The decision to export: Firm heterogeneity,sunk costs,and spatial concentration

Integrating perspectives of the Uppsala model of internationalization process, international new ventures and trade theories of heterogeneous firms, this paper develops a dynamic discrete-choice model of export decisions by a profit-maximizing firm. Empirical analyses based on a panel data set of Chinese firms show that sunk costs, productivity, firm size, foreign ownership, industry competition and spatial concentration are positively associated with the decision to export, while state ownership has a negative association with the probability of exporting. However, we find that the relationships are not always uniform and depend on firm-specific idiosyncrasies. The results show that foreign-invested firms and large firms (regardless of ownership) rely on productivity performance related advantages for expanding overseas, while domestic firms, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises, build competitive advantage by leveraging agglomeration economies and the associated spillovers. Our results highlight the role of firm heterogeneity, sunk costs and spatial concentration in shaping the export behavior of firms.     

Scale economies,entry, and welfare

This study shows how scale economies, initial size differences among firms, potential competition, and adjustment costs may influence the entry of firms into a dynamic oligopoly. It also examines the effects of these factors on the final size distribution of firms in an industry, and on the welfare levels of consumers and producers. We find that low to moderate scale economies are insufficient for Cournot-Nash competition to drive small firms from the market. Only when scale economies are quite high will the distribution of firm sizes become degenerate. Potential competition and the size of incumbent firms' capital stocks are additional barriers to entry. The welfare conclusion is that there may be a government role to preserve potential competition, but also to dissuade small firms from entering certain markets where there are economies of scale.     

Capacity Constrained Firms and Expansion Subsidies: Should Governments Avoid Generous Subsidies?

This paper examines entry deterrence and signaling when an incumbent firm experiences capacity constraints. Our results show that if the costs that constrained and unconstrained incumbents incur when expanding their facilities are substantially different, separating equilibria can be supported under large parameter values whereby information is perfectly transmitted to the entrant. If, in contrast, both types of incumbent face similar expansion costs, subsidies that reduce expansion costs can help move the industry from a pooling to a separating equilibrium with associated efficient entry. Nonetheless, our results demonstrate that if subsidies are very generous entry patterns remain unaffected, suggesting a potential disadvantage of policies that significantly reduce firms’ expansion costs.     

The Optimal Bargain between the Elite and the Majority: Party and Managerial Ideologies as Devices to Control Politicians and Managers

We investigate problems that arise in aligning office-seeking politicians with social welfare in situations where society (or the firm) is composed of groups of different sizes with different preferences. Similar alignment issues arise in corporations where management must respond to the demands of multiple constituencies. The problems arise because the agents have a suboptimal incentive to cater to majority preferences in situations with low participation costs and to elite minority preferences in situations with high participation costs. Our paper is mainly devoted to democratic politics, in which there is no group of residual claimants who are aligned to social welfare. In democratic politics, we claim that an efficient elite-majority bargain involves the creation of competing party ideologies that serve to check opportunism by majorities in low participation-cost scenarios and by elites in high participation-cost scenarios, and in doing so align politicians with social welfare. We suggest that in non-profit firms that also lack a residual claimant, an efficient elite-majority bargain involves a parallel creation of managerial ideologies, and that such managerial ideologies may also have utility in the for-profit firm as a supplementary device to foster alignment with firm value.     

Asymmetric Collusion with Growing Demand

We characterize collusion sustainability in markets where demand growth triggers the entry of a new firm whose efficiency may be different from the efficiency of the incumbents. We find that the profit-sharing rule that firms adopt to divide the cartel profit after entry is a key determinant of the incentives for collusion (before and after entry). In particular, if the incumbents and the entrant are very asymmetric, collusion without side-payments cannot be sustained. However, if firms divide joint profits through bargaining and are sufficiently patient, collusion is sustainable even if firms are very asymmetric.     

Entry deterrence/accommodation with imperfect strategic thinking capability

Both through empirical research and laboratory experiments it has been shown that managers are heterogeneous in strategic thinking-i.e., not all the managers can accurately conjecture their competitors’ behavior and actions. In this paper, we examine the entry deterrence/accommodation strategy of an incumbent firm facing a potential entrant that may behave less strategically than the incumbent in the way of conjecturing competitors’ actions and beliefs. We adapt the Cognitive Hierarchy model to capture this heterogeneity among the managers of the entrant firm and the incumbent firm. Surprisingly, we show that the incumbent can deter entry by investing in expanding the market size and the competition may increase the incumbent’s incentive to invest in market expansion. If entry does occur, the market expansion in our model also benefits entrant comparing to the case without market expansion. This feature of our result sets it apart from the standard result in the entry deterrence literature, which tends to suggest that incumbent has to either over-invest in actions harmful to entrant if entry occurs. In our model investing in expanding the market size makes the entrant to update its belief about the incumbent’s strategic thinking capability downward and thus, decreases the entrant’s expected profitability, which in turn deters entry. Our research has important implications especially for emerging markets given that the lack of management talent is a particularly severe problem among local firms in emerging markets and multinational companies pioneer in the emerging markets with great market expansion opportunities have to face the potential entry of local companies.     

Who pays for switching costs?

Earlier work characterized pricing with switching costs as a dilemma between a short-term “harvesting” incentive to increase prices versus a long-term “investing” incentive to decrease prices. This paper shows that small switching costs may reduce firm profits and provide short-term incentives to lower rather than raise prices. We provide a simple expression which characterizes the impact of the introduction of switching costs on prices and profits for a general model. We then explore the impact of switching costs in a variety of specific examples which are special cases of our model. We emphasize the importance of a short term “compensating” effect on switching costs. When consumers switch in equilibrium, firms offset the costs of consumers that are switching into the firm. If switching costs are low, this compensating effect of switching costs causes even myopic firms to decrease prices. The incentive to decrease prices is even stronger for forward looking firms.     

Tie-in contracts with downstream competition

A tie-in contract has frequently come under scrutiny for its role as an exclusionary device. A firm that is a monopolist in a primary market can utilize such contracts to exclude a more efficient rival in a secondary market. When the firms sell through competing retailers, the leveraging firm may offer tie-in contracts to the retailers inducing them to purchase both primary and secondary products entirely from it such that the rival is excluded. We examine whether such tie-in contracts are profitable for an incumbent firm under different conditions of (i) the ability to commit to prices by the upstream firms and (ii) downstream competition among the retailers. We show that when retailers compete in prices, then regardless of whether the entrant is able to commit to its own prices, an exclusionary tie-in strategy is profitable (not profitable) for the incumbent when it is able (unable) to commit to prices. However, when retailers compete in quantities, the entrant’s commitment ability does matter. Specifically, an exclusionary tie-in strategy (i) may be unprofitable for an incumbent when both upstream firms are able to commit to their prices, depending on the degree of cost advantage of the entrant; (ii) is always profitable when it alone can commit to its price; and (iii) is unprofitable when both upstream firms cannot commit to their prices. Our results extend to situations where the products are complementary or substitutes and where the retailers may be asymmetric in nature.     

Environmental Policy,North-South Trade and FDI

We analyze trade between two countries, called the North and the South. There is one firm in each country and production costs are lower in the South. To serve foreign markets firms may export or engage in FDI. Both countries set tariffs on imported goods. We find that the implementation of an environmental policy by the South may affect the location decision of the Southern firm. When only the North sets an environmental tax, firms engage in FDI if the difference in costs between the two countries is low, otherwise the South exports and the Northern firm engages in FDI. If the South also sets an environmental tax, this does not restrict FDI by Northern firm, encourages FDI by the domestic firm, reduces its environmental damage and increases joint welfare. Finally, in equilibrium the South decides to implement an environmental policy and both firms engage in FDI.     

Endogenous Market Structures in the Presence of a Socially Responsible Firm

We consider the endogenous selection of strategic contracts in an asymmetric duopoly with substitutable goods. the duopoly comprises a typical managerial firm with a sales delegation and a socially responsible firm (CSR firm) with a linear combination of social welfare and quantity as its managerial delegation contract. In particular, we examine how the equilibrium market structure changes from the case wthere both firms adopt sales delegation contracts to the case wthere one of the firms becomes a CSR firm, after the owners of the firms select their strategic contracts. We show that two market structures that are asymmetric with respect to their strategic contracts can become equilibrium market structures under the pure strategic contract class. Furthermore, we consider a unique mixed strategy equilibrium to examine how the risk domination between the two asymmetric equilibrium market structures affects equilibrium selection. there, we find that the competition wthere the firm with the sales delegation and the CSR firm have a price contract and a quantity contract, respectively, risk-dominates the competition wthere the firms have a quantity contract and a price contract, respectively. Finally, by deriving the order of social welfare among the four subgames, we show that the social incentive does not coincide with the private incentive in the robust equilibrium with respect to risk domination in the endogenous selection game of the strategic contracts of the asymmetric duopoly with the firm with a sales delegation and the CSR firm.     

One‐Way Compatibility,Two‐Way Compatibility and Entry in Network Industries

We study the strategic choice of compatibility between two initially incompatible network goods in a two‐stage game played by an incumbent and an entrant firm. Compatibility may be achieved by means of a converter. We derive a number of results under different assumptions about the nature of the converter (one‐way vs two‐way), the existence of property rights and the possibility of side payments. With incompatibility, entry deterrence occurs for sufficiently strong network effects. In the case of a two‐way converter, which can only be supplied by the incumbent, incompatibility will result in equilibrium unless side payments are allowed and the network externalities are sufficiently low. When both firms can build a one‐way converter and there are no property rights on the necessary technical specifications, the unique equilibrium involves full compatibility. Finally, when each firm has property rights on its technical specifications, full incompatibility is observed at the equilibrium with no side payments; when these are allowed the entrant sells access to its network to the incumbent which refuses to do the same and asymmetric one‐way compatibility results in equilibrium.     

Asymmetric Payoffs and Spatial Competition

We investigate the location choice of two firms whose objectives are the weighted average of their own profit and social welfare, in which they simultaneously decide their locations before setting their prices. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the asymmetric locations are influenced by the asymmetry of the firms’ objectives or by the asymmetry of firms’ marginal costs. We show that, when both firms have the same marginal cost, the equilibrium locations are always symmetric even in the case of the asymmetric objectives. On the other hand, the cost differences lead the asymmetric locations in equilibrium. That is, the asymmetric locations are a result of the cost asymmetry, but not the asymmetry of the firms’ objectives. We also demonstrate that the pursuit of profit by the cost-inefficient firm may increase consumer surplus.     

MARKET STRUCTURE,CAPITAL INFLOWS,AND HOME WELFARE

The welfare implications of foreign capital inflows in an economy with an imperfectly competitive product market and a capital-intensive import-competing sector are analyzed. If the market structure is exogenous with a fixed number of firms, then a capital inflow improves welfare of the host country. However, if the market structure is endogenous, then a capital inflow tends to be immiserizing because it increases entry and reduces per firm output, thus driving firms up their average cost schedule. In addition, the welfare implications of capital inflows in the presence of trade restrictions are also studied, generating some new insights.     

Fairness,trade, and inequality

We develop a model of international trade between two symmetric countries that features inter-group inequality between managers and workers, and also intra-group inequality within each of those two groups. Individuals are heterogeneous with respect to their managerial ability, and firms run by more able managers have a higher productivity level and make higher profits. There is rent sharing at the firm level due to fair wage preferences of workers, and hence firms with higher profits pay higher wages in equilibrium in order to elicit their workers' full effort. We show that in this framework international trade leads to a self-selection of the best firms into export status, with exporting firms having to pay a wage premium. Aggregate welfare increases, but there is also larger inequality along multiple dimensions: Involuntary unemployment and income inequality between managers and workers increase, and so does inequality within these two subgroups of individuals, as measured by the respective Gini coefficients.     

R&D policies, trade and process innovation

We set up a simple trade model with two countries hosting one firm each. The firms invest in cost-reducing R&D, and each government may grant R&D subsidies to the domestic firm. We show that it is optimal for a government to provide higher R&D subsidies the lower the level of trade costs, even if the firms are independent monopolies. If firms produce imperfect substitutes, policy competition may become so fierce that only one of the firms survives. International policy harmonization eliminates policy competition and ensures a symmetric outcome. However, it is shown that harmonization is not necessarily welfare maximizing. The optimal coordinated policies may imply an asymmetric outcome with R&D subsidies to only one of the firms.     

Entry encouragement

In this paper, we investigate the possibility that a dominant firm will encourage rather than deter entry of a potential competitor. We find that entry can be encouraged by a dominant firm in order to induce a new entrant to resolve the demand uncertainty in a new market. We propose a specific incentive mechanism that the incumbent can use to encourage entry and find plausible circumstances under which entry encouragement is a dominant competitive strategy.INSEADInstituto de Analisis EconomicoINSEAD     

Deregulating and privatizing statutory monopolies

Considering an homogeneous goods Cournot framework with cost asymmetries between the regulated incumbent and the unregulated entrant, this paper investigates the welfare effects of market liberalization and privatization. The positive efficiency effects of market liberalization depends on reallocation of the production between firms and on the extent of the “output distortion” due to the existence of imperfect information. More competition in a previously statutory monopoly reduces the cost of imperfect information. In terms of social welfare, we derive conditions on the desirability of entry and show that privatization is complementary to deregulation, i.e. privatization makes entry more desirable.     

Optimal trade,industrial, and privatization policies in a mixed duopoly with strategic managerial incentives

Abstract

This paper examines optimal trade, industrial, and privatization policies in a home-market model of mixed international duopoly with strategic managerial incentives. Under linear demand and constant marginal costs, the optimal degree of privatization is shown to depend crucially on cost and demand parameters and on the availability of strategic trade and industrial policies. If both firms are equally efficient, optimal trade and industrial policies drive out the foreign firm and the privatization policy loses its effect on national welfare; however, if the home firm is less efficient, then full privatization combined with an import tariff and a production subsidy is optimal for the home country, while an export subsidy is optimal for the foreign country. If trade and industrial policies are unavailable and if both firms are equally efficient, full state-ownership, which drives out the foreign firm, becomes optimal; however, if the home firm is less efficient, only partial privatization is optimal, The state-ownership share is increased if either the market size grows, the home firm's efficiency increases, or the foreign firm's efficiency decreases. Further, the paper demonstrates the potential conflict between privatization and trade liberalization policies.     

The Property Rights Theory of the Firm and Mixed Competition: A Counter-Example in the US Health Care Industry

We present a counter-example to the conventional property rights theory of the firm, which indicates that not-for-profit firms are incapable of directly competing against strictly profit-maximizing firms without the presence of barriers to entry, outside assistance, changing profit status or economies of scale and scope. We employ a modified Bertrand duopoly model of mixed competition in the health care industry to show that, even when these four conditions do not hold, not-for-profit firms may still be able to compete and possibly dominate the market. Consequently, market fundamentals, rather than market intervention, regulation or uncertainty, determine a not-for-profit provider's success or failure in the market. A necessary requirement is that the not-for-profit manager must care about non-pecuniary benefits but be willing to accept lower than normal returns. Moreover, under specific cost and demand conditions, a not-for-profit's ability to compete may actually be enhanced by increasing its production of non-pecuniary benefits.     

Should Variable Cost Aid to Attract Foreign Direct Investment be Banned? A European Perspective

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the European Commission’s approach to state aid to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) in a competition policy framework. The Commission considers variable cost aid (VCA) to be more distortive than start-up or fixed cost aid (FCA). This paper addresses that issue and checks whether allowing FCA while banning VCA is an optimal strategy for a supranational Competition Authority maximizing welfare. The model shows that a domestic government maximizing welfare always prefers VCA to FCA if both the incumbent and the entrant are foreign firms and if granting VCA does not cause the incumbent firm to exit the market. The model shows that banning VCA may lead to sub-optimal equilibria where welfare is not maximized.