IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5593.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Implementing Market Access

Author

Listed:
  • Kala Krishna
  • Suddhasatwa Roy
  • Marie Thursby

Abstract

The outcome of trade policies to increase access for foreign firms to the home country's market is shown to be sensitive to the implementation procedure used. The importance of the timing of moves between government and firms is highlighted by focusing on taxes and subsidies to implement minimum market share requirements. Both taxes and subsidies chosen by the home government after firms have picked prices create powerful incentives for firms to raise prices - effects that are similar in nature to those found with quotas/VERs. We show that some degree of imprecision in implementing the target engenders less anticompetitive outcomes relative to perfect enforcement.

Suggested Citation

  • Kala Krishna & Suddhasatwa Roy & Marie Thursby, 1996. "Implementing Market Access," NBER Working Papers 5593, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:5593
    Note: ITI
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5593.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    • Krishna, K & Roy, S & Thursby, M, 1996. "Implementaing Market Access," Papers 96-003, Purdue University, Krannert School of Management - Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER).
    • Krishna, K & Thursby, M & Roy, S, 1996. "Implementing Market Access," Papers 96-011, Purdue University, Krannert School of Management - Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER).

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krishna, Kala, 1990. "The Case of the Vanishing Revenues: Auction Quotas with Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 828-836, September.
    2. Brainard, S. Lael & Martimort, David, 1997. "Strategic trade policy with incompletely informed policymakers," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 33-65, February.
    3. Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg & Michael M. Knetter, 1997. "Causes and Consequences of the Export Enhancement Program for Wheat," NBER Chapters,in: The Effects of U.S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies, pages 273-296 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Kala Krishna & Suddhasatwa Roy & Marie Thursby, 1997. "Procompetitive Market Access," NBER Working Papers 6184, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
      • Thursby, M. & Krisna, K. & Roy, S., 1997. "Procompetitive Market Access," Papers 97-006, Purdue University, Krannert School of Management - Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER).
    5. 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.
    6. Krishna, Kala, 1989. "Trade restrictions as facilitating practices," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3-4), pages 251-270, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Douglas A. Irwin, 1996. "Trade Policies and the Semiconductor Industry," NBER Chapters,in: The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, pages 11-72 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Greaney, Theresa M., 1996. "Import now! An analysis of market-share voluntary import expansions (VIEs)," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-2), pages 149-163, February.
    10. Ethier, Wilfred J & Horn, Henrik, 1996. "Results-Oriented Trade Policy," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 17-39, February.
    11. Dinopoulos, Elias & Kreinin, Mordechai E, 1990. "An Analysis of Import Expansion Policies," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 28(1), pages 99-108, January.
    12. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    13. Gruenspecht, Howard K., 1988. "Export subsidies for differentiated products," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3-4), pages 331-344, May.
    14. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 83-100, February.
    15. Douglas A. Irwin, 1994. "Managed Trade," Books, American Enterprise Institute, number 51697.
    16. Kowalczyk, Carsten, 1994. "Monopoly and trade policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 177-186, February.
    17. Neil Bjorksten, 1994. "Voluntary Import Expansions and Voluntary Export Restraints in an Oligopoly Model with Capacity Constraints," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 446-457, May.
    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. Krishna, Kala & Morgan, John, 1998. "Implementing results-oriented trade policies: The case of the US-Japanese auto parts dispute," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1443-1467, September.
    2. Thierry Verdier, 1998. "Results-oriented versus rules-oriented trade policies:: A theoretical survey," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 733-744, May.
    3. Byron Gangnes & Craig Parsons, 2004. "Have U.S.-Japan Trade Agreements Made a Difference?," Working Papers 08-2004, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    4. Kala Krishna & Suddhasatwa Roy & Marie Thursby, 2001. "Can subsidies for MARs be procompetitive?," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 212-224, February.
    5. Greaney, Theresa M., 2000. "Righting past wrongs: can import promotion policies counter hysteresis from past trade protection in the presence of switching costs?," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 211-227, September.
    6. Qiu, Larry D. & Spencer, Barbara J., 2002. "Keiretsu and relationship-specific investment: implications for market-opening trade policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 49-79, October.
    7. Spencer, Barbara J & Qiu, Larry D, 2001. "Keiretsu and Relationship-Specific Investment: A Barrier to Trade?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 42(4), pages 871-901, November.
    8. Greaney, Theresa M., 2001. "Promoting Imports to Appease Trade Partners: Japan's New Trade Policies," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 253-270, September.
    9. Thursby, M. & Krisna, K. & Roy, S., 1997. "Procompetitive Market Access," Papers 97-006, Purdue University, Krannert School of Management - Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER).
    10. repec:taf:rjapxx:v:12:y:2007:i:4:p:548-566 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Ju, Jiandong & Krishna, Kala, 2000. "Welfare and market access effects of piecemeal tariff reform," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 305-316, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    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:nbr:nberwo:5593. 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: () or (Joanne Lustig). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.