IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/259.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Country asymmetries, endogenous product choice and the speed of trade liberalization

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Cabrales
  • Massimo Motta

Abstract

In a world with two countries which differ in size, we study the impact of (the speed of) trade liberalization on firms' profits and total welfare of the countries involved. Firms correctly anticipate the pace of trade liberalization and take it into account when deciding on their product choices, which are endogenously determined at the beginning of the game. Competition in the marketplace then occurs either on quantities or on prices. As long as the autarkic phase continues, local firms are national monopolists. When trade liberalization occurs, firms compete in an international duopoly. We analyze trade effects by using two different models of product differentiation. Across all the specifications adopted (and independently of the price v. quantity competition hypothesis), total welfare always unambiguously rises with the speed of trade liberalization: Possible losses by firms are always outweighed by consumers' gains, which come under the form of lower prices, enlarged variety of higher average qualities available. The effect on profits depends on the type of industry analyzed. Two results in particular seem to be worth of mention. With vertical product differentiation and fixed costs of quality improvements, the expected size of the market faced by the firms determines the incentive to invest in quality. The longer the period of autarky, the lower the possibility that the firm from the small country would be producing the high quality and be the leader in the international market when it opens. On the contrary, when trade opens immediately, national markets do not play any role and firms from different countries have the same opportunity to become the leader. Hence, immediate trade liberalization might be in the interest of producers in the small country. In general, the lower the size of the small country, the more likely its firm will gain from trade liberalization. Losses from the small country firm can arise when it is relegated to low quality good production and the domestic market size is not very small. With horizontal product differentiation (the homogeneous good case being a limit case of it when costs of differentiation tend to infinity), investments in differentiation benefit both firms in equal manner. Firms from the small country do not run the risk of being relegated to a lower competitive position under trade. As a result, they would never lose from it. Instead, firms from the large country may still incur losses from the opening of trade when the market expansion effect is low (i.e. when the country is very large relative to the other).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:259
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/259.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Carlsson, Hans & van Damme, Eric, 1993. "Global Games and Equilibrium Selection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 989-1018, September.
    4. Van Huyck, John B & Battalio, Raymond C & Beil, Richard O, 1990. "Tacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 234-248, March.
    5. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-959, December.
    6. Motta, Massimo, 1993. "Endogenous Quality Choice: Price vs. Quantity Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 113-131, June.
    7. Motta, Massimo, 1992. "Sunk Costs and Trade Liberalisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(412), pages 578-587, May.
    8. Markusen, James R., 1981. "Trade and the gains from trade with imperfect competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 531-551, November.
    9. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13.
    10. Markusen, James R. & Venables, Anthony J., 1988. "Trade policy with increasing returns and imperfect competition : Contradictory results from competing assumptions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3-4), pages 299-316, May.
    11. Kandori, Michihiro & Mailath, George J & Rob, Rafael, 1993. "Learning, Mutation, and Long Run Equilibria in Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 29-56, January.
    12. Jaskold Gabszewicz, J. & Thisse, J. -F., 1979. "Price competition, quality and income disparities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 340-359, June.
    13. Nguyen, Trien T. & Wigle, Randall M., 1992. "Trade liberalisation with imperfect competition : The large and the small of it," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 17-35, January.
    14. T. Cordella, 1990. "Trade Liberalizaiton and Oligopolistic Industries: a Welfare Appraisal," Working Papers 100, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    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. Massimo Motta, 2013. "Advertising bans," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 61-81, March.
    2. Cabrales, Antonio & Garcia-Fontes, Walter & Motta, Massimo, 2000. "Risk dominance selects the leader: An experimental analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 137-162, January.
    3. Moner-Colonques, Rafael, 1998. "Cost uncertainty and trade liberalization in international oligopoly," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 369-376, August.
    4. Tharakan, Joe & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 2002. "The importance of being small. Or when countries are areas and not points," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 381-408, May.
    5. Herguera, Iñigo & Lutz, Stefan, 1997. "Trade policy and leapfrogging," UC3M Working papers. Economics 7214, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    6. Bacchetta, Marc & Jansen, Marion, 2003. "Adjusting to trade liberalization: The role of policy, institutions and WTO Disciplines," WTO Special Studies, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division, volume 7, number 7.
    7. 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).
    8. Tharakan, J., 2001. "Revisiting “On nations’ size and transportation costs”," CORE Discussion Papers 2001032, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Trade liberalization; product differentiation; international trade;

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:upf:upfgen:259. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.upf.edu/ .

    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.