Multinational firms, market integration, and trade structure: What remains of the standard-goods hypothesis?

Multinational Firms, Market Integration, and Trade Structure: What Remains of the Standard-Goods Hypothesis? — In extending traditional empirical trade models to multinational firms, this paper shows the effect of the transfer of firm-specific technology and intangible assets by these firms on the structure of host countries. For Belgium, a small open economy with a large presence of foreign multinationals, this effect is of crucial importance and previous studies appeared to have produced biased results by neglecting it. The econometric results show how the large multinational presence induced by the European integration has shifted Belgium’s trade structure towards differentiated products, thereby challenging the standard-goods hypothesis which states that small countries tend to specialize in nondifferentiated products. Spain and Ireland have witnessed an increase in foreign direct investment and a shift in trade structure similar to Belgium after joining the EC.     

IMF‐Supported Programmes: Stimulating Capital to Non‐defaulting Countries

International Monetary Fund (IMF)‐supported programmes catalyse private capital to non‐defaulting countries. We find the IMF to be effective in stimulating private capital flows to middle‐income countries that participate in a Fund programme, but do not restructure their debt. IMF‐supported programmes help non‐defaulting countries to signal their willingness to reform and repay debts, thereby catalysing private capital. This signalling role appears to be more important for Fund catalysis, than the size of IMF lending.     

Elementary multivariate rearrangements and stochastic dominance on a Fréchet class

A Fréchet class collects all multivariate joint distribution functions that have the same marginals. Members of a Fréchet class only differ with respect to the interdependence between their marginals. In this paper, I study orders of interdependence on a Fréchet class using two multivariate generalizations of the bivariate rearrangement proposed by Epstein and Tanny (1980) [4] and Tchen (1980) [16]. I show how these multivariate rearrangements are underlying multivariate first order stochastic dominance in terms of the joint distribution function and the survival function. A combination of both rearrangements is shown to be equivalent to the concordance order proposed by Joe (1990) [9].     

Assessing Consequences of Component Sharing across Brands in the Vertical Product Line in the Automotive Market

Component sharing may look great in the boardroom but not in the showroom. Indeed, savings on research and development and production costs could be offset by a plunge in customer brand attractiveness. The central objective of this paper is to investigate consumer and market responses toward component sharing between brands. More specifically, by combining experimental with econometric studies, this paper investigates the impact of component sharing on customer evaluation of luxury, volume, and economy brands offered in a car manufacturer's vertical product line. An experimental study in which component sharing between automotive brands was made explicit aimed to understand the impact of brand combinations and type of sourcing on the evaluations of the two brands sharing components. This experimental study shows that the evaluation of luxury brands sharing with a volume brand suffers more than when a volume brand shares components with an economy brand. This experimental study was executed for two different brand combinations including one luxury, one volume, and one economy brand: (1) Audi, Volkswagen, and Skoda; and (2) Lexus, Toyota, and Suzuki. The evaluation of an economy brand benefits more from sharing with a volume brand than a volume brand suffers from sharing with an economy brand. The magnitude of these effects depends on several factors, such as component type, the source of the component sharing, and the salience of component sharing to the consumers. One important limitation of the experiment is that component sharing is made rather salient, and no behavioral effects of component sharing are studied. Therefore, a second was executed in which market share data on brands of the Volkwagen company (i.e., Audi, Volkswagen, Seat, and Skoda) were collected, while also data on the component‐sharing practices between these brands were gathered. A market share model was estimated in which market shares of the four studied brands were explained by component‐sharing practices and some control variables (i.e., price, model changes) in an exploratory fashion. The explorative examination of market share effects confirms that luxury brands may suffer, while economy brands may benefit from component sharing. In sum, this research suggests that component sharing between brands has negative effects for the higher‐end, and positive effects for the lower‐end brand. However, it also shows that sourcing matters. This study is considered as the first study investigating the phenomenon of component sharing, and it points to multiple future research issues, such as studying this phenomenon in other markets.     

How retailer and competitor decisions drive the long-term effectiveness of manufacturer promotions for fast moving consumer goods

While both retailer and competitor decisions contribute to long-term promotional effectiveness, their separate impact has yet to be evaluated. For 75 brands in 25 categories, the author finds that the long-term retailer pass-through of promotions is 65 percent, yielding a long-run wholesale promotional elasticity of 1.78 before competitive response. However, competitors partially match the wholesale price reduction by 15 percent, which decreases promotional elasticity by 10 percent. The range of retailer and competitor response across the analyzed cases is very wide, and is affected by category and brand characteristics. As to the former, large categories yield stronger retailer response, while concentrated categories yield stronger competitor response. As to the latter, smaller brands face a fourfold disadvantage compared to leading brands: they obtain lower retail pass-through, lower retail support, and lower benefits from competing brand's promotions, while their promotions generate higher benefits to competitors. Interestingly, the mid-1990s move from off-invoice allowances towards scan-back deals only partially improves their promotional effectiveness compared to that of leading brands.