IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Investment Liberalization - Why a Restrictive Cross-Border Merger Policy can be Counterproductive

Investment liberalizing countries are often concerned that cross-border mergers & acquisitions, in contrast to greenfield investments, might have an adverse effect on domestic firms and consumers. However, given that domestic assets are sufficiently scarce, we identify a preemption effect and an asset complementarity effect, which imply that the acquisition price is substantially higher than the domestic seller's profits. Moreover, we show that for the acquisition to take place, the MNE must be sufficiently efficient when using the domestic assets, otherwise rivals will expand their business, thereby making the acquisition unprofitable. Consequently, restricting cross-border M&As may also hurt consumers.

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.ifn.se/Wfiles/wp/WP644.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Research Institute of Industrial Economics in its series Working Paper Series with number 644.

as
in new window

Length: 37 pages
Date of creation: 13 Jun 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:0644
Contact details of provider: Postal: Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Box 55665, SE-102 15 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46 8 665 4500
Fax: +46 8 665 4599
Web page: http://www.ifn.se/
Email:


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.:

as in new window
  1. Morton I. Kamien & Israel Zang, 1987. "The Limits of Monopolization Through Acquisition," Discussion Papers 754, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  2. Persson, Lars & Horn, Henrik, 1998. "Endogenous Mergers in Concentrated Markets," Working Paper Series 513, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
  3. Perry, Martin K & Porter, Robert H, 1985. "Oligopoly and the Incentive for Horizontal Merger," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 219-27, March.
  4. Mikhail Klimenko & Kamal Saggi, 2007. "Technical compatibility and the mode of foreign entry with network externalities," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 176-206, February.
  5. Keith Head & John Ries, 1997. "International Mergers and Welfare under Decentralized Competition Policy," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 1104-23, November.
  6. d'Aspremont, Claude & Jacquemin, Alexis, 1988. "Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in Duopoly with Spillovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1133-37, December.
  7. Mattoo, Aaditya & Olarreaga, Marcelo & Saggi, Kamal, 2004. "Mode of foreign entry, technology transfer, and FDI policy," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 95-111, October.
  8. J. Peter Neary, 2007. "Cross-Border Mergers as Instruments of Comparative Advantage," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(4), pages 1229-1257.
  9. Neary, J Peter, 2002. "Foreign Competition and Wage Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 3420, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  10. Horn, Henrik & Persson, Lars, 1999. "The Equilibrium Ownership of an International Oligopoly," CEPR Discussion Papers 2302, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  11. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2003. "Privatization Policy in an International Oligopoly," Working Paper Series 608, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
  12. Fridolfsson, Sven-Olof & Stennek, Johan, 2000. "Why Mergers Reduce Profits, and Raise Share-Prices," CEPR Discussion Papers 2357, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  13. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2002. "Investment Liberalization - Who Benefits from Cross Border Mergers," CEPR Discussion Papers 3166, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  14. Robert E. Lipsey, 2000. "Interpreting Developed Countries' Foreign Direct Investment," NBER Working Papers 7810, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Leahy, Dermot & Neary, J Peter, 1997. "Public Policy towards R&D in Oligopolistic Industries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 642-62, September.
  16. James R. Markusen, 1995. "The Boundaries of Multinational Enterprises and the Theory of International Trade," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 169-189, Spring.
  17. Ann E. Harrison & Brian J. Aitken, 1999. "Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 605-618, June.
  18. Rod Falvey, 1998. "Mergers in Open Economies," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(8), pages 1061-1076, November.
  19. Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2001. "Investment Liberalization - Who Benefits from Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions?," Working Paper Series 569, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
  20. James R. Markusen, 1997. "Trade versus Investment Liberalization," NBER Working Papers 6231, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
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:hhs:iuiwop:0644. 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 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.