IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eti/dpaper/10054.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cross-Border Alliances and Product Market Competition

Author

Listed:
  • TAKECHI Kazutaka

Abstract

Foreign manufacturers have the option of using sales networks of domestic rival firms to save local distribution costs. Such alliances may lead to collusion or create greater distortions because of the additional margins imposed by foreign firms, as shown in the theoretical literature. This paper empirically examines whether these outcomes are realized by alliances using Japanese antibiotics market data, where cross-border alliances are common. Empirical results show that the marginal costs of products supplied through cross-border alliances are lower than those supplied by foreign firms, suggesting that alliances are effective devices to reduce local distribution costs for foreign firms. Furthermore, my test results reveal little evidence of collusion or high markups caused by cross-border alliances.

Suggested Citation

  • TAKECHI Kazutaka, 2010. "Cross-Border Alliances and Product Market Competition," Discussion papers 10054, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    • Handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:10054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/10e054.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fauli-Oller, Ramon & Sandonis, Joel, 2002. "Welfare reducing licensing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 192-205, November.
    2. Sofia Berto Villas-Boas, 2007. "Vertical Relationships between Manufacturers and Retailers: Inference with Limited Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(2), pages 625-652.
    3. Macho-Stadler, Ines & Martinez-Giralt, Xavier & David Perez-Castrillo, J., 1996. "The role of information in licensing contract design," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 43-57, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Heywood, John S. & Li, Jianpei & Ye, Guangliang, 2014. "Per unit vs. ad valorem royalties under asymmetric information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 38-46.
    2. Nisvan Erkal, 2005. "Optimal Licensing Policy in Differentiated Industries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 81(252), pages 51-60, March.
    3. Saracho, Ana I., 2011. "Licensing information goods," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 187-199, March.
    4. Lu, Yuanzhu & Poddar, Sougata, 2014. "Patent licensing in spatial models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 250-256.
    5. Arijit Mukherjee, 2010. "Technology licensing under convex costs," Discussion Papers 10/05, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    6. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2010. "Licensing a new product: Fee vs. royalty licensing with unionized labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 735-742, August.
    7. Marta Montinaro & Rupayan Pal & Marcella Scrimitore, 2020. "Per unit and ad valorem royalties in a patent licensing game," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2020-014, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    8. Bagchi, Aniruddha & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2014. "Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 455-465.
    9. Jiyun Cao & Arijit Mukherjee, 2017. "Market Power of the Input Supplier, Technology Transfer and Consumer Welfare," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 85(4), pages 430-449, July.
    10. Stamatopoulos, Giorgos & Tauman, Yair, 2008. "Licensing of a quality-improving innovation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 410-438, November.
    11. Arijit Mukherjee & Yingyi Tsai, 2010. "Technology licensing with strategic tax policy," Discussion Papers 10/09, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    12. Banerjee, Swapnendu & Poddar, Sougata, 2019. "‘To sell or not to sell’: Licensing versus selling by an outside innovator," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 293-304.
    13. Poddar, Sougata & Bouguezzi, Fehmi, 2011. "Patent licensing in spatial competition: Does pre-innovation cost asymmetry matter?," MPRA Paper 32764, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Fridtjof Anderson, 2014. "Licensing to a More Efficient Rival," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 82(6), pages 653-676, December.
    15. Ghosh, Arghya & Saha, Souresh, 2015. "Price competition, technology licensing and strategic trade policy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 91-99.
    16. Montinaro, Marta & Scrimitore, Marcella, 2019. "Per unit and ad valorem royalties in a patent licensing game," MPRA Paper 96642, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Tina Kao, 2009. "Strategic Licensing And Sequential Innovations," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 77(4), pages 512-551, July.
    18. Donna, Javier D. & Pereira, Pedro & Trindade, Andre & Yoshida, Renan C., 2020. "Direct-to-Consumer Sales by Manufacturers and Bargaining," MPRA Paper 105773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Hovhannisyan, Vardges & Stiegert, Kyle W. & Bozic, Marin, 2013. "On Endogeneity Of Retail Market Power In An Equilibrium Analysis: A Control Function Approach," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149830, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Hellerstein, Rebecca, 2006. "Identification of Supply Models of Manufacturer and Retailer Oligopoly Pricing," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9zh144zt, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eti:dpaper:10054. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: TANIMOTO, Toko (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rietijp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.