain valid even when F 6= 0. 5 Trade cost In this section, we relax the assumption, = 0: For checking and enforcing robustness, we investigate how and to what extent trade costs a ect the result in the previous section 9. When 6= 0, from (), the after-tax pro t of rm is EX = ( t h ) " a 2 4b # (A 2)2 + : With our parameters, EX = : 45 When = 0:05, we have EX = 0:763. In Figure 4, the green bold straight dotted line shows this pro t. Although, in this case, the trade cost does not a ect the decentralization decision, the cost a ects FDI decisions. Firm prefers decentralized FDI to Export when t f < et f = ' 0:43404 and prefers centralized FDI to Export when t f < bt f ' 0: The order of the three pro ts are EX > C > DC for t f > 0:45327, C > EX > DC for < t f < 0:45327, C > DC > EX for 0:3863 < t f < , and DC > C > EX for t f < 0:3863. Thus, as the corporate tax in the foreign country increases, rm s entry mode to the foreign market shifts from FDI with decentralization to FDI with centralization, to Export. This implies FDI with centralization is feasible when the trade cost is su ciently high. By comparing the results in the previous and current sections, we can nd that trade liberalization accelerates decentralization 0. At t f ' 0:3863, DC t = C f t ' 0: We call the trade cost, at which f " # a 2 ( t h ) 4b + (A 2 ) 2 = DC t = C f t : f 9 In this section, we consider a case where the trade cost is speci c. We will show an ad valorem case in our future research. We will also consider the case where rm incurs trade costs even in FDI cases. 0 In our future research, we will discuss a relationship between trade costs and decision lights with anecdotal evidence. 2
13 And we obtain ' 0: When <, the relationship between the optimal entry mode and the foreign country s tax rate is the same as the case of = 0 (in the previous section). When >, the relationship is the same as the case of = 0:05. We can consider the possibility that rm has a domestic subsidiary and delegates an output decision to the subsidiary and the subsidiary competes with the local rival. If F = 0, the net pro t of rm with this domestic decentralization overcomes the pro t in Export case. However, even when we replace the normal Export pro t by this decentralized export pro t, the replacement only makes the critical trade cost rate higher ( 0 ' 0: > ' 0:027934) and our results do not change. 6 Transfer pricing cost We examine the e ect of u on the optimal entry mode. It could be considered that the higher u is related to the tougher transfer pricing regulation. Before that, we consider how u a ect the transfer price. We nd that an increase in u a ects the transfer prices in both cases as follows, dm dc du dm c du = = 4 2t f 3t h Bumdc ; 3B ( t f ) 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) mc : This means dmdc du Q 0 when mdc R 0 and dmc du Q 0 when mc R 0. Figure 5 shows the transfer prices of decentralized MNEs and centralized MNEs using our parameters. The solid lines show the case of u = and the dotted lines the case of u = :2. The red thin lines show the decentralized cases and the blue bold the centralized case. A change of u has no e ect on the transfer price of decentralized MNEs when t f = 0:475, that is, when m dc = 0 and no e ect on that of centralized MNEs when t f = 0:3, that is, when m c = 0. We do not use any transfer pricing cost in the domestic decentralization case. 3
14 TP t_f Figure 5. E ect of u on transfer price We nd that an increase in u decreases DC and C as follows, d DC du d C du = = (4t f 3t h ) 2 A 2 2 (8t f 2t h + u + 4) 2 0; 2 A2 (t f t h ) 2 ( t f ) 2 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 5Bu ( t f ) 3 0: 2 (t f t h ) 2 + 3Bu ( t f ) Although a tougher regulation (an increase in u) reduces the FDI pro t in both cases, when t f = +3t h 4, because decentralized MNEs always set m = 0, a change of u has no e ect on the pro t of the rm and when t f = t h, because centralized MNEs always set m = 0, a change of u has no e ect on the pro t of the rm. 4
15 Profit Figure 6. E ect of u on pro t When a = 2, b =, A = B =, F = 0, u = :2, t h = 0:3, at t f ' 0:38267, DC t = f C t ' 0:7692. The critical trade cost rate is ' 0: >. This implies that a f tougher regulation (an increase in u) may expand the region of no centralization. t_f 7 Conclusion We investigated FDI incentives, taking into account the strategic role of transfer pricing and decentralization. It has been found that, even when a host country has neither production cost advantage nor tax advantage, FDI can be undertaken by a (purely) strategic incentive. We also found that trade liberalization and a tougher transfer pricing regulation boost decentralization of multinationals. For checking and enforcing robustness, we should examine how and to what extent an ad valorem trade cost a ect our ndings and also consider the case where rm incurs trade costs even in FDI cases. We leave those investigations to future work. In the model, we assume a quadratic form of transfer pricing cost. This cost implicitly re ects transfer pricing regulation implemented by governments. Investigating more speci cally the e ects of transfer pricing regulation on FDI incentives is also left to future work. 5
16 References [] Amerighi, Oscar, Susana Peralta, 200, The Proximity-concentration Trade-o with Pro t Shifting?, Journal of Urban Economics 68, [2] Göx, Robert F., Ulf Schiller, 2007, An Economics Perspective on Transfer Pricing, In: Chapman, Christopher S., Anthony G. Hopwood, and Michael D. Shields (Eds), Handbook of Management Accounting Research, , Elsevier. [3] Horstmann, Ignatius J. and James R. Markusen, 992, Endogenous Market Structures in International Trade (natura facit saltum), Journal of International Economics 32, [4] Motta, Massimo, 992, Multinational Firms and the Tari -jumping Argument, European Economics Review 36, [5] Nielsen, Søren Bo, 204, Transfer Pricing: Roles and Regimes, CESifo Working Paper Series No [6] Nielsen, Søren Bo, Pascalis Raimondos-Møller and Guttorm Schjelderup, 2008, Taxes and Decision Rights in Multinationals, Journal of Public Economic Theory 0, [7] Porter, Lynda A, 202, Asymmetric Oligopoly and Foreign Direct Investment: Implications for Host-Country Tax-Setiting, International Economic Journal 26, [8] Schejelderup, Guttorms and Lars Sørgard, 997, Transfer Pricing as a Strategic Device for Decentralized Multinationals, International Tax and Public Finance 4,
Research and Development
Chapter 9. March 7, 2011 Firms spend substantial amounts on. For instance ( expenditure to output sales): aerospace (23%), o ce machines and computers (18%), electronics (10%) and drugs (9%). is classi
More informationInternation1al Trade
4.58 International Trade Class notes on 4/8/203 The Armington Model. Equilibrium Labor endowments L i for i = ; :::n CES utility ) CES price index P = i= (w i ij ) P j n Bilateral trade ows follow gravity
More informationWelfare consequence of asymmetric regulation in a mixed Bertrand duopoly
Welfare consequence of asymmetric regulation in a mixed Bertrand duopoly Toshihiro Matsumura Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo June 8, 2010 Abstract I investigate an asymmetric duopoly where
More information8. MARKET POWER: STATIC MODELS
8. MARKET POWER: STATIC MODELS We have studied competitive markets where there are a large number of rms and each rm takes market prices as given. When a market contain only a few relevant rms, rms may
More informationOligopoly. Molly W. Dahl Georgetown University Econ 101 Spring 2009
Oligopoly Molly W. Dahl Georgetown University Econ 101 Spring 2009 1 Oligopoly A monopoly is an industry consisting a single firm. A duopoly is an industry consisting of two firms. An oligopoly is an industry
More informationVolume and Share Quotas in Oligopoly
Volume and Share Quotas in Oligopoly Yasunori Okumura Faculty of Economics, Hannan University January 30, 2012 Abstract In this papaer, we theoretically discuss volume and share quotas in Cournot oligopoly.
More informationVertical integration in the e commerce sector"
8 99 May 208 Vertical integration in the e commerce sector" Claire Borsenberger, Helmuth Cremer, Denis Joram and Jean Marie Lozachmeur Vertical integration in the e-commerce sector Claire Borsenberger
More informationMotivation A Figure 1 Figure 2 Table 1 Table 2
Future Work Motivation A Figure 1 Figure 2 Table 1 Table 2 Motivation B Markup Di erences: SOEs vs. POEs Markup Di erences Across Sectors Sectoral Di erences Motivation Key Novelty Model Trade Liberalization,
More informationTrade policy III: Export subsidies
The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies - wiiw June 25, 2015 Overview Overview 1 1 Under perfect competition lead to welfare loss 2 Effects depending on market structures 1 Subsidies to
More informationEconS Sequential Competition
EconS 425 - Sequential Competition Eric Dunaway Washington State University eric.dunaway@wsu.edu Industrial Organization Eric Dunaway (WSU) EconS 425 Industrial Organization 1 / 47 A Warmup 1 x i x j (x
More informationEnvironmental R&D with Permits Trading
Environmental R&D with Permits Trading Gamal Atallah Department of Economics, University of Ottawa Jianqiao Liu Environment Canada April 2012 Corresponding author: Gamal Atallah, Associate Professor, Department
More informationMixed oligopoly in a two-dimensional city y
Mixed oligopoly in a two-dimensional city y Takanori Ago z November 6, 2009 Abstract This paper analyzes a mixed oligopoly model with one public rm and two private rms in a two-dimensional square city.
More informationEndogenous timing in a mixed duopoly
Endogenous timing in a mixed duopoly Rabah Amir Department of Economics, University of Arizona Giuseppe De Feo y CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain February 2007 Abstract This paper addresses the issue
More informationOPTIMAL TWO-PART TARIFF LICENSING CONTRACTS WITH DIFFERENTIATED GOODS AND ENDOGENOUS R&D* Ramón Faulí-Oller and Joel Sandonís**
OPTIMAL TWO-PART TARIFF LICENSING CONTRACTS WITH DIFFERENTIATED GOODS AND ENDOGENOUS R&D* Ramón Faulí-Oller and Joel Sandonís** WP-AD 2008-12 Corresponding author: R. Fauli-Oller Universidad de Alicante,
More informationOligopoly Theory. This might be revision in parts, but (if so) it is good stu to be reminded of...
This might be revision in parts, but (if so) it is good stu to be reminded of... John Asker Econ 170 Industrial Organization January 23, 2017 1 / 1 We will cover the following topics: with Sequential Moves
More informationBertrand Model of Price Competition. Advanced Microeconomic Theory 1
Bertrand Model of Price Competition Advanced Microeconomic Theory 1 ҧ Bertrand Model of Price Competition Consider: An industry with two firms, 1 and 2, selling a homogeneous product Firms face market
More informationHotelling Meets Weber
Hotelling Meets Weber Fu-Chuan Lai y and Takatoshi Tabuchi z 1 September 011 Abstract In this paper, spatial competition between two sellers in a market (Hotelling, 199) and total transportation costs
More informationExtensive Form Games with Perfect Information
Extensive Form Games with Perfect Information Pei-yu Lo 1 Introduction Recap: BoS. Look for all Nash equilibria. show how to nd pure strategy Nash equilibria. Show how to nd mixed strategy Nash equilibria.
More information1 Oligopoly: Bertrand Model
1 Oligopoly: Bertrand Model Bertrand model: There are two rms and no entry is possible. Homogeneity of product. Single period. Consumers always purchase from the cheapest seller. If the two selllers charge
More informationLecture 7. Simple Dynamic Games
Lecture 7. Simple Dynamic Games 1. Two-Stage Games of Complete and Perfect Information Two-Stages dynamic game with two players: player 1 chooses action a 1 from the set of his feasible actions A 1 player
More informationRalph s Strategic Disclosure 1
Ralph s Strategic Disclosure Ralph manages a firm that operates in a duopoly Both Ralph s (privatevalue) production cost and (common-value) inverse demand are uncertain Ralph s (constant marginal) production
More informationMarket Power. Economics II: Microeconomics. December Aslanyan (VŠE) Oligopoly 12/09 1 / 39
Market Power Economics II: Microeconomics VŠE Praha December 2009 Aslanyan (VŠE) Oligopoly 12/09 1 / 39 Microeconomics Consumers: Firms: People. Households. Monopoly. Oligopoly Now Perfect Competition.
More informationEconS Advanced Microeconomics II Handout on Repeated Games
EconS 503 - Advanced Microeconomics II Handout on Repeated Games. MWG 9.B.9 Consider the game in which the following simultaneous-move game as depicted in gure is played twice: Player Player 2 b b 2 b
More informationPartial Privatization under Multimarket Price Competition
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Partial Privatization under Multimarket Price Competition Taku Masuda and Susumu Sato Graduate School of Economics, The University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Economics,
More informationEmission Quota versus Emission Tax in a Mixed Duopoly with Foreign Ownership
Emission Quota versus Emission Tax in a Mixed Duopoly with Foreign Ownership Kazuhiko Kato and Leonard F.S. Wang December 29, 2012 Abstract The paper compares an emission tax and an emission quota in a
More informationEcon Review Set 2 - Answers
Econ 4808 Review Set 2 - Answers EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS 1. De ne the concept of equilibrium within the con nes of an economic model. Provide an example of an economic equilibrium. Economic models contain
More informationSpatial Competition and Collaboration Networks
Spatial Competition and Collaboration Networks Yasunori Okumura y Kanagawa University May, 009 Abstract In this paper, we discuss the formation of collaboration networks among rms that are located in a
More informationINVESTMENT EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCT MARKET COMPETITION
INVESTMENT EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCT MARKET COMPETITION Neal M. Stoughton WU-Vienna University of Economics and Business Kit Pong Wong University of Hong Kong Long Yi Hong Kong Baptist University QUESTION
More informationOligopoly Notes. Simona Montagnana
Oligopoly Notes Simona Montagnana Question 1. Write down a homogeneous good duopoly model of quantity competition. Using your model, explain the following: (a) the reaction function of the Stackelberg
More informationLow-Quality Leadership in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly with Cournot Competition
Low-Quality Leadership in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly with Cournot Competition Luca Lambertini Alessandro Tampieri Quaderni - Working Paper DSE N 750 Low-Quality Leadership in a Vertically Di erentiated
More informationRanking Bertrand, Cournot and Supply Function Equilibria in Oligopoly
ISSN 2282-6483 Ranking Bertrand, Cournot and Supply Function Equilibria in Oligopoly Flavio Delbono Luca Lambertini Quaderni - Working Paper DSE N 1000 Ranking Bertrand, Cournot and Supply Function Equilibria
More informationFlexible vs Dedicate Technologies in a mixed duopoly
Flexible vs Dedicate Technologies in a mixed duopoly Maria Jose Gil Molto and Joanna Poyago-Theotoky, Loughborough University March 15, 005 Abstract We compare the choice of exible manufacturing technologies
More informationAddendum to: International Trade, Technology, and the Skill Premium
Addendum to: International Trade, Technology, and the Skill remium Ariel Burstein UCLA and NBER Jonathan Vogel Columbia and NBER April 22 Abstract In this Addendum we set up a perfectly competitive version
More informationTradable Permits vs Ecological Dumping
Tradable Permits vs Ecological Dumping F. Antoniou, P. Hatzipanayotou y and P. Koundouri z 4 March 2010 Abstract In this paper we incorporate tradable permits in a model of strategic environmental policy.
More informationCarrot and stick games
Bond University epublications@bond Bond Business School Publications Bond Business School 6-14-2001 Carrot and stick games Jeffrey J. Kline Bond University, jeffrey_kline@bond.edu.au Follow this and additional
More informationStatic Models of Oligopoly
Static Models of Oligopoly Cournot and Bertrand Models Mateusz Szetela 1 1 Collegium of Economic Analysis Warsaw School of Economics 3 March 2016 Outline 1 Introduction Game Theory and Oligopolies 2 The
More informationA General Analysis of Sequential Merger Games, with an Application to Cross-Border Mergers
A General Analysis of Sequential Merger Games, with an Application to Cross-Border Mergers Alberto Salvo* London School of Economics and Political Science Contents: Abstract 1.Introduction 2. General conditions
More informationEconS Oligopoly - Part 2
EconS 305 - Oligopoly - Part 2 Eric Dunaway Washington State University eric.dunaway@wsu.edu November 29, 2015 Eric Dunaway (WSU) EconS 305 - Lecture 32 November 29, 2015 1 / 28 Introduction Last time,
More informationA Solution to the Problem of Externalities When Agents Are Well-Informed
A Solution to the Problem of Externalities When Agents Are Well-Informed Hal R. Varian. The American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 5 (Dec., 1994), pp. 1278-1293 Introduction There is a unilateral externality
More informationMoral Hazard: Part 1. April 9, 2018
Moral Hazard: Part 1 April 9, 2018 Introduction In a standard moral hazard problem, the agent A is characterized by only one type. As with adverse selection, the principal P wants to engage in an economic
More informationWorst Welfare under Supply Function Competition with Sequential Contracting in a Vertical Relationship
Journal of Game Theory 2017 6(2): 38-42 DOI: 10.5923/j.jgt.20170602.02 Worst Welfare under Supply Function Competition with Sequential Contracting in a Vertical Relationship Aika Monden Graduate School
More informationAnswer Key: Problem Set 3
Answer Key: Problem Set Econ 409 018 Fall Question 1 a This is a standard monopoly problem; using MR = a 4Q, let MR = MC and solve: Q M = a c 4, P M = a + c, πm = (a c) 8 The Lerner index is then L M P
More informationSequential mergers with differing differentiation levels
Sequential mergers with differing differentiation levels March 31, 2008 Discussion Paper No.08-03 Takeshi Ebina and Daisuke Shimizu Sequential mergers with differing differentiation levels Takeshi Ebina
More informationGrowing competition in electricity industry and the power source structure
Growing competition in electricity industry and the power source structure Hiroaki Ino Institute of Intellectual Property and Toshihiro Matsumura Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo [Preliminary
More informationCongestion Externality and Autonomous Vehicles
Congestion Externality and Autonomous Vehicles Federico Bo a (Free University of Bolzano) Alessandro Fedele (Free University of Bolzano) Alberto Iozzi (University of Rome Tor Vergata) VERY PRELIMINARY
More informationOligopoly. Oligopoly. Xiang Sun. Wuhan University. March 23 April 6, /149
Oligopoly Xiang Sun Wuhan University March 23 April 6, 2016 1/149 Outline 1 Introduction 2 Game theory 3 Oligopoly models 4 Cournot competition Two symmetric firms Two asymmetric firms Many symmetric firms
More informationAdvanced Economic Growth: Lecture 8, Technology Di usion, Trade and Interdependencies: Di usion of Technology
Advanced Economic Growth: Lecture 8, Technology Di usion, Trade and Interdependencies: Di usion of Technology Daron Acemoglu MIT October 3, 2007 Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Advanced Growth Lecture 8 October 3,
More informationDiscussion Papers in Economics. No. 12/14. The effect of Stackelberg cost reductions on spatial competition with heterogeneous firms.
Discussion Papers in Economics No. 12/14 The effect of Stackelberg cost reductions on spatial competition with heterogeneous firms Matthew Beacham Department of Economics and Related Studies University
More informationCournot and Bertrand Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly with Endogenous Technology Adoption *
ANNALS OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE 16-1, 231 253 (2015) Cournot and Bertrand Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly with Endogenous Technology Adoption * Hongkun Ma School of Economics, Shandong University,
More informationDynamic Merger Review
Dynamic Merger Review Volker Nocke University of Oxford and CEPR Michael D. Whinston Northwestern University and NBER PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE January 11, 2008 Abstract We analyze the optimal dynamic
More informationBasics of Game Theory
Basics of Game Theory Giacomo Bacci and Luca Sanguinetti Department of Information Engineering University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy {giacomo.bacci,luca.sanguinetti}@iet.unipi.it April - May, 2010 G. Bacci and
More informationCompetition between Cities and Their Spatial Structure
RIETI Discussion Paper Series 15-E-110 Competition between Cities and Their Spatial Structure AGO Takanori Senshu University The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/
More informationNotes on the Mussa-Rosen duopoly model
Notes on the Mussa-Rosen duopoly model Stephen Martin Faculty of Economics & Econometrics University of msterdam Roetersstraat 08 W msterdam The Netherlands March 000 Contents Demand. Firm...............................
More informationHotelling's Location Model with Quality Choice in Mixed Duopoly. Abstract
Hotelling's Location Model with Quality Choice in Mixed Duopoly Yasuo Sanjo Graduate School of Economics, Nagoya University Abstract We investigate a mixed duopoly market by introducing quality choice
More informationExclusive contracts and market dominance
Exclusive contracts and market dominance Giacomo Calzolari and Vincenzo Denicolò Online Appendix. Proofs for the baseline model This Section provides the proofs of Propositions and 2. Proof of Proposition.
More informationClassic Oligopoly Models: Bertrand and Cournot
Classic Oligopoly Models: Bertrand and Cournot Class Note: There are supplemental readings, including Werden (008) Unilateral Competitive Effects of Horizontal Mergers I: Basic Concepts and Models, that
More informationWhen Should a Firm Expand Its Business? The Signaling Implications of Business Expansion
When Should a Firm Expand Its Business? The Signaling Implications of Business Expansion Ana Espínola-Arredondo y Esther Gal-Or z Félix Muñoz-García x June 2, 2009 Abstract We examine an incumbent s trade-o
More informationBanks, depositors and liquidity shocks: long term vs short term interest rates in a model of adverse selection
Banks, depositors and liquidity shocks: long term vs short term interest rates in a model of adverse selection Geethanjali Selvaretnam Abstract This model takes into consideration the fact that depositors
More informationInternational Trade Lecture 16: Gravity Models (Theory)
14.581 International Trade Lecture 16: Gravity Models (Theory) 14.581 Week 9 Spring 2013 14.581 (Week 9) Gravity Models (Theory) Spring 2013 1 / 44 Today s Plan 1 The Simplest Gravity Model: Armington
More informationDesign Patent Damages under Sequential Innovation
Design Patent Damages under Sequential Innovation Yongmin Chen and David Sappington University of Colorado and University of Florida February 2016 1 / 32 1. Introduction Patent policy: patent protection
More informationSTRATEGIC TRADE POLICY AND MANAGERIAL DELEGATION IN A MIXED DUOPOLY FANG WEI (UNIVERSITY OF KITAKYUSHU)
STRATEGIC TRADE POLICY AND MANAGERIAL DELEGATION IN A MIXED DUOPOLY FANG WEI (UNIVERSITY OF KITAKYUSHU) fwei@kitakyu-u.ac.jp 1 Tariff Protection Policy under Duopoly cf. Brander-Spencer (1984) ---- Rent-Shifting
More informationLecture 1: Ricardian Theory of Trade
Lecture 1: Ricardian Theory of Trade Alfonso A. Irarrazabal University of Oslo September 25, 2007 Contents 1 Simple Ricardian Model 3 1.1 Preferences................................. 3 1.2 Technologies.................................
More informationLecture 3, November 30: The Basic New Keynesian Model (Galí, Chapter 3)
MakØk3, Fall 2 (blok 2) Business cycles and monetary stabilization policies Henrik Jensen Department of Economics University of Copenhagen Lecture 3, November 3: The Basic New Keynesian Model (Galí, Chapter
More informationPrice and Quantity Competition in Di erentiated Oligopoly Revisited
Price and Quantity Competition in Di erentiated Oligopoly Revisited Akio Matsumoto y Chuo University Ferenc Szidarovszky z University of Arizona Abstract This study examines the competition in Bertrand
More informationOn Overdissipation of Rents in Contests with Endogenous Intrinsic Motivation. Volker Schlepütz
On Overdissipation of Rents in Contests with Endogenous Intrinsic Motivation Volker Schlepütz Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 421 Februar 2008 Diskussionsbeiträge der Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaft der FernUniversität
More informationManagerial delegation in multimarket oligopoly
Managerial delegation in multimarket oligopoly Arup Bose Barnali Gupta Statistics and Mathematics Unit Department of Economics Indian Statistical Institute Miami University, Ohio INDIA USA bosearu@gmail.com
More informationThe Impact of Trade on Organization and Productivity
The Impact of Trade on Organization and Productivity orenzo Caliendo Yale University Esteban Rossi-Hansberg Princeton University May 9, 2 Abstract A rm s productivity depends on how production is organized
More informationEconS Vertical Integration
EconS 425 - Vertical Integration Eric Dunaway Washington State University eric.dunaway@wsu.edu Industrial Organization Eric Dunaway (WSU) EconS 425 Industrial Organization 1 / 26 Introduction Let s continue
More informationNational Treatment in International Agreements on. Intellectual Property
ational Treatment in International Agreements on Intellectual Property Yasukazu Ichino Faculty of Economics, Konan University June 27, 2010 Abstract ational treatment (T), a practice of governments granting
More informationIERCU. Dynamic Monopoly with Demand Delay
IERCU Institute of Economic Research, Chuo University 50th Anniversary Special Issues Discussion Paper No.15 Dynamic Monopoly with Demand Delay Akio Matsumoto Chuo University Ferenc Szidarovszky University
More informationWhen Does Adaptation Require Decentralization?
When Does Adaptation Require Decentralization? Ricardo Alonso University of Southern California Wouter Dessein Columbia University Niko Matouschek y Northwestern University March, 2012 Abstract We examine
More informationInternational Mergers: Incentive and Welfare
International Mergers: Incentive and Welfare by Larry D. Qiu and Wen Zhou Department of Economics Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon Hong Kong September 003 Abstract
More informationUCD CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH WORKING PAPER SERIES
UCD CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH WORKING PAPER SERIES 26 Multi-Product Firms and Flexible Manufacturing in the Global Economy Carsten Eckel, University of Göttingen and J Peter Neary, University College
More informationEconomics of Open Source: A Dynamic Approach
Economics of Open Source: A Dynamic Approach Jeongmeen Suh y KIEP Murat Y lmaz z Bo¼gaziçi University March 29 Abstract This paper analyzes open innovation projects and their e ects on incentives for innovation.
More informationNº 15/2007 ASYMMETRIC COLLUSION AND MERGER POLICY. Mattias Ganslandt. Lars Persson. Hélder Vasconcelos
DOCUMENTOS DE TRABALHO ECONOMIA WORKING PAPERS ECONOMICS Nº 15/2007 ASYMMETRIC COLLUSION AND MERGER POLICY Mattias Ganslandt Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN) Lars Persson Research Institute
More informationEntry under an Information-Gathering Monopoly Alex Barrachina* June Abstract
Entry under an Information-Gathering onopoly Alex Barrachina* June 2016 Abstract The effects of information-gathering activities on a basic entry model with asymmetric information are analyzed. In the
More informationECON2285: Mathematical Economics
ECON2285: Mathematical Economics Yulei Luo Economics, HKU September 17, 2018 Luo, Y. (Economics, HKU) ME September 17, 2018 1 / 46 Static Optimization and Extreme Values In this topic, we will study goal
More informationWORKING PAPER SERIES
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF MILAN - BICOCCA WORKING PAPER SERIES EQUILIBRIUM PRINCIPAL-AGENT CONTRACTS Competition and R&D Incentives Federico Etro, Michela Cella No. 180 March 2010 Dipartimento
More informationKyoto Project Mechanisms and Technology. Di usion
Kyoto Project Mechanisms and Technology Di usion Matthieu Glachant, Yann Ménière y February 12, 2007 Abstract This paper deals with the di usion of GHG mitigation technologies in developing countries.
More informationCartel Stability in a Dynamic Oligopoly with Sticky Prices
Cartel Stability in a Dynamic Oligopoly with Sticky Prices Hassan Benchekroun and Licun Xue y McGill University and CIREQ, Montreal This version: September 2005 Abstract We study the stability of cartels
More informationEconS Advanced Microeconomics II Handout on Subgame Perfect Equilibrium (SPNE)
EconS 3 - Advanced Microeconomics II Handout on Subgame Perfect Equilibrium (SPNE). Based on MWG 9.B.3 Consider the three-player nite game of perfect information depicted in gure. L R Player 3 l r a b
More informationA SECOND ELEMENTARY PROPOSITION CONCERNING THE FORMATION OF CUSTOMS UNIONS
kemp10b 15/10/98 A SECOND ELEMENTARY PROPOSITION CONCERNING THE FORMATION OF CUSTOMS UNIONS Murray C. emp University of New South Wales oi Shimomura obe University First version: April 1998 Revised version:
More informationSolow Growth Model. Michael Bar. February 28, Introduction Some facts about modern growth Questions... 4
Solow Growth Model Michael Bar February 28, 208 Contents Introduction 2. Some facts about modern growth........................ 3.2 Questions..................................... 4 2 The Solow Model 5
More informationAdvanced Economic Growth: Lecture 3, Review of Endogenous Growth: Schumpeterian Models
Advanced Economic Growth: Lecture 3, Review of Endogenous Growth: Schumpeterian Models Daron Acemoglu MIT September 12, 2007 Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Advanced Growth Lecture 3 September 12, 2007 1 / 40 Introduction
More informationMaximin and minimax strategies in symmetric oligopoly: Cournot and Bertrand
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Maximin and minimax strategies in symmetric oligopoly: Cournot and Bertrand Atsuhiro Satoh and Yasuhito Tanaka 27 December 2016 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/75837/
More informationECON0702: Mathematical Methods in Economics
ECON0702: Mathematical Methods in Economics Yulei Luo SEF of HKU January 14, 2009 Luo, Y. (SEF of HKU) MME January 14, 2009 1 / 44 Comparative Statics and The Concept of Derivative Comparative Statics
More information4. Partial Equilibrium under Imperfect Competition
4. Partial Equilibrium under Imperfect Competition Partial equilibrium studies the existence of equilibrium in the market of a given commodity and analyzes its properties. Prices in other markets as well
More informationTaxation and supply-function equilibrium
Taxation and supply-function equilibrium Andy Philpott Electric Power Optimization Centre www.epoc.org.nz December, Abstract We consider the e ect that a tax on observed pro ts has on supplier strategies
More informationVolume 30, Issue 3. Monotone comparative statics with separable objective functions. Christian Ewerhart University of Zurich
Volume 30, Issue 3 Monotone comparative statics with separable objective functions Christian Ewerhart University of Zurich Abstract The Milgrom-Shannon single crossing property is essential for monotone
More informationFree entry and social efficiency in an open economy. Arghya Ghosh, Jonathan Lim, and Hodaka Morita
Free entry and social efficiency in an open economy Arghya Ghosh, Jonathan Lim, and Hodaka Morita Abstract Is free entry desirable for social efficiency? We examine this question in an open economy context
More informationWelfare Reducing Mergers in Differentiated Oligopolies with Free Entry
Department of Economics Working Paper Series Welfare Reducing Mergers in Differentiated Oligopolies with Free Entry Nisvan Erkal & Daniel Piccinin August 2009 Research Paper Number 1081 ISSN: 0819 2642
More informationNet Neutrality with Competing Internet Platforms
Net Neutrality with Competing Internet Platforms Marc Bourreau y, Frago Kourandi z, Tommaso Valletti x April 17, 2012 Abstract We propose a two-sided model with two competing Internet platforms, and a
More informationImpact of Competition from Open Source Software on Proprietary Software
Impact of Competition from Open Source Software on Proprietary Software Vidyanand Choudhary and Zach Z. Zhou This is a student authored paper. October 2007 Abstract The number and impact of open source
More informationHans Zenger University of Munich. Abstract
The Optimal Regulation of Product Quality under Monopoly Hans Zenger University of Munich Abstract This paper characterizes the optimal quality regulation of a monopolist when quality is observable. In
More informationDEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS PROFITABILITY OF HORIZONTAL MERGERS IN TRIGGER STRATEGY GAME. Berardino Cesiy University of Rome Tor Vergata
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS PROFITABILITY OF HORIZONTAL MERGERS IN TRIGGER STRATEGY GAME Berardino Cesiy University of Rome Tor Vergata Working Paper No. 06/4 January 2006 Pro tability of Horizontal Mergers
More informationMacroeconomics IV Problem Set I
14.454 - Macroeconomics IV Problem Set I 04/02/2011 Due: Monday 4/11/2011 1 Question 1 - Kocherlakota (2000) Take an economy with a representative, in nitely-lived consumer. The consumer owns a technology
More informationBackwards Induction. Extensive-Form Representation. Backwards Induction (cont ) The player 2 s optimization problem in the second stage
Lecture Notes II- Dynamic Games of Complete Information Extensive Form Representation (Game tree Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibrium Repeated Games Trigger Strategy Dynamic Games of Complete Information Dynamic
More informationInnovation, Firm Dynamics, and International Trade
Innovation, Firm Dynamics, and International Trade Andrew Atkeson y and Ariel Burstein z February 2009 Abstract We present a general equilibrium model of the decisions of rms to innovate and to engage
More informationDynamic Strategic Behaviour in the Deregulated England and Wales Liquid Milk Market.
Dynamic Strategic Behaviour in the Deregulated England and Wales Liquid Milk Market. Richard Ti n Poster paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference,
More informationFirms and returns to scale -1- John Riley
Firms and returns to scale -1- John Riley Firms and returns to scale. Increasing returns to scale and monopoly pricing 2. Natural monopoly 1 C. Constant returns to scale 21 D. The CRS economy 26 E. pplication
More information