Unilateral and Multilateral Gains from Trade in International Oligopoly


 Lorraine May
 3 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Unilateral and Multilateral Gains from Trade in International Oligopoly Kenji Fujiwara Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Received January 2005; Final Version, June 2005 Abstract Constructing a twoagent model of international duopoly with increasing returns, this paper examines the potential gains from free trade. It is shown that under certain conditions, both agents in a country become worse off in free trade than in autarky with no redistribution. Further, the lumpsum compensation can never achieve a Paretoimprovement in such an economy. However, we can find a nonlumpsum redistributive scheme that makes nobody in the country worse off in free trade than in autarky. Keywords: Gains and losses from trade, international oligopoly, increasing returns to scale. JEL Classification: F10, F12. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the seminars held at Kobe University, the Spring 2004 Midwest International Economics Meeting and the 2004 Spring Meeting of the Japanese Economic Association. I thank David R. Collie, Fumio Dei, Yunfang Hu, Toru Kikuchi, Ngo Van Long, Kazuo Mino, Noritsugu Nakanishi, Masao Oda, Masayuki Okawa, Takashi Shibata, Karyiu Wong and Laixun Zhao for their comments. Among others, I would like to express special thanks to Elhanan Helpman, Murray C. Kemp and Koji Shimomura whose help substantially improved the paper. Many valuable suggestions from the editor, Harry Bloch, and the two anonymous referees are also gratefully acknowledged. Financial support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (the GrantinAid for 21st century COE Program Research and Education Center of New Japanese Economic Paradigm ) is gratefully acknowledged. Needless to say, I am solely responsible for any remaining errors. Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University. Rokkodaicho 21, Nadaku, Kobe, , Japan. 1
2 1 Introduction The gainsfromtrade proposition, i.e., there exists a domestic scheme of income redistribution which makes nobody worse off in free trade than in autarky, is one of the core theorems in trade theory and has supported trade liberalization by the GATT and its successor, the WTO. It first appeared in Samuelson (1939) and Kemp (1962), and was firmly established in the ArrowDebreu framework by Kemp and Wan (1972). As is well known, the ArrowDebreu model presupposes some restrictive assumptions like complete markets, perfect competition, finite agents and markets, and so forth. Wong (1995) discusses whether the gainsfromtrade proposition survives when some of them are relaxed. Among others, Newbery and Stiglitz (1984) and Shy (1988) propose an extreme possibility that all agents in every country lose from trade in the presence of market incompleteness. 1 However, they allow for no possibility of introducing any income redistributive scheme among agents. Given such a scheme, Kemp and Wong (1995) prove that a lumpsum compensation scheme does exist whereby nobody becomes worse off in free trade, even in incomplete markets. Further, there is a large literature on gains and losses from trade under imperfect competition, which is another significant market distortion. 2 Here, we will refer to only 1 These authors call this phenomenon Paretoinferior trade. 2 Helpman and Krugman (1985) and Wong (1995) provide a comprehensive survey of gains and losses from trade with imperfect competition. 2
3 two studies which are the closest to this paper and the other studies are mentioned in the final section. The first is Markusen (1981) who derives the sufficient conditions for gains from trade in international duopoly. 3 According to Markusen, a country loses from trade only if the output of the noncompetitive and increasingreturns good in free trade is falls below that in autarky. 4 This result relies on the assumption of representative agents, which leaves the following open question: Is it valid even if heterogeneous agents are incorporated? Putting it another way, is it possible to obtain similar results to Newbery and Stiglitz (1984) and Shy (1988) in an imperfectly competitive model? The second is Kemp and Shimomura (2001) who prove the existence of an income redistributive scheme which makes nobody worse off in a free trade CournotNash equilibrium than in an autarkic equilibrium. In addition to the high generality of their model, their result holds even under increasing returns. However, the following question is left unexplored: Is it possible to find such a proper scheme of income redistribution even in an economy such that free trade would make everyone in a country worse off without it? We shall examine these questions by formulating the simplest twoagent oligopolistic trade model with scale economies. We begin by reviewing our companion paper, Fujiwara (2004) that analytically proves that both agents in a country become worse off by starting 3 Kemp and Shimomura (2001) criticized that Markusen s (1981) treatment of profitmaximizing monopolists matters since they can consume not only the numeraire but their own product. In this paper, we overcome it by presuming that monopolists consume only the numeraire. 4 For the details of this production contraction condition, see Markusen and Melvin (1984). 3
4 free trade. Then, it is shown that the lumpsum compensation can no longer overcome the losses from trade, which is in contrast to Kemp and Wong (1995) mentioned above. However, even such an economy can find a proper nonlumpsum scheme of redistribution which makes its residents better off in free trade than in autarky. In addition, the existence of equilibrium is assured, which may be another contribution. 5 The simplicity of the model enables us to develop intuitions easily. Specifically, we pay a special attention to why nonnegative gains from trade are guaranteed to all agents under the scheme while they lose from trade without it. What is implied by our argument is that the concept of compensation may not be appropriate for interpreting the scheme suggested in this paper. In the case where free trade brings gains and losses, the solution is simple; the government transfers some part of the winners income to the losers. 6 On the other hand, what should be done is not so simple when all everyone loses from trade. Therefore, another interpretation is needed to discuss the role of the redistributive scheme. We will propose a distinct interpretation of the scheme which differs from compensation. Before introducing the rest of this paper, a remark is in order. This paper should not be regarded as the one belonging to the literature on strategic trade policy: Any strategic interaction and rentshifting incentive between countries is precluded and beyond the scope of this paper. 5 Kemp and Shimomura (2001) assumed the existence. 6 Recall the case to which the StolperSamuelson theorem applies. 4
5 We proceed as follows. Section 2 develops a model and describes each country s autarkic equilibrium. Section 3 considers free trade without any income redistributive scheme and shows that all agents in a country lose from trade. Furthermore, Section 4 shows that gains from trade are impossible to achieve via lumpsum compensation. Then, Sections 5 and 6 present the situation where nonlumpsum income redistribution between the agents is allowed and it is derived that free trade remains potentially beneficial to them. Section 5 presents the situation where only the country that experiences losses from trade is allowed to introduce a scheme, while Section 6 considers the case where both countries do so. Section 7 sets forth our conclusions. 2 An Autarkic Equilibrium Consider a twocountry (home and foreign), twogood (X and Y ), onefactor (labor), twoagent (consumer and monopolist) model. 7 Labor is fully employed and inelastically supplied by the consumer whose number is normalized to unity. The consumer demands both goods so as to maximize utility taking the prices and labor income as given. Good Y, which is the numeraire, is a competitive and constantreturns good while good X is a noncompetitive and increasingreturns good. One unit of labor produces one unit of good Y. Hence, the wage rate is fixed at unity as long as good Y is positively supplied. On the other hand, good X is supplied by a monopolist, who is assumed to consume only 7 Since the analysis in this and next sections is intensively developed in Fujiwara (2004), we proceed as concisely as possible. 5
6 good Y. The consumer s utility function is specified by U = AD X 1 2 D2 X + D Y, A > 0, where U is the utility level and D i, i = X, Y is the consumption of each good. Then, letting p be the price of good X in terms of good Y, the demand function of good X is derived as D X = A p, and the autarkic inverse demand function becomes p = A X, (1) where X is the output of good X. The monopolist s cost function is given by cx + F, A > c > 0, F > 0 where c is the constant marginal cost and F is the fixed cost. 8 From these specifications, the monopolist s autarkic profit is defined as (A c X)X F. (2) 8 We assume that F is not sunk. 6
7 If we assume an interior solution, the profitmaximizing output becomes X = 1 (A c), (3) 2 where the upperbar represents the autarkic variable. 9 Substituting (3) into (1) and (2), the home autarkic equilibrium price and profit are calculated as p = 1 (A + c) (4) 2 π = 1 4 (A c)2 F, (5) where π denotes the equilibrium profit, which is assumed to be strictly positive by choosing the parameters properly. The environment in the foreign country is the same as the home environment except for the monopolist s technologies. Henceforth, an asterisk is attached to foreign variables. Throughout this paper, we make the following assumption. Assumption 1. The marginal and fixed costs of each country s monopolist satisfy c > c and F < F. 10 Some may wonder why this assumption is needed. An answer will be provided after one 9 This interior solution is ensured if A c > 2 F is imposed. 10 This assumption can be justified when the following technology is imagined. The larger fixed cost a firm pays prior to its production, the cheaper her marginal cost becomes. Further justifications are offered in Mills and Smith (1996). Also, note that this assumption implies that A > c > c since we must assume A > c for the foreign output of good X to be positive. 7
8 of the main results, Proposition 1, is proved below. By following the same procedure as in the home country s case, the relevant variables in the foreign autarkic equilibrium are obtained as X = 1 2 (A c ) (6) p = 1 2 (A + c ) (7) π = 1 4 (A c ) 2 F. (8) 3 Losses from Trade In this section, let both countries freely trade but without any redistribution scheme. The integrated market for good X clears when 2(A p) = X + X, from which the inverse demand function in the world market is obtained as p = A 1 2 X 1 2 X. (9) Thus, the monopolists profits are given by and (A c 1 2 X 1 2 X ) X F (10) (A c 1 2 X 1 2 X ) X F. (11) 8
9 The two monopolists are assumed to play a CournotNash game, which leads to the following firstorder conditions for an interior solution. A c X 1 2 X = 0 (12) A c 1 2 X X = 0. (13) (12) and (13) respectively give each monopolist s reaction function when each monopolist earns positive profits for any value of the rival s output. However, due to the fixed cost, this is not always the case. In particular, if F is sufficiently large, the home monopolist s reaction curve can be discontinuous. In Figure 1, the dotted line BE represents the home monopolist s reaction curve when it earns positive profits for any X 0. Let us add its zeroprofit curve in this figure. It is obvious that the dotted line above the zeroprofit curve is not effective because its profit is negative at any point on this segment, which makes it choose zero output. In other words, the reaction curve only below the zeroprofit curve is effective and hence the home monopolist s reaction curve becomes discontinuous and consists of the segments BC and DE. 11 Formally, the home monopolist s reaction function is derived as 12 X = { A c 1 2 X if X 2(A c 2F ) 0 if X > 2(A c 2F ). (Figure 1 around here.) 11 Ito et al. (1991, Chaps 10 and 12) offer a similar argument in a context of entry deterrence. 12 Note that the length of OC equals 2(A c 2F ). 9
10 Note that the same argument straightforwardly applies to the foreign monopolist. Thus, Figure 1 shows that the foreign monopolist s reaction curve contains a horizontal segment. However, we assume in this paper that F is not as large as F so that the horizontal segment is not particularly long. Next, we add another key assumption. Assumption 2. The free trade CournotNash equilibrium is unique and given by N in Figure 1. Assumption 2 is justified if F exceeds a certain value, which Fujiwara (2004) derived. 13 Roughly speaking, if F is large enough, the vertical segment of the home monopolist s reaction curve becomes longer and the resulting Nash equilibrium is more likely to be unique. At N, the home monopolist chooses zero output and the world market is monopolized by the foreign monopolist and we have X N = 0 and X N = A c, (14) where the superscript N indicates the CournotNash equilibrium. Substituting this into the inverse demand function (9), the equilibrium price is determined as p N = 1 2 (A + c ). (15) Given the analysis so far, we can observe a few interesting consequences. First, com 13 It is given by F > (A 2c + c ) 2 /8. 10
11 paring the home autarkic price with the free trade price, we see that p < p N, i.e., the free trade price exceeds the home autarkic price, which implies that the home consumer loses from trade because its labor income is unchanged in both autarky and free trade. It is obvious that the home monopolist also loses from trade because the monopolist s profit is zero in free trade while it is positive in autarky. Thus, we can restate: Proposition 1 (Fujiwara, 2004). Laissezfaire free trade worsens the welfare of both the consumer and the monopolist in the home country. Why Assumption 1 is needed is briefly remarked on here. The assumption of F > F is utilized in order for the Nash equilibrium to be given by N in Figure 1. In other words, the home monopolist will choose zero output when its fixed cost is larger than the foreign monopolist s fixed cost. On the other hand, the assumption of c < c is made use of for obtaining p N > p, i.e., the home consumer loses from trade. Therefore, Assumption 1 on cost asymmetries is essential for Proposition 1. 4 Inefficacy of LumpSum Compensation As Kemp and Wong (1995) prove, potential gains from free trade can still be achievable through lumpsum compensation in incomplete markets even if laissezfair free trade is Pareto inferior. In view of their argument, it appears a natural question whether we can 11
12 find a proper lumpsum compensation scheme which makes the home country better off by the opening up of trade. This section addresses this issue and gives a negative answer. The suggested lumpsum scheme is defined as follows. Letting T M and T C denote the income transferred to the monopolist and consumer, respectively. T M is assumed to be calculated in such a way to equate the postscheme profit to the autarkic profit, i.e., T M = π = 1 4 (A c)2 F > 0. Since the monopolist s profit under laissezfaire free trade is zero, the lefthand side stands for the postscheme profit, whereas the righthand side is the autarkic profit. Thus, when T M > 0 is transferred to the monopolist, it can attain the exactly the same profit as the autarkic profit. Suppose that T C is determined in the same manner; it is calculated such that the consumer can attain the same utility under postscheme free trade as the autarkic level. Since the equilibrium price is determined as (A+c )/2 and the home consumer s autarkic utility level is (A c) 2 /8 + L, T C becomes T C = 1 8 (A c)2 1 8 (A c ) 2 = 1 8 (2A c c )(c c) > 0, by equating the autarkic utility to the postscheme free trade utility. Note that the last inequality follows from the assumption of c > c. 12
13 The suggested scheme suffices to achieve a Paretoimprovement if and only if T M + T C 0, since it means that the government s budget constraint is satisfied or the maximum bonus is nonnegative. 14 However, it is obvious that T M +T C > 0, i.e., the suggested lumpsum compensation violates the government s budget constraint and hence fails to make all agents better off in free trade than in autarky. The results obtained so far are stated in: Proposition 2. It is impossible to make nobody worse off in free trade than in autarky via a lumpsum compensation scheme. Someone may assert that Proposition 2 is selfevident and not worth stating formally. However, it has an important implication in considering gains from trade. As mentioned several times already, lumpsum compensation suffices to achieve a Paretoimprovement in the case of incomplete markets. But, Proposition 2 says that the same is no longer true in the case of imperfect competition and increasing returns. That is, it is impossible to apply Kemp and Wong s (1995) argument to the present case directly. The efficacy of lumpsum compensation crucially depends on what type of market distortion is assumed in the model. Moreover, Proposition 2 gives a rationale for why Kemp and Shimomura (2001) stated 14 The term maximum bonus follows from Wan (1965). 13
14 the following: just as the conventional gainsfromtrade proposition cannot be proved without lumpsum compensation, so our theorem cannot be proved without nonlumpsum compensation. For these two reasons, it is fair to say that Proposition 2 is of some use. In the subsequent sections, we incorporate a nonlumpsum scheme of redistribution and explore the possibility of potential gains from free trade. 5 Unilateral Gains from Trade In the previous sections, we show that both agents in the home country lose from trade and a lumpsum compensation scheme can not achieve a Paretoimprovement. In order to overcome this problem, this section presents the situation where a nonlumpsum redistribution scheme is introduced in the home country to guarantee nonnegative gains from trade. In particular, we consider the case in which only the home country introduces a scheme while the foreign country retains a laissezfaire policy. Before proceeding, a few preliminaries are provided. From the quadratic utility func 14
15 tion, the consumer s indirect utility function is V (p, L) 1 2 (A p)2 + L, (16) where L, the home labor endowment, represents the labor income because of the unitary wage rate. Since p = (A+c)/2, the consumer s utility in the autarkic equilibrium becomes V 1 2 (A p)2 + L = 1 ( A A + c ) 2 + L 2 2 = 1 8 (A c)2 + L. (17) On the other hand, the utility in postscheme free trade is obtained by substituting the inverse demand function, p = A X/2 X /2, into (16) and adding the compensatory transfer, say Γ, to the income: [ ( 1 A A X 1 )] 2 2 X + L + Γ = 1 8 (X + X ) 2 + L + Γ. (18) We assume that the transfer is determined so that the utility in postscheme free trade is exactly the same as that in autarky, which yields Γ = 1 8 (X + X ) (A c)2, (19) by equating (17) to (18). Therefore, we have only to show that the monopolist s postscheme profit exceeds its autarkic profit for achieving a Paretoimprovement. 15
16 The home monopolist seeks to maximize its profit taking into account the effect of X on the scheme. Thus, the monopolist s postscheme profit becomes = (A c 1 2 X 1 2 X ) X F Γ (A c 1 2 X 1 2 X ) X F (X + X ) (A c)2. (20) That is, the home monopolist s objective function changes from that in laissezfaire free trade. The associated firstorder condition is A c 3 4 X 1 4 X = 0. (21) (13) and (21) give a new output pair in postscheme free trade as X T = 2 5 (3A 4c + c ), X T = 2 5 (A + 2c 3c ), (22) where the superscript T denotes the postscheme CournotNash equilibrium. Substituting (22) into (9) yields the equilibrium price: p T A 1 2 XT 1 2 X T = 1 5 (A + 2c + 2c ), (23) and the home monopolist s profit is recalculated as (p T c)x1 T F (XT 1 + X1 T ) 2 1 (A c)2 8 = [ ] (A + 2c + 2c ) c 5 (3A 4c + c ) F + 1 [ (3A 4c + c ) )] 5 (A + 2c 3c 16
17 1 (A c)2 8 π T. Invoking that the home monopolist s autarkic profit is π (A c) 2 /4 F, the difference between the two profit levels is given by π T π = [ ] (A + 2c + 2c ) c 5 (3A 4c + c ) + 1 [ (3A 4c + c ) )] 5 (A + 2c 3c 1 8 (A c)2 1 4 (A c)2. Based on the analysis so far, we are ready to state: Proposition 3. By introducing the income redistribution scheme defined in (19), free trade with this scheme is Paretoimproving for the home country. Proof. For our purpose, it suffices to show that π T > π for any A, c and c which satisfy c (c, A). To do this, setting c = αc + (1 α)a, α (0, 1), substituting it into π T π given above and some arrangements yield = = π T π [ 2 25 (3 2α)(4 α) (1 + α)2 3 8] (A c) 2 ( 6 25 α α ) (A c)
18 f(α)(a c) 2. It is immediately seen that f(α) is always positive for any α (0, 1) because the discriminant of the quadratic equation f(α) = 0 is negative. This establishes Proposition 3. Proposition 3 can be interpreted diagrammatically by using Figure 2, which describes the postscheme trading equilibrium. After the home country introduces the scheme, the home monopolist has an incentive to reoptimize and its reaction curve will shift to the right while the foreign monopolist s is unchanged. Thus, it is fair to say that the scheme plays a role in changing the home monopolist s strategic position favorably since the home monopolist will expand its output. The resulting CournotNash equilibrium is given by T, which tends to promote international competition and the price may be lower than in autarky. This raises the consumer s utility and the consumer subsidizes the monopolist. Thanks to this subsidy, the home monopolist can gain from trade despite the decrease in price. (Figure 2 around here.) Remark 1. One may feel that a similarity exists between our argument and that of the strategic trade policies such as Dixit and Kyle (1985) because the scheme makes the home country better off while it may make the foreign country worse off. In other words, it seems to have a rentshifting role by improving the home monopolist s strategic 18
19 position in the international market. However, it has been assumed that the government solves no optimization problem in our argument, which makes our argument differ from that found in the strategic trade policy literature. Remark 2. One may already notice that the scheme in this paper does not correspond to that in the traditional gainsfromtrade proposition. In the previous studies, the scheme is completely captured as compensation: the government transfers winners income to losers. Of course, the scheme presented in this paper shares this aspect. However, its role goes beyond compensation since it shifts the home monopolist s reaction curve. 6 Multilateral Gains from Trade From Proposition 3, we can safely say that free trade is potentially beneficial for the home country. In deriving it, we have presumed that the foreign country maintains a laissezfaire regime a priori. However, as pointed out in Remark 1, the suggested scheme may be a beggarthyneighbor policy for the foreign country. If this is true, the foreign country may retaliate. Then, what if the home country and the foreign country both introduce similar schemes? This section is devoted to addressing this situation. Let the foreign country introduce the same scheme as the home country s, which is 19
20 defined as the foreign consumer s compensating variation: Γ 1 8 (X + X ) (A c ) 2. Given this scheme, the foreign monopolist s postscheme profit becomes (A c 1 2 X 1 2 X ) X F (X + X ) (A c ) 2. (24) Hence, the home monopolist has the objective function (20) and the foreign monopolist (24). As a result, each monopolist s firstorder condition will alter to A c 3 4 X 1 4 X = 0 (25) A c 1 4 X 3 4 X = 0, (26) which gives the new CournotNash equilibrium output pair: X M = A 3 2 c c, X M = A c 3 2 c, (27) where the superscript M means the CournotNash equilibrium when both countries introduce the scheme. Then, the world price is determined as p M A 1 2 XM 1 2 X M = 1 2 (c + c ). Since each country s autarkic price is p = (A + c)/2 and p (A + c )/2, respectively, we can see p > p M and p > p M, i.e., the world price under both countries schemes is 20
21 lower than each country s autarkic price. Hence, the consumer in each country becomes better off and subsidizes each country s monopolist so as to keep the consumer s utility at an autarkic level. Therefore, the next task is to examine whether the monopolist s profit is greater than the autarkic level. Substituting (27) into (20) and (24) yields each monopolist s profit after both countries implement the scheme: π M = 1 [ 2 (c c) (A c) + 1 ] 2 (c c) [(A c) + (A c )] 2 1 (A c)2 8 F π M = 1 [ 2 (c c) (A c ) 1 ] 2 (c c) [(A c) + (A c )] (A c ) 2 F. (28) Subtracting (5) from (28), the difference between the home autarkic profit and postscheme free trade profit becomes π π M π = 1 [ 2 (c c) (A c) + 1 ] 2 (c c) [(A c) + (A c )] (A c)2, (29) while the foreign monopolist s counterpart is π π M π = 1 [ 2 (c c) (A c ) 1 ] 2 (c c) [(A c) + (A c )] (A c ) 2. (30) 21
22 Fortunately, it can be shown that both π and π become positive for any A, c and c, which is summarized in: Proposition 4. Assume that both countries introduce the income redistribution scheme Γ and Γ, respectively. Then, it is possible to make nobody in each country worse off in postscheme free trade than in autarky. Proof. The proof follows that of Proposition 2. Setting c = αc + (1 α)a, α (0, 1), substituting this into (29) and (30) and rearrangements give π = π = [ 1 4 (1 α)(3 α) (1 + α)2 3 8] (A c) 2 [ 1 4 (1 α)(3α 1) (1 + α)2 3 8 α2 ] (A c) 2. The terms in the square brackets in each equation are simplified to 1 4 (1 α)(3 α) (1 + α)2 3 8 = 3 8 α2 3 4 α g(α) 1 4 (1 α)(3α 1) (1 + α)2 3 8 α2 = 1 2 α2 3 4 α h(α). Again, both g(α) and h(α) turn out to be positive for any α (0, 1) since their discriminant is negative, which establishes π > 0 and π > 0. The intuitions for Proposition 4 can be explained by referring to Figure 2. When both 22
23 countries introduce the scheme, both monopolists have an incentive to expand the output and the international market becomes more competitive since both reaction curves shift up. The resulting world price is lower than each country s autarkic price and hence the consumer gains and subsidizes the monopolist. As a result, both countries monopolists can increase profits despite the declining price. Thus, free trade with the multilateral introduction of the scheme is Paretoimproving for both countries. Remark 3. Proposition 4 has an important implication in considering gains from trade. As Proposition 1 says, the distribution of trading gains is extremely biased towards one country and it is impossible to remedy it through lumpsum compensation as Proposition 2 asserts. However, when both countries adopt the scheme, free trade can benefit both countries. Note that we have assumed that no policy coordination between countries exists although both agents in both countries gain from trade. Therefore, Proposition 4 stands out and it is the core message at the heart of Kemp and Shimomura s (2001) gainsfromtrade proposition; there exists a domestic scheme of income redistribution such that no agents become worse off in a free trade CournotNash equilibrium than in an autarkic equilibrium. 23
24 7 Summary and Conclusions This paper has constructed a twoagent model of international duopoly and increasing returns to address gains and losses from trade. The main results can be summarized as follows. (1) Under certain conditions related to the monopolists cost structure, laissezfaire free trade worsens all agents welfare in one country, say, the home country, (2) lumpsum compensation can no longer achieve a Paretoimprovement, and (3) nevertheless, even such a country can still find an appropriate redistributive scheme which takes a nonlumpsum form and makes nobody worse off in postscheme free trade than in autarky. Our argument is comparable to the argument for protection by Graham (1923). As is wellknown, he claimed that protection could be justified in the presence of increasing returns. Ethier (1982) discussed Graham s proposition by constructing a formal twocountry model with increasing returns. Although the present paper has considered internal economies of scale and imperfect competition, which differs from Ethier (1982), our argument could provide some insight into Graham s assertion. Let us close the paper by making several comments on extensions of this study. First, we must recognize that the clearcut results in this paper depend on a highly specified model. Though it is quite difficult to extend our analysis to the general model in Kemp and Shimomura (2001), applications to the twocountry, twogood, twofactor models of Markusen (1981), Lahiri and Ono (1995) and Shimomura (1998) may be possible. 24
25 Second, we have assumed that no strategic interaction between each country s government occurs. When such a factor is allowed for, the model is reformulated as a twostage game one like that of strategic trade policy. Thus, this task may useful in reconciling the issues of potential gains from trade and strategic trade policy. Third, our analysis is confined to CournotNash oligopoly. To our knowledge, Clarke and Collie (2003) are the first to examine gains from trade under differentiated Bertrand oligopoly. The extension to their analysis is of great interest and importance. The final point is related the work by Collie (1996), who examined the welfare consequences of unilateral free trade in a model of market segmentation; only one country, say, the home country allows imports from the foreign firm. Collie s idea was not explored in this paper since we have assumed the existence of an integrated market. All of these extensions are left as future topics of research. 25
26 References [1] Brander, J. A. and B. J. Spencer (1981), Tariffs and the Extraction of Foreign Monopoly Rents under Potential Entry, Canadian Journal of Economics, 14, [2] Clarke, R. and D. R. Collie (2003), Product Differentiation and the Gains from Trade under Bertrand Duopoly, Canadian Journal of Economics, 36, [3] Collie, D. R. (1996), Gains and Losses from Unilateral Free Trade under Oligopoly, Recherches Economiques de Louvain, 62, [4] Dixit, A. K. and A. S. Kyle (1985), The Use of Protection and Subsidies for Entry Promotion and Deterrence, American Economic Review, 75, [5] Ethier, W. J. (1982), Decreasing Costs in International Trade and Frank Graham s Argument for Protection, Econometrica, 50, [6] Fujiwara, K. (2004), The Banana Republic and Losses from Trade, Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University Working Paper Series, No [7] Graham, F. D. (1923), Some Aspects of Protection Further Considered, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 36, [8] Helpman, E. and P. R. Krugman (1985), Market Structure and Foreign Trade, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 26
27 [9] Ito, M., K. Kiyono, M. OkunoFujiwara and K. Suzumura (1991), Economic Analysis of Industrial Policy, Academic Press, San Diego, California. [10] Kemp, M. C. (1962), The Gain from International Trade, Economic Journal, 72, [11] Kemp, M. C. and K. Shimomura (2001), Gains from Trade in a CournotNash General Equilibrium, Japanese Economic Review, 52, [12] Kemp, M. C. and H. Y. Wan Jr. (1972), The Gains from Free Trade, International Economic Review, 13, [13] Kemp, M. C. and K. Wong (1995), The Gains from Trade when Markets Are Possibly Incomplete, in M. C. Kemp, The Gains from Trade and the Gains from Aid, Routledge, London, [14] Lahiri, S. and Y. Ono (1995), The Role of Free Entry in an Oligopolistic Heckscher Ohlin Model, International Economic Review, 36, [15] Markusen, J. R. (1981), Trade and the Gains from Trade with Imperfect Competition, Journal of International Economics, 11,
28 [16] Markusen, J. R. and J. R. Melvin (1984), The GainsfromTrade Theorem with Increasing Returns to Scale, in H. Kierzkowski, Monopolistic Competition and International Trade, Clarendon Press, Oxford, [17] Mills, D. E. and W. Smith (1996), It Pays to Be Different: Endogenous Heterogeneity of Firms in an Oligopoly, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 14, [18] Newbery, D. M. G. and J. E. Stiglitz (1984), Pareto Inferior Trade, Review of Economic Studies, 51, [19] Samuelson, P. A. (1939), The Gains from International Trade, Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 5, [20] Shimomura, K. (1998), Factor Income Function and an Oligopolistic Heckscher Ohlin Model of International Trade, Economics Letters, 61, [21] Shy, O. (1988), A General Equilibrium Model of Pareto Inferior Trade, Journal of International Economics, 25, [22] Wan, H. Y., Jr. (1965), Maximum Bonus: An Alternative Measure for Trading Gains, Review of Economic Studies, 32,
29 [23] Wong, K. (1995), International Trade in Goods and Factor Mobility, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 29
30 X 2(A c) B A c N C D O π = 0 E 2F A c 2(A c ) Figure 1: X 30
31 X 45 N M T O Figure 2: X 31
Gains from trade in a Hotelling model of differentiated duopoly
Gains from trade in a Hotelling model of differentiated duopoly Kenji Fujiwara School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University and Department of Economics, McGill University August 8, 009 Abstract Constructing
More informationThe Greater the Differences, the Greater the Gains?
The Greater the Differences, the Greater the Gains? Wilfred J. Ethier Department of Economics University of Pennsylvania First version: 30 November 2007 This printing: 21 April 2009 The Greater the Differences,
More informationOn the Interconnection of Networks and Gains from Trade in Business Services
Toru Kikuchi / Journal of Economic Research 8 (2003) 69{76 69 On the Interconnection of Networks and Gains from Trade in Business Services Toru Kikuchi 1 Kobe University Received 1 April 2003; accepted
More informationUnionized Oligopoly and Outsourcing
68 JCC Journal of CENTRUM Cathedra by Arsen Melkumian* Ph. D. in Economics, West Virginia University, USA Assistant Professor in Economics, Western Illinois University, USA Abstract The interaction between
More informationAdditional Exercises. The Ricardian Model
Additional Exercises The Ricardian Model 1 Suppose Country A and Country B can both produce bicycles and computers Assume also that Country A s opportunity cost of a computer is three bicycles, and Country
More informationManagerial Economics & Business Strategy Chapter 9. Basic Oligopoly Models
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy Chapter 9 Basic Oligopoly Models Overview I. Conditions for Oligopoly? II. Role of Strategic Interdependence III. Profit Maximization in Four Oligopoly Settings
More informationCan a LumpSum Transfer Make Everyone Enjoy the Gains. from Free Trade?
Can a LumpSum Transfer Make Everyone Enjoy te Gains from Free Trade? Yasukazu Icino Department of Economics, Konan University June 30, 2010 Abstract I examine lumpsum transfer rules to redistribute te
More informationChapter 9 Basic Oligopoly Models
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy Chapter 9 Basic Oligopoly Models McGrawHill/Irwin Copyright 2010 by the McGrawHill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Overview I. Conditions for Oligopoly?
More informationUnraveling versus Unraveling: A Memo on Competitive Equilibriums and Trade in Insurance Markets
Unraveling versus Unraveling: A Memo on Competitive Equilibriums and Trade in Insurance Markets Nathaniel Hendren January, 2014 Abstract Both Akerlof (1970) and Rothschild and Stiglitz (1976) show that
More informationINTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND TRADE Vol.I  Economics of Scale and Imperfect Competition  Bharati Basu
ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND IMPERFECT COMPETITION Bharati Department of Economics, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, USA Keywords: Economies of scale, economic geography, external economies,
More informationForeign Penetration and Domestic Competition
March 29, 2015 Foreign Penetration and Domestic Competition By Sajal Lahiri and Yingyi Tsai Abstract We consider an oligopolistic model with a number of domestic and and a number of foreign firms, and
More informationOptimal election of qualities in the presence of externalities
Optimal election of qualities in the presence of externalities Dolores Garcia Maria Tugores October 2002 Abstract In this paper we obtain the quality and the level of production that a certain sector would
More informationCARLETON ECONOMIC PAPERS
CEP 1414 Employment Gains from MinimumWage Hikes under Perfect Competition: A Simple GeneralEquilibrium Analysis Richard A. Brecher and Till Gross Carleton University November 2014 CARLETON ECONOMIC
More informationSocial efficiency of entry with market leaders
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Discussion Papers in Economics Discussion Paper No. 10/07 Social efficiency of entry with market leaders Arijit Mukherjee August 2010 2010 DP 10/07 Social efficiency of entry with
More informationDeterminants of International Trade in the HeckscherOhlin Samuelson Model. by Christopher H. Dick
Determinants of International Trade in the HeckscherOhlin Samuelson Model by Christopher H. Dick An Honours essay submitted to Carleton University in fulfillment of the requirements for the course ECON
More informationDocuments de Travail du Centre d Economie de la Sorbonne
Documents de Travail du Centre d Economie de la Sorbonne Trade Liberalization and Optimal R&D Policies with Process Innovation Thanh LE, Cuong LE VAN 014.79 Maison des Sciences Économiques, 10611 boulevard
More informationGains from Trade. Christopher P. Chambers and Takashi Hayashi. March 25, 2013. Abstract
Gains from Trade Christopher P. Chambers Takashi Hayashi March 25, 2013 Abstract In a market design context, we ask whether there exists a system of transfers regulations whereby gains from trade can always
More informationPareto gains from trade: a dynamic counterexample
Economics Letters 83 (2004) 199 204 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Pareto gains from trade: a dynamic counterexample Gerald Willmann* Department of Economics, Institute für VWL, Universität zu Kiel,
More informationEconomics 165 Winter 2002 Problem Set #2
Economics 165 Winter 2002 Problem Set #2 Problem 1: Consider the monopolistic competition model. Say we are looking at sailboat producers. Each producer has fixed costs of 10 million and marginal costs
More informationAll these models were characterized by constant returns to scale technologies and perfectly competitive markets.
Economies of scale and international trade In the models discussed so far, differences in prices across countries (the source of gains from trade) were attributed to differences in resources/technology.
More informationSolution to Selected Questions: CHAPTER 12 MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION AND OLIGOPOLY
Chulalongkorn University: BBA International Program, Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy 900 (Section ) Chairat Aemkulwat Economics I: Microeconomics Spring 05 Solution to Selected Questions: CHAPTER MONOPOLISTIC
More informationThe SpecificFactors Model: HO Model in the Short Run
The SpecificFactors Model: HO Model in the Short Run Rahul Giri Contact Address: Centro de Investigacion Economica, Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo de Mexico (ITAM). Email: rahul.giri@itam.mx In this
More informationThe gains from specialisation and comparative advantage *
The gains from specialisation and comparative advantage * Kwok Tong Soo Lancaster University February 2011 Abstract This paper develops a model of international trade which combines Ricardian comparative
More informationEconomies of Scale, Imperfect Competition, and International Trade
Economies of Scale, Imperfect Competition, and International Trade Chapter 6 Intermediate International Trade International Economics, 5 th ed., by Krugman and Obstfeld 1 Overview patterns of trade can
More informationECON 312: Oligopolisitic Competition 1. Industrial Organization Oligopolistic Competition
ECON 312: Oligopolisitic Competition 1 Industrial Organization Oligopolistic Competition Both the monopoly and the perfectly competitive market structure has in common is that neither has to concern itself
More informationWeek 3: Monopoly and Duopoly
EC202, University of Warwick, Term 2 1 of 34 Week 3: Monopoly and Duopoly Dr Daniel Sgroi Reading: 1. Osborne Sections 3.1 and 3.2; 2. Snyder & Nicholson, chapters 14 and 15; 3. Sydsæter & Hammond, Essential
More information1 st Exam. 7. Cindy's crossprice elasticity of magazine demand with respect to the price of books is
1 st Exam 1. Marginal utility measures: A) the total utility of all your consumption B) the total utility divided by the price of the good C) the increase in utility from consuming one additional unit
More informationHyunsoo JI and Ichiroh DAITOH Tohoku University. May 25, 2003. Abstract
Interconnection Agreement between Internet Service Providers and the Optimal Policy Intervention: The Case of Cournottype Competition under Network Externalities Hyunsoo JI and Ichiroh DAITOH Tohoku
More informationMarket Power and Efficiency in Card Payment Systems: A Comment on Rochet and Tirole
Market Power and Efficiency in Card Payment Systems: A Comment on Rochet and Tirole Luís M. B. Cabral New York University and CEPR November 2005 1 Introduction Beginning with their seminal 2002 paper,
More informationUniversity of Hong Kong ECON6021 Microeconomic Analysis Oligopoly
1 Introduction University of Hong Kong ECON6021 Microeconomic Analysis Oligopoly There are many real life examples that the participants have nonnegligible influence on the market. In such markets, every
More informationWeek 7  Game Theory and Industrial Organisation
Week 7  Game Theory and Industrial Organisation The Cournot and Bertrand models are the two basic templates for models of oligopoly; industry structures with a small number of firms. There are a number
More informationECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTER DISCUSSION PAPER. Partial Privatization and MarketOpening Policies: A Mixed Oligopoly Approach. Lihua Han Hikaru Ogawa
ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTER DISCUSSION PAPER ESeries No.E073 Partial Privatization and MarketOpening Policies: A Mixed Oligopoly Approach by Lihua Han Hikaru Ogawa June 2007 ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTER GRADUATE
More informationGains from Trade: The Role of Composition
Gains from Trade: The Role of Composition Wyatt Brooks University of Notre Dame Pau Pujolas McMaster University February, 2015 Abstract In this paper we use production and trade data to measure gains from
More informationOligopoly: How do firms behave when there are only a few competitors? These firms produce all or most of their industry s output.
Topic 8 Chapter 13 Oligopoly and Monopolistic Competition Econ 203 Topic 8 page 1 Oligopoly: How do firms behave when there are only a few competitors? These firms produce all or most of their industry
More informationSpencer, Barbara and James A Brander, strategic trade policy strategic trade policy
Spencer, Barbara and James A Brander, strategic trade policy, SN Durlauf and L. E. Blume, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, forthcoming, Palgrave Macmillan, reproduced with permission of Palgrave
More informationMidterm Exam  Answers. November 3, 2005
Page 1 of 10 November 3, 2005 Answer in blue book. Use the point values as a guide to how extensively you should answer each question, and budget your time accordingly. 1. (8 points) A friend, upon learning
More informationR&D cooperation with unitelastic demand
R&D cooperation with unitelastic demand Georg Götz This draft: September 005. Abstract: This paper shows that R&D cooperation leads to the monopoly outcome in terms of price and quantity if demand is
More informationtariff versus quota Equivalence and its breakdown
Q000013 Bhagwati (1965) first demonstrated that if perfect competition prevails in all markets, a tariff and import quota are equivalent in the sense that an explicit tariff reproduces an import level
More informationInternational Economic Relations
International Economic Relations Prof. Murphy Chapter 8 Krugman and Obstfeld 1. The import demand equation, MD, is found by subtracting the home supply equation from the home demand equation. This results
More informationMoral Hazard. Itay Goldstein. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Moral Hazard Itay Goldstein Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 1 PrincipalAgent Problem Basic problem in corporate finance: separation of ownership and control: o The owners of the firm are typically
More informationTrade and Resources: The HeckscherOhlin Model. Professor Ralph Ossa 33501 International Commercial Policy
Trade and Resources: The HeckscherOhlin Model Professor Ralph Ossa 33501 International Commercial Policy Introduction Remember that countries trade either because they are different from one another or
More informationWTO ELearning. WTO ELearning Copyright August 2012. The WTO and Trade Economics: Theory and Policy
WTO ELearning WTO ELearning Copyright August 2012 The WTO and Trade Economics: Theory and Policy 1 Introduction This is a multimedia course on The WTO and Trade Economics: Theory and Policy. The course
More information1.4 Hidden Information and Price Discrimination 1
1.4 Hidden Information and Price Discrimination 1 To be included in: Elmar Wolfstetter. Topics in Microeconomics: Industrial Organization, Auctions, and Incentives. Cambridge University Press, new edition,
More information9.1 Cournot and Bertrand Models with Homogeneous Products
1 Chapter 9 Quantity vs. Price Competition in Static Oligopoly Models We have seen how price and output are determined in perfectly competitive and monopoly markets. Most markets are oligopolistic, however,
More informationNotes on indifference curve analysis of the choice between leisure and labor, and the deadweight loss of taxation. Jon Bakija
Notes on indifference curve analysis of the choice between leisure and labor, and the deadweight loss of taxation Jon Bakija This example shows how to use a budget constraint and indifference curve diagram
More informationOnline Supplementary Material
Online Supplementary Material The Supplementary Material includes 1. An alternative investment goal for fiscal capacity. 2. The relaxation of the monopoly assumption in favor of an oligopoly market. 3.
More informationIntermediate Microeconomics Video Handbook, IM6 Faculty, 2014
A. MATH TOPICS 1. Calculus Review Machina 2. Elasticity Machina 3. Level Curves Machina a. Level Curves of a Function Machina b. Slopes of Level Curves Machina 4. Scale Properties of Functions a. Scale
More information1. Suppose demand for a monopolist s product is given by P = 300 6Q
Solution for June, Micro Part A Each of the following questions is worth 5 marks. 1. Suppose demand for a monopolist s product is given by P = 300 6Q while the monopolist s marginal cost is given by MC
More informationTransboundary Pollution and the Gains from Trade. Michael Benarroch and Henry Thille
Transboundary Pollution and the Gains from Trade Michael Benarroch and Henry Thille Department of Economics University of Winnipeg 515 Portage Avenue Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3B 2E9 Paper for presentation
More informationSubsidies in oligopoly markets: a welfare comparison between symmetric and asymmetric costs
Subsidies in oligopoly markets: a welfare comparison between symmetric and asymmetric costs Stephen F. Hamilton and Rickard Sandin Oligopolistic industries generally produce less than is socially desirable.
More informationTHE NONEQUIVALENCE OF EXPORT AND IMPORT QUOTAS
THE NONEQIVALENCE OF EXPORT AND IMPORT QOTAS Harvey E. Lapan *, Professor Department of Economics 83 Heady Hall Iowa State niversity Ames, IA, 500 JeanPhilippe Gervais Assistant Professor Department
More informationOligopoly: Introduction. Oligopoly. Oligopoly Models. Oligopoly: Analysis. ECON 370: Microeconomic Theory Summer 2004 Rice University Stanley Gilbert
Oligopoly: Introduction Oligopoly ECON 370: Microeconomic Theory Summer 00 Rice University Stanley Gilbert Alternative Models of Imperfect Competition Monopoly and monopolistic competition Duopoly  two
More informationEquilibrium: Illustrations
Draft chapter from An introduction to game theory by Martin J. Osborne. Version: 2002/7/23. Martin.Osborne@utoronto.ca http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne Copyright 1995 2002 by Martin J. Osborne.
More informationChapter 3 Specific Factors and Income Distribution
Chapter 3 Specific Factors and Income Distribution Prepared by Iordanis Petsas To Accompany International Economics: Theory and Policy, Sixth Edition by Paul R. Krugman and Maurice Obstfeld Chapter Organization
More informationIntroduction. Countries engage in international trade for two basic reasons:
Introduction Countries engage in international trade for two basic reasons: Countries trade because they differ either in their resources or in technology. Countries trade in order to achieve scale economies
More informationKRUGMAN MODEL  MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION
KRUGMAN MODEL  MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION Overview: This model uses economies of scale, differentiated products and heterogenous preferences to explain intraindustry trade. The essence of the model is as
More informationPrice competition with homogenous products: The Bertrand duopoly model [Simultaneous move price setting duopoly]
ECON9 (Spring 0) & 350 (Tutorial ) Chapter Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly (Part ) Price competition with homogenous products: The Bertrand duopoly model [Simultaneous move price setting duopoly]
More informationOligopoly and Trade. Notes for Oxford M.Phil. International Trade. J. Peter Neary. University of Oxford. November 26, 2009
Oligopoly and Trade Notes for Oxford M.Phil. International Trade J. Peter Neary University of Oxford November 26, 2009 J.P. Neary (University of Oxford) Oligopoly and Trade November 26, 2009 1 / 11 Oligopoly
More informationLumpsum Versus NonLumpsum Redistribution: A Second Glance MURRAY C. KEMP a, HENRY Y.WAN, Jr b
Lumpsum Versus NonLumpsum Redistribution: A Second Glance MURRAY C. KEMP a, HENRY Y.WAN, Jr b a University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia b Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA Abstract
More informationBertrand with complements
Microeconomics, 2 nd Edition David Besanko and Ron Braeutigam Chapter 13: Market Structure and Competition Prepared by Katharine Rockett Dieter Balkenborg Todd Kaplan Miguel Fonseca Bertrand with complements
More informationECO364  International Trade
ECO364  International Trade Chapter 2  Ricardo Christian Dippel University of Toronto Summer 2009 Christian Dippel (University of Toronto) ECO364  International Trade Summer 2009 1 / 73 : The Ricardian
More informationLecture 28 Economics 181 International Trade
Lecture 28 Economics 181 International Trade I. Introduction to Strategic Trade Policy If much of world trade is in differentiated products (ie manufactures) characterized by increasing returns to scale,
More informationExercises Lecture 8: Trade policies
Exercises Lecture 8: Trade policies Exercise 1, from KOM 1. Home s demand and supply curves for wheat are: D = 100 0 S = 0 + 0 Derive and graph Home s import demand schedule. What would the price of wheat
More informationPARETO GAINS FROM TRADE
PARETO GAINS FROM TRADE Giovanni Facchini and Gerald Willmann 1 ABSTRACT In this paper we review the literature on Pareto gains from trade. We start by discussing the distributional implications of trade
More informationThe New Trade Theory. Monopoly and oligopoly in trade. Luca De Benedictis 1. Topic 3. 1 University of Macerata
The New Trade Theory Monopoly and oligopoly in trade Luca De Benedictis 1 1 University of Macerata Topic 3 A new generation of models Main characteristics and insights: Countries do not trade, rms do.
More informationThe MarketClearing Model
Chapter 5 The MarketClearing Model Most of the models that we use in this book build on two common assumptions. First, we assume that there exist markets for all goods present in the economy, and that
More informationAirport privatization competition including domestic airline. networks
Airport privatization competition including domestic airline networks Akio Kawasaki Faculty of Education, Kagoshima University Abstract This paper addresses the problem of hub airport privatization, similar
More informationChapter 4. Specific Factors and Income Distribution
Chapter 4 Specific Factors and Income Distribution Introduction So far we learned that countries are overall better off under free trade. If trade is so good for the economy, why is there such opposition?
More informationECONOMICS 336Y5Y Fall/Winter 2011/12. PUBLIC ECONOMICS Spring Term Test Sample Solutions Feb. 28, 2014
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MISSISSAUGA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS ECONOMICS 336Y5Y Fall/Winter 2011/12 PUBLIC ECONOMICS Spring Term Test Sample Solutions Feb. 28, 2014 Please fill in your full name and student
More informationThe vertical differentiation model in the insurance market: costs structure and equilibria analysis
The vertical differentiation model in the insurance market: costs structure and equilibria analysis Denis V. Kuzyutin 1, Maria V. Nikitina, Nadezhda V. Smirnova and Ludmila N. Razgulyaeva 1 St.Petersburg
More informationThis paper gives a simple representation of how oligopoly affects the general theory of
REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS Manuscript No: #2097, Acceptance Date, August 31, 2002 International TradeUnder Oligopoly Conditions* Roy J. Ruffin RRH: TRADE UNDER OLIGOPOLY LRH: Roy Ruffin Abstract
More informationTRADE WITH SCALE ECONOMIES AND IMPERFECT COMPETITION (CONT'D)
ECO 352 Spring 2010 No. 14 Mar. 25 OLIGOPOLY TRADE WITH SCALE ECONOMIES AND IMPERFECT COMPETITION (CONT'D) Example using numbers from Precept Week 7 slides, pp. 2, 3. Ingredients: Industry with inverse
More informationMarket Structure: Duopoly and Oligopoly
WSG10 7/7/03 4:24 PM Page 145 10 Market Structure: Duopoly and Oligopoly OVERVIEW An oligopoly is an industry comprising a few firms. A duopoly, which is a special case of oligopoly, is an industry consisting
More informationChapter 12 Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly
Chapter Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly Review Questions. What are the characteristics of a monopolistically competitive market? What happens to the equilibrium price and quantity in such a market
More informationHeterogeneous firms and dynamic gains from trade
Heterogeneous firms and dynamic gains from trade Julian Emami Namini Department of Economics, University of DuisburgEssen, Campus Essen, Germany Email: emami@vwl.uniessen.de 14th March 2005 Abstract
More informationLabor Economics, 14.661. Lecture 3: Education, Selection, and Signaling
Labor Economics, 14.661. Lecture 3: Education, Selection, and Signaling Daron Acemoglu MIT November 3, 2011. Daron Acemoglu (MIT) Education, Selection, and Signaling November 3, 2011. 1 / 31 Introduction
More informationCHAPTER 18 MARKETS WITH MARKET POWER Principles of Economics in Context (Goodwin et al.)
CHAPTER 18 MARKETS WITH MARKET POWER Principles of Economics in Context (Goodwin et al.) Chapter Summary Now that you understand the model of a perfectly competitive market, this chapter complicates the
More informationUnit 5.3: Perfect Competition
Unit 5.3: Perfect Competition Michael Malcolm June 18, 2011 1 Market Structures Economists usually talk about four market structures. From most competitive to least competitive, they are: perfect competition,
More informationBuyer Search Costs and Endogenous Product Design
Buyer Search Costs and Endogenous Product Design Dmitri Kuksov kuksov@haas.berkeley.edu University of California, Berkeley August, 2002 Abstract In many cases, buyers must incur search costs to find the
More informationEconomics 100 Exam 2
Name: 1. During the long run: Economics 100 Exam 2 A. Output is limited because of the law of diminishing returns B. The scale of operations cannot be changed C. The firm must decide how to use the current
More informationPrices versus Exams as Strategic Instruments for Competing Universities
Prices versus Exams as Strategic Instruments for Competing Universities Elena Del Rey and Laura Romero October 004 Abstract In this paper we investigate the optimal choice of prices and/or exams by universities
More informationConditions for Efficiency in Package Pricing
Conditions for Efficiency in Package Pricing Babu Nahata Department of Economics University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA. email: nahata@louisville.edu and Serguei Kokovin and Evgeny Zhelobodko
More informationLobbying on Entry Regulations under Imperfect. Competition
Lobbying on Entry Regulations under Imperfect Competition Dapeng CAI a and Shinji KOBAYASHI b a Corresponding Author. Institute for Advanced Research, Nagoya University, Furocho, Chikusaku, Nagoya, 46486,
More informationWhy do merchants accept payment cards?
Why do merchants accept payment cards? Julian Wright National University of Singapore Abstract This note explains why merchants accept expensive payment cards when merchants are Cournot competitors. The
More informationChapter 21: The Discounted Utility Model
Chapter 21: The Discounted Utility Model 21.1: Introduction This is an important chapter in that it introduces, and explores the implications of, an empirically relevant utility function representing intertemporal
More informationC H A P T E R 12. Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly CHAPTER OUTLINE
C H A P T E R 12 Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly CHAPTER OUTLINE 12.1 Monopolistic Competition 12.2 Oligopoly 12.3 Price Competition 12.4 Competition versus Collusion: The Prisoners Dilemma 12.5
More informationPartial Equilibrium: Positive Analysis
Partial Equilibrium: Positive Analysis This Version: November 28, 2009 First Version: December 1, 2008. In this Chapter we consider consider the interaction between different agents and firms, and solve
More informationSannaRandaccio LECTURE 22 : NON TARIFF BARRIERS
SannaRandaccio LECTURE : NON TARIFF BARRIERS IMPORT QUOTA DEF Partial euilibrium effects Import uota versus tariff (perfect competition) Import uota versus tariff (monopoly) Tariffication in the Uruguay
More informationSOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS. Econ 530 Foreign Trade
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CARBONDALE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Session Fall, 2015 Professor Sajal Lahiri Econ 530 Foreign Trade Outline Syllabus: This course is concerned with the key theoretical and
More informationWarranty Designs and Brand Reputation Analysis in a Duopoly
Warranty Designs and Brand Reputation Analysis in a Duopoly Kunpeng Li * Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, U.S.A. Qin Geng Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, Kutztown, PA, U.S.A. Bin Shao
More informationOptimal Age Specific Income Taxation
Optimal Age Specific Income Taxation JeanMarie Lozachmeur 1 October, 2005 1 GREMAQ, University of Toulouse. Mailing: Gremaq, 21 Allée de Brienne F 31000 Toulouse. Email: jeanmarie.lozachmeur@univtlse1.fr.
More informationRegret and Rejoicing Effects on Mixed Insurance *
Regret and Rejoicing Effects on Mixed Insurance * Yoichiro Fujii, Osaka Sangyo University Mahito Okura, Doshisha Women s College of Liberal Arts Yusuke Osaki, Osaka Sangyo University + Abstract This papers
More informationA.2 The Prevalence of Transfer Pricing in International Trade
19. Transfer Prices A. The Transfer Price Problem A.1 What is a Transfer Price? 19.1 When there is a international transaction between say two divisions of a multinational enterprise that has establishments
More informationSchooling, Political Participation, and the Economy. (Online Supplementary Appendix: Not for Publication)
Schooling, Political Participation, and the Economy Online Supplementary Appendix: Not for Publication) Filipe R. Campante Davin Chor July 200 Abstract In this online appendix, we present the proofs for
More information14.581 MIT PhD International Trade Lecture 9: Increasing Returns to Scale and Monopolistic Competition (Theory)
14.581 MIT PhD International Trade Lecture 9: Increasing Returns to Scale and Monopolistic Competition (Theory) Dave Donaldson Spring 2011 Today s Plan 1 Introduction to New Trade Theory 2 Monopolistically
More informationTwo Papers on Internet Connectivity and Quality. Abstract
Two Papers on Internet Connectivity and Quality ROBERTO ROSON Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Università Ca Foscari di Venezia, Venice, Italy. Abstract I review two papers, addressing the issue of
More informationWorking Paper Series
RGEA Universidade de Vigo http://webs.uvigo.es/rgea Working Paper Series A Market Game Approach to Differential Information Economies Guadalupe Fugarolas, Carlos HervésBeloso, Emma Moreno García and
More informationMARKET STRUCTURE AND INSIDER TRADING. Keywords: Insider Trading, Stock prices, Correlated signals, Kyle model
MARKET STRUCTURE AND INSIDER TRADING WASSIM DAHER AND LEONARD J. MIRMAN Abstract. In this paper we examine the real and financial effects of two insiders trading in a static Jain Mirman model (Henceforth
More informationPrice Dispersion. Ed Hopkins Economics University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9JY, UK. November, 2006. Abstract
Price Dispersion Ed Hopkins Economics University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9JY, UK November, 2006 Abstract A brief survey of the economics of price dispersion, written for the New Palgrave Dictionary
More informationEconomics 101 Fall 2013 Answers to Homework 5 Due Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Economics 101 Fall 2013 Answers to Homework 5 Due Tuesday, November 19, 2013 Directions: The homework will be collected in a box before the lecture. Please place your name, TA name and section number on
More information