IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-06f10011.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Export Taxes under Bertrand Duopoly

Author

Listed:
  • David Collie

    (Cardiff University)

  • Roger Clarke

    (Cardiff University)

Abstract

This article analyses export taxes in a Bertrand duopoly with product differentiation, where a home and a foreign firm both export to a third-country market. It is shown that the maximum-revenue export tax always exceeds the optimum-welfare export tax. In a Nash equilibrium in export taxes, the country with the low cost firm imposes the largest export tax. The results under Bertrand duopoly are compared with those under Cournot duopoly. It is shown that the absolute value of the export subsidy or tax under Cournot duopoly exceeds the export tax under Bertrand duopoly.

Suggested Citation

  • David Collie & Roger Clarke, 2006. "Export Taxes under Bertrand Duopoly," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 6(6), pages 1-8.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-06f10011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2006/Volume6/EB-06F10011A.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brander, James & Krugman, Paul, 1983. "A 'reciprocal dumping' model of international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3-4), pages 313-321, November.
    2. Roger Clarke & David Collie, 2003. "Product differentiation and the gains from trade under Bertrand duopoly," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 658-673, August.
    3. David de Meza, 1986. "Export Subsidies and High Productivity: Cause or Effect?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 347-350, May.
    4. Roger Clarke & David R. Collie, 2006. "Optimum‐Welfare And Maximum‐Revenue Tariffs Under Bertrand Duopoly," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 53(3), pages 398-408, July.
    5. Cheng, Leonard K, 1988. "Assisting Domestic Industries under International Oligopoly: The Relevance of the Nature of Competition to Optimal Policies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(4), pages 746-758, September.
    6. Collie, David, 1991. "Optimum Welfare and Maximum Revenue Tariffs under Oligopoly," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 38(4), pages 398-401, November.
    7. Toru Kikuchi, 1998. "Strategic Export Policy in a Differentiated Duopoly: A Note," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 315-325, October.
    8. Vives, Xavier, 1985. "On the efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot equilibria with product differentation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 166-175, June.
    9. Collie, David & de Meza, David, 2003. "Comparative advantage and the pursuit of strategic trade policy," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 279-283, November.
    10. Jonathan Eaton & Gene M. Grossman, 1986. "Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy Under Oligopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(2), pages 383-406.
    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. Clarke, Roger & Collie, David R., 2006. "Maximum-Revenue versus Optimum-Welfare Export Taxes," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2006/22, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    2. Yasushi Kawabata, 2010. "Strategic Export Policy In Vertically Related Markets," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 109-131, April.
    3. Ghosh, Arghya & Saha, Souresh, 2015. "Price competition, technology licensing and strategic trade policy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 91-99.
    4. Yoon, Jeong & Choi, Kangsik, 2018. "Why do export subsidies still exist? R&D and output subsidies," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 30-38.
    5. Lim, Seonyoung & Choi, Kangsik, 2014. "Strategic Subsidy Policies with Endogenous Choice of Competition Mode," MPRA Paper 59462, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Choi, Kangsik & Lim, Seonyoung, 2014. "Strategic Trade Policies with Endogenous Choice of Competition Mode under a Vertical Structure," MPRA Paper 59074, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Roger Clarke & David R. Collie, 2008. "Welfare In The Nash Equilibrium In Export Taxes Under Bertrand Duopoly," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 183-189, April.
    8. Choi, Kangsik & Lee, Ki-Dong & Lim, Seonyoung, 2016. "Strategic Trade Policies In International Rivalry When Competition Mode Is Endogenous," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 57(2), pages 223-241, December.
    9. Vijay Mohan & Bharat Hazari, 2012. "Tax Policy When Countries Compete for Third Market Exports," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 708-728, December.
    10. Hiroshi Kurata, 2007. "Foreign equity caps under two types of competition: Bertrand and Cournot," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 6(21), pages 1-11.
    11. Koichi Kagitani, 2009. "Political Economy Of Strategic Export Policy In A Differentiated Duopoly," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 60(2), pages 236-252, June.
    12. Anomita Ghosh & Rupayan Pal, 2017. "Welfare Ranking of Alternative Export Taxes Revisited," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(2), pages 1033-1044.
    13. Roger Clarke & David R. Collie, 2008. "Maximum‐revenue versus Optimum‐welfare Export Taxes: a Delegation Game," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 919-929, November.

    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. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:6:y:2006:i:6:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Choi, Kangsik & Lee, Ki-Dong & Lim, Seonyoung, 2016. "Strategic Trade Policies In International Rivalry When Competition Mode Is Endogenous," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 57(2), pages 223-241, December.
    3. Lim, Seonyoung & Choi, Kangsik, 2014. "Strategic Subsidy Policies with Endogenous Choice of Competition Mode," MPRA Paper 59462, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Roger Clarke & David R. Collie, 2008. "Maximum‐revenue versus Optimum‐welfare Export Taxes: a Delegation Game," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 919-929, November.
    5. Koichi Kagitani, 2009. "Political Economy Of Strategic Export Policy In A Differentiated Duopoly," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 60(2), pages 236-252, June.
    6. Clarke, Roger & Collie, David R., 2006. "Maximum-Revenue versus Optimum-Welfare Export Taxes," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2006/22, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    7. Collie, David R., 2019. "Trade Wars under Oligopoly: Who Wins and is Free Trade Sustainable?," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2019/4, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    8. Keith Head & Barbara J. Spencer, 2017. "Oligopoly in international trade: Rise, fall and resurgence," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(5), pages 1414-1444, December.
    9. Masayuki Okawa & Tatsuya Iguchi, 2016. "Welfare-improving Coordinated Tariff and Sales Tax Reforms under Imperfect Competition," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 475-487, May.
    10. Xu, Lili & Lee, Sang-Ho & Wang, Leonard, 2017. "Strategic Trade and Privatization Policies in Bilateral Mixed Markets," MPRA Paper 80340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Yoon, Jeong & Choi, Kangsik, 2018. "Why do export subsidies still exist? R&D and output subsidies," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 30-38.
    12. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2013. "Oligopoly and Trade," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Daniel Bernhofen & Rod Falvey & David Greenaway & Udo Kreickemeier (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of International Trade, chapter 7, pages 197-235, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Sun, Ning & Yao, Hongxin, 2011. "Manipulable behavior in international trade," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1-2), pages 60-66, January.
    14. Leonard F. S. Wang & Wei Zhao & Ya -Chin Wang, 2008. "Strategic Trade Policy in Bargaining over Managerial Delegation Competition," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 6(38), pages 1-8.
    15. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2013. "Oligopoly and Trade," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Daniel Bernhofen & Rod Falvey & David Greenaway & Udo Kreickemeier (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of International Trade, chapter 7, pages 197-235, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:6:y:2008:i:38:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Kangsik Choi & Seonyoung Lim, 2018. "Tariff protection and port privatization: An import-competing approach," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 20(2), pages 228-252, June.
    18. Kresimir Zigic, 2011. "Strategic Interactions in Markets with Innovative Activity: The Cases of Strategic Trade Policy and Market Leadership," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b06, November.
    19. Sun, Ning & Yao, Hongxin, 2011. "Manipulable behavior in international trade," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 60-66.
    20. Brander, James A., 1995. "Strategic trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1395-1455, Elsevier.
    21. Vijay Mohan & Bharat Hazari, 2012. "Tax Policy When Countries Compete for Third Market Exports," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 708-728, December.
    22. Toru Kikuchi, 1998. "Strategic Export Policy in a Differentiated Duopoly: A Note," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 315-325, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-06f10011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.