Direct Investment and Local Content Rules in the European Community
This paper analyses the behaviour of competing governments in the EC with respect to inflows of direct investment. Solving a non-cooperative sequential bargaining game in which host countries gain from direct investment through tax revenue or imposition of forced local subcontracting, it is concluded that a successful 1992 program does not allow discrimination of direct investment. As they bid against each other for the attraction of projects, the EC countries will give away rents generated by protectionism. Hence, multinational firms may temper the emergence of trading 'blocs' through their ability to play individual countries against each other.
|Date of creation:||Dec 1990|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +46 8 665 4500
Fax: +46 8 665 4599
Web page: http://www.ifn.se/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Doyle, Christopher & van Wijnbergen, Sweder, 1984.
"Taxation of Foreign Multinationals: A Sequential Bargaining Approach to Tax Holidays,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
25, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Chris Doyle & Sweder Wijnbergen, 1994. "Taxation of foreign multinationals: A sequential bargaining approach to tax holidays," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 211-225, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0288. 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: (Elisabeth Gustafsson)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.