外国技术授权策略与本国关税政策之探讨

本文将以一个拥有技术优势，且将其产品输往本国寡占市场中的外国厂商为对象，探讨其对本国厂商的最适技术授权策略，以及该策略是否受关税保护贸易政策之影响。在本文的研究结论中，我们可以发现下列三点：（1）在自由贸易条件下，当外国企业可授权国内二家厂商时，其最适授权策略，会选择同时授权于国内二家技术劣势厂商。当外国厂商仅可授权国内一家技术劣势厂商时，若市场规模相对较小，国外技术优势厂商之最适单位权利金订定为存在内部解，且会受市场规模的影响，市场规模值愈大，权利金愈高。当市场规模相对较大时，则国外技术优势厂商之最适单位权利金恰等于其技术创新所能节省的成本幅度。（2）在关税政策条件下，国外技术优势厂商可同时授权国内二家厂商时，其授权策略不受关税政策影响。在可授权国内一家技术劣势厂商时，若市场规模相对较大，其授权策略不受关税政策影响。若市场规模相对较小，在自由贸易条件下外国厂商的授权权利金将高于采取关税政策条件下的水准。（3）在本国政府的最适关税政策下，不论是当外国厂商可授权本国二家厂商之Nash均衡或可授权本国一家厂商之Nash均衡，皆有助于本国福利水准的提升。     

战略性贸易政策在出口管理中的运用

一、战略性贸易政策在出口管理实践中的运用 战略性贸易政策指一国能在实际或潜在的国际市场上影响企业战略决策结果的贸易政策,它的基本主张是在具有规模经济或垄断性的行业,当本国企业与国外厂商竞争时,政府应采取关税或补贴等措施,使垄断利润从外国垄断厂商转移到本国厂商,从而使本国企业获得"垄断租".     

专利权人在不对称信息下的技术授权策略选择

过去的研究显示,在专利权人不参与市场生产的情况下,定额权利金的收益将优于单位权利金的收益。本文得出,当被授权厂商存在成本上的私人信息时,专利权人最优的授权策略,有可能变成采用单位权利金的授权方式或定额加单位权利金的混合式授权方式。     

竞争政策与跨国最优技术授权策略

本文探讨当前中国在知识产权领域实施(宽松)竞争政策的理论基础。基于本国国有企业和私营企业与具有成本优势的外国企业进行古诺竞争的寡头模型,分析生产型外国企业如何将降低成本的专利技术分别授权给本国的两家企业。我们的研究表明:当不能歧视性授权时,外国企业总是偏好特许权收费方式;当能够歧视性授权时,外国企业在技术创新程度较大时会偏好固定收费方式。由于在歧视性授权下,外国企业将更多的利润转移到母国,因此本国福利在不允许歧视性授权下更高,但全球福利却相反。因此,本国政府从本国福利极大化的角度往往会强化竞争政策,限制歧视性授权;尽管从全球角度看,不限制歧视性授权的宽松竞争政策能够提升全球福利。     

跨国多期技术授权方式选择及社会福利分析--基于空间数量歧视竞争的框架

跨国技术授权作为企业获得竞争优势的重要途径已经受到理论界的关注。与以往的内部技术授权研究不同,文章构建了一个外国拥有技术的企业与东道国企业的空间数量歧视竞争模型,考察多期技术授权存在技术泄露、关税内生及空间竞争对外国拥有技术的企业的最优授权策略选择以及东道国社会福利的影响。研究表明：(1)外国拥有技术的企业偏好双重收费方式,且固定收费方式优于特许权收费方式;(2)双重收费方式不能同时实现拥有技术的企业和社会福利的最优,但可以实现社会福利的次优;(3)外国企业应该通过双重收费方式或固定收费方式进行技术授权,而东道国政府不应一味地提高关税水平,适当地降低进口关税有利于跨国技术授权的实现。文章的结论对于发展中国家的技术引进以及技术出口政策的制定具有一定的现实意义。     

反倾销政策工具下市场均衡价格分析

成本优势是获取垄断利润的主要因素,政府政策介入会改变企业的成本优势,从而改变市场的均衡价格。不同的反倾销和补贴政策影响市场均衡价格和均衡利润的变化,反倾销税和价格承诺能削弱外国企业成本优势,降低对进口产品的需求,导致市场均衡价格上升;反倾销税使外国出口企业利润水平降低,一定程度会引致外国企业直接投资,价格承诺使外国企业完全保留了因提高价格所带来的利润;生产补贴降低了国内企业的边际成本,导致市场均衡价格下降,提高了国内企业的利润,但却减少了政府收入。采取适度的反倾销政策和补贴政策可以使国内外厂商的利润保持在竞争性利润水平上,进口国的利益目标应该是对本国消费者提供更低价格商品的基础上保护本国企业的利益。     

国际多市场寡头条件下的贸易政策和产业政策

国际多市场寡头是Bulow( 1 985)提出的多市场寡头概念在国际贸易领域的自然延伸。在本文中 ,市场之间联系的纽带是本国企业具有规模收益递减的生产技术。本文的主要结论是 ,第一 ,如果本国企业与外国企业在外国市场进行价格竞争 ,那么 ,最优干预组合包括国内生产补贴与出口税 ,它们对本国福利的作用是一致的。第二 ,如果本国企业与外国企业在外国市场进行数量竞争 ,那么 ,最优干预政策组合包括国内生产补贴与出口补贴 ,它们作用于本国福利的方向是不一致的 ,这时 ,本国政府用国内生产补贴执行反托拉斯职能 ,用出口补贴执行利润转移职能。第三 ,作为模型的一个应用 ,本文论证了出口退税政策会加剧国内市场的扭曲 ;而且它不一定能够提高本国福利。     

基于成本信息缺失的VER政策与社会福利分析

文章在贸易主体间成本信息缺失的基础上,重新探讨了VER的政策含义。研究结果发现,在本国对外国厂商成本信息缺失的情境下,若产品市场为Cournot竞争,则VER将对两国产生实质的影响:对出口国而言,不论其厂商为何种类型,此时的VER政策都是非自愿的;本国的福利变化则需视出口厂商的类型而定。而在Bertrand竞争下,VER只在出口厂商为高成本类型时方对出口国有利,且不论外国厂商为何种类型,VER皆无法使两国同时获利。     

战略性贸易政策理论的产生、发展及研究展望

战略性贸易政策理论兴起于20世纪80年代,以不完全竞争的市场结构和规模收益递增为理论基础,以战略性出口政策、战略性进口政策和进口保护促进出口的政策为主要观点。其基本结论为:政府可以通过一定的贸易干预政策改变本国厂商与外国厂商之间的博弈关系,使博弈的结果有利于本国厂商,从而提高国民福利。20多年来对战略性贸易政策理论的扩展、反驳和修正促进了理论的发展。未来的研究将更注重理论的深化和实证的丰富。     

贸易保护主义的回归: 1881—1891年英国公平贸易运动

本文以1881—1891年英国公平贸易运动为切入点,研究了贸易保护主义的回归.19世纪70年代的经济危机打破了由英国的工业家和银行家、普鲁士的容克地主和美国内战前的农场主构成的支持自由贸易的跨国联盟,欧洲大陆国家纷纷提高关税保护本国产品市场.此前受益于自由贸易政策的英国部分制造商受到冲击,从而领导和组织了回归贸易保护主义的公平贸易运动.但由于英国的工业先发优势,形成了更强大的支持自由贸易的联盟,从而没有让公平贸易运动的政策主张得到足够的政治支持.虽然如此,公平贸易运动的许多主张符合当时英国的长期利益,但却因为对自由贸易的信仰而被推迟执行.     

Domestic entry, optimum-welfare and maximum-revenue tariffs

In this paper, we examine the ranking of the maximum-revenue tariff and the optimum-welfare tariff under a linear Cournot oligopoly model without and with free entry of domestic firms. We demonstrate that in a regulated entry oligopoly with asymmetric costs, when the marginal cost of the domestic firms exceeds a critical value, the maximum-revenue tariff is higher than the optimum-welfare tariff. We then show that under free entry of domestic firms with asymmetric costs, when the fixed cost gets larger and the domestic firms become fewer, the difference between the optimum-welfare tariff and the maximum-revenue tariff becomes larger.     

Tariff Rate as a Public Good

If domestic firms lobby for protection, the tariff rate is a public good to all domestic firms, whether they engage in lobbying or not. This paper analyzes how the endogenous tariff rate as a public good depends on the group size in two‐stage lobbying models. The result depends not only on whether domestic firms lobby cooperatively or not, but also on whether domestic firms incur indirect lobbying costs or not. This paper shows that if free riding is not very serious and if the number of domestic firms is small compared to the number of foreign firms, entry of a domestic firm is likely to increase the equilibrium tariff rate.     

Trade Liberalization and the Profitability of Domestic Mergers

It is often thought that a tariff reduction, by opening‐up the domestic market to foreign firms, should lessen the need for a policy aimed at discouraging domestic mergers. This implicitly assumes that the tariff in question is sufficiently high to prevent foreign firms from selling in the domestic market. However, not all tariffs are prohibitive, so that foreign firms may be present in the domestic market before it is abolished. Furthermore, even if the tariff is prohibitive, a merger of domestic firms may render it nonprohibitive, thus inviting foreign firms to penetrate the domestic market. Using a simple example, the authors show that, in the latter two cases, abolishing the tariff may in fact make the domestic merger more profitable. Hence trade liberalization will not necessarily reduce the profitability of domestic mergers.     

Tariff reduction and employment in Canadian manufacturing

Abstract.  This paper uses firm-level tax data to investigate whether the link between tariff changes and manufacturing employment differed across firms with various productivity and leverage characteristics over the period 1988–94. The results suggest that the effect of domestic tariff reductions on employment was typically small, but that losses were significantly larger for less productive firms. For instance, firms with average productivity in 1988 responded to domestic tariff changes by cutting employment by 11.3% over the period 1988–94, while lower-productivity firms typically shed 20.8% of their workforce over the same period. This paper also indicates that firms with unhealthy balance sheets – those with relatively too much equity or too much leverage – downsized more in the face of declining domestic tariffs, suggesting that financial constraints became more binding when tariff cuts were implemented. These results suggest that firms with high productivity and better financial health were better positioned to face the challenge of trade liberalization.     

Ranking the optimum tariff and the maximum revenue tariff in vertically related markets

This paper firstly shows that in a vertically related industry with either domestic upstream monopolist or foreign upstream monopolist, when the upstream firm adopts uniform input pricing, the optimum-welfare tariff is higher than the maximum-revenue tariff, if the number of foreign competitors is sufficiently large. Secondly, when domestic upstream monopolist adopts discriminatory input pricing, the maximum-revenue tariff is higher than the optimum-welfare tariff. Thirdly, when foreign upstream monopolist adopts discriminatory input pricing, the optimum-welfare tariff will exceed the maximum-revenue tariff if the sizes of domestic and foreign firms become more unequally distributed.     

Lobbying, corruption and “optimal” tariff

This paper explores how a government officer enacts “optimum” import policy when confronting lobbies on trade policies from both domestic and foreign firms in a transition economy. Two results are found: firstly, if the inducement from the foreign firm on the government officer works, then the optimum tariff is negative, that is, import subsidy. However, this subsidy will turn to a positive tariff rate with the increasing lobbying inducement from domestic firms. Secondly, zero tariff duty is not an optimum choice under most circumstances. Besides, an asymmetric result is that when these two firms’ marginal costs are different, the optimum policy is to levy an import tariff on the one whose marginal cost is relatively small, while the other firm will get an import subsidy.     

Profit tax and tariff under international oligopoly

A simple model of international duopoly is developed to examine the effects of tariff and corporate profit tax. It is shown that in an export-cum-on-site-production regime, a tariff continues to be an effective instrument for shifting net profit away from foreign to domestic firms. A corporate profit tax, on the other hand, could lower the domestic output and employment and decrease the net earnings of both domestic and foreign firms. Thus when the host government's ability to raise tariff is limited, it should seriously consider a corporate tax cut policy to achieve the dual purpose of creating more jobs and increasing corporate earning at home.     

On the Equivalence of Tariffs and Quotas under a Revenue Constraint

This paper sets out a duopolistic model to examine the price and welfare equivalence of tariffs and quotas, given the quota rent is equal to the tariff revenue. It shows that the domestic welfare ranking of the two trade policies crucially depends on the relative costs of the domestic and foreign firms; when the domestic firm's relative costs are lower than those of the foreign firm, a quota regime generally leads to a higher welfare level than that of an equivalent tariff regime. This finding contrasts sharply with the conclusions of Dasgupta and Stiglitz (1977 ), where it was found that a tariff regime always generates higher domestic welfare.     

Why does China protect its labour‐intensive industries more?*

China's tariff structure favours labour‐intensive sectors, and this is at odds with traditional theory of comparative advantage. The paper argues that tariffs in China are a mechanism for protecting technology‐backward domestic – especially state‐owned enterprises (SOEs) from competition technology‐advanced foreign enterprises producing in China. With relatively integrated labour markets and cross‐firm technology differences, SOEs’ subsistence is supported by subsidized credit and limited access of foreign firms’ local production to tariff‐protected domestic markets. Labour market integration and capital subsidies increase the relative cost of labour in SOEs compared to their foreign competitors, hurting more domestic firms in industries that use labour more intensively. Restrictions to FIEs’ (foreign‐invested enterprises) access to tariff‐protected product markets, which protect more labour‐intensive industries, compensate for the greater cost disadvantage of SOEs in labour‐intensive sectors.     

OPTIMUM-WELFARE AND MAXIMUM-REVENUE TARIFFS IN MIXED OLIGOPOLY WITH FOREIGN COMPETITORS

This paper re-examines the important tariff ranking issue under a linear mixed oligopoly model with foreign competitors and asymmetric costs. We demonstrate that under Cournot competition, when the size of domestic private and foreign private firms become more unequally distributed, optimum-welfare tariff will exceed maximum-revenue tariff. We also show that under Stackelberg competition, when the domestic government protects its domestic sector, it will levy higher optimum-welfare tariffs versus maximum-revenue tariffs; however, when it decides to open its doors more for foreign competitors, it will need to levy higher maximum-revenue tariffs versus optimum-welfare tariffs. The above results remain valid whether the domestic public firm acts as a leader or a follower.