Learning by Doing
AbstractThis paper examines the implications for strategic trade policy of different assumptions about precommitment. In a dynamic oligopoly game with learning by doing, the optimal first-period subsidy is lower if firms cannot precommit to future output than if they can; and is lower still if the government cannot precommit to future subsidies. In the linear case the optimal subsidy is increasing in the rate of learning with precommitment but decreasing in it if the government cannot precommit. The infant-industry argument is thus reversed in the absence of precommitment which has important implications for economic policy in dynamic environments.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Centre for Economic Performance, LSE in its series CEP Discussion Papers with number dp0251.
Date of creation: Aug 1995
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/series.asp?prog=CEP
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Willmann, Gerald, 2004. "Pareto gains from trade: a dynamic counterexample," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 199-204, May.
- Vladimir Petkov, 2007. "Infant Firm Subsidization in Industries with Dynamic Structure," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 73-93, June.
- Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2010.
"Oligopoly And Trade,"
Economics, Finance and Accounting Department Working Paper Series
n215-10.pdf, Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
- J. Peter Neary & Dermot Leahy, 1998.
"Strategic trade and industrial policy towards dynamic oligopolies,"
LSE Research Online Documents on Economics
20246, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Neary, J Peter & Leahy, Dermot, 2000. "Strategic Trade and Industrial Policy towards Dynamic Oligopolies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 484-508, April.
- D Leahy & J.P. Neary, 1998. "Strategic Trade and Industrial PolicyTowards Dynamic Oligopolies," CEP Discussion Papers dp0409, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Neary, J.P. & Leahy, D., 1998. "Strategic Trade and Industrial Policy Towards Dynamic Oligopolies," Papers 98/14, College Dublin, Department of Political Economy-.
- Leahy, Dermot & Neary, J Peter, 1998. "Strategic Trade and Industrial Policy Towards Dynamic Oligopolies," CEPR Discussion Papers 1968, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Lars Calmfors & Giancarlo Corsetti & Michael P. Devereux & Gilles Saint-Paul & Hans-Werner Sinn & Jan-Egbert Sturm & Xavier Vives, 2008. "Chapter 4: Industrial policy," EEAG Report on the European Economy, CESifo Group Munich, vol. 0, pages 105-124, 02.
- Jose Luis Moraga & Jean-Marie Viaene, 1999. "Endogenous Quality Effects of Trade Policy," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 99-094/2, Tinbergen Institute.
- Moraga-Gonzalez, Jose Luis & Viaene, Jean-Marie, 2005. "Trade policy and quality leadership in transition economies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 359-385, February.
- Herguera, Inigo & Kujal, Praveen & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2002. "Tariffs, quality reversals and exit in vertically differentiated industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 467-492, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.