IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Does a ‘non-committed’ government always generate lower social welfare than its ‘committed’ counterpart? Strategic trade policy when consumer surplus matters

Listed author(s):
  • Žigić, Krešimir

We show that social welfare in the setup where the government lacks the full ability to commit to its trade policies may exceed the social welfare when the government possesses full commitment power if consumer surplus is part of the social welfare function. This is never the case in the standard, “third market” framework of strategic trade policy. We provide two examples in which consumer surplus matters: the “home market” and the “intra-industry trade” setup. The policy instruments under consideration are import tariffs and export subsidies and there are R&D spillovers from the domestic to the foreign firm.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596711000217
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Comparative Economics.

Volume (Year): 39 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Pages: 533-556

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:jcecon:v:39:y:2011:i:4:p:533-556
DOI: 10.1016/j.jce.2011.03.006
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622864

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  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. Deardorff, Alan V, 1992. "Welfare Effects of Global Patent Protection," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 59(233), pages 35-51, February.
  3. 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.
  4. Neary, J. Peter, 1994. "Cost asymmetries in international subsidy games: Should governments help winners or losers?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3-4), pages 197-218, November.
  5. Gene M. Grossman & Edwin L.-C. Lai, 2004. "International Protection of Intellectual Property," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1635-1653, December.
  6. Leahy, Dermot & Neary, J Peter, 1996. "International R&D Rivalry and Industrial Strategy without Government Commitment," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 322-338, October.
  7. Zigic, Kresimir, 2000. "Strategic trade policy, intellectual property rights protection, and North-South trade," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 27-60, February.
  8. Leahy, Dermot & Neary, J Peter, 2001. "Robust Rules for Industrial Policy in Open Economies," CEPR Discussion Papers 2731, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  9. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2009. "The Origins of State Capacity: Property Rights, Taxation, and Politics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1218-1244, September.
  10. Timothy Besley & Torsten Persson, 2010. "State Capacity, Conflict, and Development," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 1-34, 01.
  11. P. Tharakan & Birgit Kerstens, 1995. "Does North-South horizontal intra-industry trade really exist? An analysis of the toy industry," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 131(1), pages 86-105, March.
  12. Staiger, Robert W., 1995. "International rules and institutions for trade policy," Handbook of International Economics,in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1495-1551 Elsevier.
  13. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2001. "Robust rules for industrial policy open economies," The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 393-409.
  14. 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.
  15. Bhattacharjea, Aditya, 1995. "Strategic tariffs and endogenous market structures: Trade and industrial policies under imperfect competition," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 287-312, August.
  16. Gruenspecht, Howard K., 1988. "Export subsidies for differentiated products," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3-4), pages 331-344, May.
  17. Staiger, Robert W. & Tabellini, Guido, 1989. "Rules and discretion in trade policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1265-1277, July.
  18. Fershtman, Chaim, 1989. "Fixed rules and decision rules : Time consistency and subgame perfection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 191-194, September.
  19. Shivakumar, Ram, 1993. "Strategic trade policy : Choosing between export subsidies and export quotas under uncertainty," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 169-183, August.
  20. Hwang, Hae-Shin & Schulman, Craig T., 1993. "Strategic non-intervention and the choice of trade policy for international oligopoly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 73-93, February.
  21. Qiu, Larry D. & Lai, Edwin L. -C., 2004. "Protection of trade for innovation: the roles of Northern and Southern Tariffs," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 449-470, December.
  22. Goldberg, Pinelopi Koujianou, 1995. "Strategic Export Promotion in the Absence of Government Precommitment," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 36(2), pages 407-426, May.
  23. Arvan, Lanny, 1991. "Flexibility versus commitment in strategic trade policy under uncertainty : A model of endogenous policy leadership," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3-4), pages 341-355, November.
  24. Carmichael, Calum M., 1987. "The control of export credit subsidies and its welfare consequences," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1-2), pages 1-19, August.
  25. Russell Cooper & Raymond Riezman, 2013. "Uncertainty and the Choice of Trade Policy in Oligopolistic Industries," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: International Trade Agreements and Political Economy, chapter 16, pages 287-298 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
  26. Karp, Larry S. & Perloff, Jeffrey M., 1995. "The failure of strategic industrial policies due to manipulation by firms," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16.
  27. Brander, James A., 1981. "Intra-industry trade in identical commodities," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, February.
  28. Jarko Fidrmuc & Daniela Grozea-Helmenstein & Andreas Wörgötter, 1999. "East-west intra-industry trade dynamics," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 135(2), pages 332-346, June.
  29. Staiger, Robert W & Tabellini, Guido, 1987. "Discretionary Trade Policy and Excessive Protection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 823-837, December.
  30. Kydland, Finn E & Prescott, Edward C, 1977. "Rules Rather Than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(3), pages 473-491, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jcecon:v:39:y:2011:i:4:p:533-556. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.