IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/22361.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Infant Industry Protection and Industrial Dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Ederington, Josh
  • McCalman, Phillip

Abstract

A perennial case for industrial policy is based on the protection of young or emerging industries. Despite a natural association with concepts of life cycles, industrial policy has not been analyzed in the context of an industry life-cycle model. In particular, an important life-cycle characteristic, the potential for very large changes in the rate of net entry, is ignored. In this paper, we demonstrate how the impact of industrial policy depends critically on the entry and exit dynamics within an industry. In particular, we construct a model of technology adoption in which the number of firms is endogenous, and derive a set of novel predictions about the effects of protection on firm technology decisions. Specifically, we show that permanent protection can induce earlier adoption, but also decreases the probability that a given firm adopts the new technology. Likewise, we demonstrate that reducing the duration of protection results in faster adoption than permanent protection, but also reduces a given firms probability of adoption. Finally, we show that, for industries characterized by flexibility in firm numbers, protection does not change the rate of technology adoption but does increase the size and probability of a shakeout (large scale net exit).

Suggested Citation

  • Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2009. "Infant Industry Protection and Industrial Dynamics," MPRA Paper 22361, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:22361
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/22361/1/MPRA_paper_22361.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 1995. "Closing the Technology Gap under Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 755-770, September.
    2. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W, 1992. "The Sensitivity of Strategic and Corrective R&D Policy in Battles for Monopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(4), pages 795-816, November.
    3. Marc J. Melitz & Giancarlo I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 4, pages 87-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-959, December.
    5. Matsuyama, Kiminori, 1990. "Perfect Equilibria in a Trade Liberalization Game," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 480-492, June.
    6. Georg Götz, 1999. "Monopolistic Competition and the Diffusion of New Technology," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(4), pages 679-693, Winter.
    7. Andrew B. Bernard & Jonathan Eaton & J. Bradford Jensen & Samuel Kortum, 2003. "Plants and Productivity in International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1268-1290, September.
    8. Josh Ederington & Phillip McCalman, 2009. "International Trade And Industrial Dynamics," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 50(3), pages 961-989, August.
    9. Jennifer F. Reinganum, 1981. "On the Diffusion of New Technology: A Game Theoretic Approach," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 48(3), pages 395-405.
    10. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401.
    11. Josh Ederington & Phillip McCalman, 2007. "The Impact of Trade Liberalization on Productivity Within and Across Industries: Theory and Evidence," Monash Economics Working Papers 24-07, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    12. Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Do safeguard tariffs and antidumping duties open or close technology gaps?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 469-484, March.
    13. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2008. "Endogenous firm heterogeneity and the dynamics of trade liberalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 422-440, March.
    14. Gort, Michael & Klepper, Steven, 1982. "Time Paths in the Diffusion of Product Innovations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(367), pages 630-653, September.
    15. Howard Pack & Kamal Saggi, 2006. "Is There a Case for Industrial Policy? A Critical Survey," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 21(2), pages 267-297.
    16. Pack, Howard & Saggi, Kamal, 2006. "The case for industrial policy : a critical survey," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3839, The World Bank.
    17. Miyagiwa, Kaz & Ohno, Yuka, 1999. "Credibility of Protection and Incentives to Innovate," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(1), pages 143-163, February.
    18. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    19. Ping Lin & Kamal Saggi, 1999. "Incentives for Foreign Direct Investment under Imitation," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 32(5), pages 1275-1298, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yukiko Sawada, 2017. "The effect of technology choice on specialization and welfare in a two‐country model," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 1104-1129, November.
    2. Triulzi, G., 2014. "Technology life cycle and specialization patterns of latecomer countries: The case of the semiconductor industry," MERIT Working Papers 2014-012, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    3. Hassan Benchekroun & Ngo Long, 2018. "Nurturing an Infant Industry by Markovian Subsidy Schemes," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 519-541, September.

    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. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2008. "Endogenous firm heterogeneity and the dynamics of trade liberalization," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 422-440, March.
    2. Ederington, Josh & McCalman, Phillip, 2013. "Technology adoption, government policy and tariffication," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 337-347.
    3. Yukiko Sawada, 2017. "The effect of technology choice on specialization and welfare in a two‐country model," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 1104-1129, November.
    4. Hiroshi Mukunoki, 2017. "Market access and technology adoption in the presence of FDI," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 199-238, November.
    5. Pierce, Justin R., 2011. "Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: Evidence from U.S. manufacturers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 222-233.
    6. Bulent Unel, 2013. "The Interaction Between Technology Adoption and Trade When Firms are Heterogeneous," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(4), pages 797-808, September.
    7. Laura Rovegno, 2013. "Trade protection and market power: evidence from US antidumping and countervailing duties," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 149(3), pages 443-476, September.
    8. Crowley, Meredith A., 2006. "Do safeguard tariffs and antidumping duties open or close technology gaps?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 469-484, March.
    9. Jozef Konings & Hylke Vandenbussche, 2007. "Antidumping Protection and Productivity of Domestic Firms: A firm level analysis," LICOS Discussion Papers 19607, LICOS - Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, KU Leuven.
    10. Ngo Van Long & Horst Raff & Frank Staehler, 2007. "The Effects of Trade Liberalization on Productivity and Welfare: The Role of Firm Heterogeneity, R&D and Market Structure," Working Papers 0710, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Jun 2007.
    11. Lazzarini, Sérgio G., 2012. "Strategizing by the Government: Industrial Policy and Sustainable Competitive Advantage," Insper Working Papers wpe_289, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    12. Götz, Georg & Ederington, Josh, 2017. "Leapfrogging: Time of Entry and Firm Productivity," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168126, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Zhihong Yu, 2012. "Openness, managerial incentives, and heterogeneous firms," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(1), pages 71-104, September.
    14. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2018. "Global Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(2), pages 565-619, June.
    15. Haruyama, Tetsugen & Zhao, Laixun, 2017. "Trade and firm heterogeneity in a Schumpeterian model of growth," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 540-563.
    16. Robert Elliott & Supreeya Virakul, 2010. "Multi-product firms and exporting: a developing country perspective," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 146(4), pages 635-656, December.
    17. Patricia Augier & Olivier Cadot & Marion Dovis, 2013. "Imports and TFP at the firm level: the role of absorptive capacity," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(3), pages 956-981, August.
    18. Bloom, Nick & Manova, Kalina & Teng Sun, Stephen & Van Reenen, John & Yu, Zhihong, 2018. "Managing trade: evidence from China and the US," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88703, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Ardelean, Adina & Lugovskyy, Volodymyr, 2010. "Domestic productivity and variety gains from trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 280-291, March.
    20. Andrew B. Bernard & J. Bradford Jensen & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2007. "Firms in International Trade," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 105-130, Summer.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    GATT/WTO; Trade Policy; Trade and Firm Productivity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade

    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:pra:mprapa:22361. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.