IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ier/iecrev/v30y1989i4p725-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is International Trade Profitable to Oligopolistic Industries?

Author

Listed:
  • Anderson, Simon P
  • Donsimoni, M-P
  • Gabszewicz, J J

Abstract

The authors examine whether oligopolistic autarkic industries operating in two different countries would gain from the opening of trade. They analyze a wide range of behavioral assumptions (as parameterized by conjectural variations) and a homogeneous products oligopoly for a large class of demand functions. Their findings can be summarized as follows: (1) for any given number of firms in each country's industry, there is always at least one of the two countries where firms make higher profits under autarky than under free trade; and (2) when there are fixed costs and the industry in each country is at its long-run (zero profit) autarkic equilibrium, then all firms in both countries lose from trade. Additional results are derived for the case when the demand sizes of countries can be parameterized in a meaningful way. Copyright 1989 by Economics Department of the University of Pennsylvania and the Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association.

Suggested Citation

  • Anderson, Simon P & Donsimoni, M-P & Gabszewicz, J J, 1989. "Is International Trade Profitable to Oligopolistic Industries?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 30(4), pages 725-733, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:ier:iecrev:v:30:y:1989:i:4:p:725-33
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-6598%28198911%2930%3A4%3C725%3AIITPTO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Baomin Dong & Huasheng Song & Xiaolin Qian, 2016. "International R&D Collaboration and Strategic Trade Policy," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 250-260, February.
    2. Ana Mauleon & Huasheng Song & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2010. "Networks of Free Trade Agreements among Heterogeneous Countries," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(3), pages 471-500, June.
    3. David R. Collie & Vo Phuong Mai Le, 2015. "Product Differentiation, the Volume of Trade and Profits under Cournot and Bertrand Duopoly," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 73-86, February.
    4. Straume, Odd Rune, 2002. "Union collusion and intra-industry trade," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 631-652, May.
    5. José J. Sempere Monerris & Rafael Moner Colonques & Amparo Urbano Salvador, 2010. "Trade liberalization in vertically related markets," Working Papers. Serie AD 2010-09, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    6. Antonio Cabrales & Massimo Motta, 1996. "Country asymmetries, endogenous product choice and the speed of trade liberalization," Economics Working Papers 259, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 1998.
    7. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:6:y:2007:i:4:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. J. Peter Neary, 2016. "International Trade in General Oligopolistic Equilibrium," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 669-698, September.
    9. Moner-Colonques, Rafael, 1998. "Cost uncertainty and trade liberalization in international oligopoly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 369-376, August.
    10. Cabrales, Antonio & Motta, Massimo, 2001. "Country asymmetries, endogenous product choice and the timing of trade liberalization," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 87-107, January.
    11. BACCHIEGA, Emanuele, 2004. "Vertical differentiation, wage bargaining and intra-industry trade liberalization," CORE Discussion Papers 2004028, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).

    More about this item

    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:ier:iecrev:v:30:y:1989:i:4:p:725-33. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/deupaus.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    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.