學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 內生化策略性貿易、出口學習效果以及對外直接投資: 國際貿易政策與理論論文三篇
Endogenous Strategic Trade Policy, Learning-by-Exporting and Foreign Direct Investment: Three Essays in International Trade Theory and Policy作者 蔡守容
Tsai, Shoou-Rong貢獻者 翁永和
Weng, Yung-Ho
蔡守容
Tsai, Shoou-Rong關鍵詞 內生化策略性貿易政策
異質廠商
出口學習效果
出口與對外直接投資
Endogenous strategic trade policy
Heterogeneous firms
Learning-by-exporting
Export and foreign direct investment日期 2020 上傳時間 1-Jul-2021 20:22:46 (UTC+8) 摘要 本篇論文利用三個章節探討三個與國際貿易相關的主題。第一個主題是策略性貿易政策的相關議題，第二個主題探討出口學習效果對廠商出口行為的影響，第三個主題研究出口學習效果與對外直接投資學習效果如何影響廠商的貿易決策。本文第二章討論在經典的策略性貿易政策模型架構之下，當廠商可以自行選擇要用數量還是價格做策略性變數時，政府的最適貿易政策為何。 我們得到兩個主要結論: (1) 在符合一些合理的假設之下，兩家廠商皆會選擇數量作為其策略性變數在第三國市場競爭。(2) 因為兩國皆選擇數量為策略性變數，故廠商的競爭型態為庫諾競爭，此時最適的貿易政策為政府補貼本國的出口廠商。本文第三章討論在異質廠商的架構之下，出口學習效果如何影響廠商的出口決策。主要的結論有: (1) 比起沒有出口學習效果，廠商更有意願出口，因為透過出口廠商可以提升自身的生產力。有些廠商甚至會在出口利潤為負的情況下選擇出口。(2) 出口廠商以及非出口廠商之間存在著一段生產力的差距，亦即最差的出口廠商其生產力仍高於最好的非出口廠商一段距離。本文第四章延伸第三章的模型，加入了廠商可以選擇對外直接投資的選項，且對外直接投資與出口皆存在著學習效果。本章的主要結論為: (1) 當兩者的學習效果大小相異時，廠商的出口和對外投資決策存在著微弱的互補關係。(2) 當兩者的學習效果相等時，廠商只會選擇出口或是對外直接投資其中一種方式來將其產品賣至國外市場。
This thesis explores three topics of international trade in three chapters. One is about strategic trade policy and the other two analyze in a firm’s behavior given the existence of technological learning effect of exporting and making FDI.Chapter 2 discusses the home government’s optimal export policy when a firm can endogenously choose its strategic variable in a classic strategic trade policy model structure. Two conclusions are obtained. First, under some moderate, reasonable constraints, two firms (domestic and foreign firms) will compete in quantity in the third country. Second, since a Cournot results appear, the optimal export policy for the home government is to subsidy its export firm.Chapter 3 constructs a model that captures the features of learning-by-exporting to analyze a firm’s export decision based on a heterogeneous firms structure. The main results are: First, compared with the case of no learning effect, a firm is more willing to export since it can upgrade its productivity. Moreover, a firm might export even it has negative export profit. Second, a productivity gap emerges between exporters and non-exporters. The least productive exporters are still more productive than the non-exporters.Chapter 4 extends the model in Chapter 3. A Firm can use two ways to serve the foreign countries, exporting or making foreign direct investment. There is a learning effect (productivity improvement) on both activities; the magnitude of the learning effect can be symmetric or asymmetric. The main result is that a weakly complementary relationship between export and foreign direct investment may emerge in the case when the learning effect is asymmetric. Conversely, in the case of symmetric learning effect, a firm will use export or foreign direct investment to serve all foreign markets, but not both.參考文獻 Chapter 1.Bernard, A. B. and J. B. Jensen, (1995). “Exporters, Jobs, and Wages in U.S. Manufacturing: 1975-1987.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics. 67-119.Brander, J.A. and B.J. Spencer, (1985). “Export Subsidies and International Market Share Rivalry”, Journal of International Economics 18: 83-100.Eaton, J. and G.M. Grossman, (1986). “Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy under Oligopoly”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 101: 383-406.Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., and Yeaple, S. R., (2004). “Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms.” American Economic Review, 94(1), 300-316.Melitz, M. J., (2003). “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725.Chapter 2.Basak, D. and L.F.S. Wang, (2016). “Endogenous Choice of Price or Qnantity Contract and the Implications of Two-Part-Tariff in a Vertical Structure”, Economic Letters 138: 53-56.Brander, J.A., (1995). “Strategic Trade Policy”, in: G. Grossman and K. Rogoff eds., Handbook of International Economics (Elsevier science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherland): 1397-1455.Brander, J.A. and B.J. Spencer, (1985). “Export Subsidies and International Market Share Rivalry”, Journal of International Economics 18: 83-100.Choi, K., K.D. Lee, and S. Lim, (2016). “Strategic Trade Policies in International Rivalry when Competition Mode is Endogenous”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics 57(2): 223-241.Eaton, J. and G.M. Grossman, (1986). “Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy under Oligopoly”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 101: 383-406.Feenstra, R.C. and A.K. Rose, (2000). “The Journal of International Economics at Fifty: A Retrospective”, Journal of International Economics 50: 3-15.Head, K. and B.J. Spencer, (2017). “Oligopoly in International Trade: Rise, Fall and Resurgence,” NBER Working Paper 23720.Maggi, G., (1996). “Strategic Trade Policies with Endogenous Mode of Competition”, American Economic Review 86: 237-258.Schroeder, E. and V.J. Tremblay, (2015). “A Reappraisal of Strategic Trade Policy”, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 15: 435-442.Singh, N. and X. Vives, (1984). “Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly”, Rand Journal of Economics 15: 546-554.Tsai, S.R., P.L. Tsai and Y. Weng, (2016). “Cournot-Bertrand Competition: A Revisit of Strategic Trade Policy in the Third-Market Model”, Journal of Economic Studies 43: 475 - 487.Zanchettin, P., (2006). “Differentiated Duopoly with Asymmetric Costs”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 15: 999-1015.Chapter 3.Arnold, J. M. and K. Hussinger, (2005a). “Export Behavior and Firm Productivity in German Manufacturing. A Firm‐level Analysis.” Review of World Economics, 141, 2, 219–43Bai, X., K. Krishna, and H. Ma, (2017). “How You Export Matters: Export Mode, Learning and Productivity in China.” Journal of International Economics, 104, 122-137.Baldwin, J. R. and W. Gu, (2003). “Export-market Participation and Productivity Performance in Canadian Manufacturing.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 36, 634-657.Bernard, A. B. and J. B. Jensen, (1995). “Exporters, Jobs, and Wages in U.S. Manufacturing: 1975-1987.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics. 67-119.Bernard, A. B. and J. B. Jensen, (1999). “Exceptional exporter performance: cause, effect, or both?” Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1-25.Crespi, G., Criscuolo., C, and Haskel, J., (2008). “Productivity, exporting and the learning-by-exporting hypothesis: Direct evidence from UK firms.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 41(2), 619–638.De Loecker, J., (2007). “Do Exports Generate Higher Productivity? Evidence from Slovenia.” Journal of International Economics, 73, 69-98.De Loecker, J., (2013). “Detecting Learning by Exporting.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 5 (3), 1–21Krugman, P. R., (1979). “Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade.” Journal of International Economics, 9, 469-479.Melitz, M. J., (2003). “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725.Temouri, Y., Vogel., A, and Wagner, J., (2013). “Self-selection into export markets by business services firms—Evidence from France, Germany and the United Kingdom.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Volume 25, June 2013, 146-158Chapter 4.Clausing, K. A., (2000). “Does Multinational Activity Displace Trade?” Economy Inquiry, 38(2), 190-205.Conconi, P., Sapir A, and Zanardi M., (2016). “The internationalization process of firms: from exports to FDI.” Journal of International Economics, 99, 16-30.Head, K. and J. Ries, (2001). “Overseas Investment and Firms Exports.” Review of International Economics, 9(1), 108-122.Head, K. and J. Ries, (2004). “Exporting and FDI as alternative strategies.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 409-423Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., and Yeaple, S. R., (2004). “Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms.” American Economic Review, 94(1), 300-316.Lipsey, R. E. and M. Y. Weiss, (1981). “Foreign Production and Exports in manufacturing industries.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 63(4), 488-494.Lipsey, R. E. and M. Y. Weiss, (1984). “Foreign Production and Exports of Individual Firms.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(2), 304-308.Melitz, M. J., (2003). “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725.Rob, R. and N. Vettas, (2003). “Foreign direct investment and exports with growing demand.” Review of Economics Studies, 70, 629–648.Chapter 5.Brander, J.A. and B.J. Spencer, (1985). “Export Subsidies and International Market Share Rivalry”, Journal of International Economics 18: 83-100.Melitz, M. J., (2003). “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725. 描述 博士
國立政治大學
經濟學系
104258502資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104258502 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 翁永和 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Weng, Yung-Ho en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 蔡守容 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Tsai, Shoou-Rong en_US dc.creator (作者) 蔡守容 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Tsai, Shoou-Rong en_US dc.date (日期) 2020 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2021 20:22:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2021 20:22:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2021 20:22:46 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104258502 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/135993 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 經濟學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 104258502 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本篇論文利用三個章節探討三個與國際貿易相關的主題。第一個主題是策略性貿易政策的相關議題，第二個主題探討出口學習效果對廠商出口行為的影響，第三個主題研究出口學習效果與對外直接投資學習效果如何影響廠商的貿易決策。本文第二章討論在經典的策略性貿易政策模型架構之下，當廠商可以自行選擇要用數量還是價格做策略性變數時，政府的最適貿易政策為何。 我們得到兩個主要結論: (1) 在符合一些合理的假設之下，兩家廠商皆會選擇數量作為其策略性變數在第三國市場競爭。(2) 因為兩國皆選擇數量為策略性變數，故廠商的競爭型態為庫諾競爭，此時最適的貿易政策為政府補貼本國的出口廠商。本文第三章討論在異質廠商的架構之下，出口學習效果如何影響廠商的出口決策。主要的結論有: (1) 比起沒有出口學習效果，廠商更有意願出口，因為透過出口廠商可以提升自身的生產力。有些廠商甚至會在出口利潤為負的情況下選擇出口。(2) 出口廠商以及非出口廠商之間存在著一段生產力的差距，亦即最差的出口廠商其生產力仍高於最好的非出口廠商一段距離。本文第四章延伸第三章的模型，加入了廠商可以選擇對外直接投資的選項，且對外直接投資與出口皆存在著學習效果。本章的主要結論為: (1) 當兩者的學習效果大小相異時，廠商的出口和對外投資決策存在著微弱的互補關係。(2) 當兩者的學習效果相等時，廠商只會選擇出口或是對外直接投資其中一種方式來將其產品賣至國外市場。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This thesis explores three topics of international trade in three chapters. One is about strategic trade policy and the other two analyze in a firm’s behavior given the existence of technological learning effect of exporting and making FDI.Chapter 2 discusses the home government’s optimal export policy when a firm can endogenously choose its strategic variable in a classic strategic trade policy model structure. Two conclusions are obtained. First, under some moderate, reasonable constraints, two firms (domestic and foreign firms) will compete in quantity in the third country. Second, since a Cournot results appear, the optimal export policy for the home government is to subsidy its export firm.Chapter 3 constructs a model that captures the features of learning-by-exporting to analyze a firm’s export decision based on a heterogeneous firms structure. The main results are: First, compared with the case of no learning effect, a firm is more willing to export since it can upgrade its productivity. Moreover, a firm might export even it has negative export profit. Second, a productivity gap emerges between exporters and non-exporters. The least productive exporters are still more productive than the non-exporters.Chapter 4 extends the model in Chapter 3. A Firm can use two ways to serve the foreign countries, exporting or making foreign direct investment. There is a learning effect (productivity improvement) on both activities; the magnitude of the learning effect can be symmetric or asymmetric. The main result is that a weakly complementary relationship between export and foreign direct investment may emerge in the case when the learning effect is asymmetric. Conversely, in the case of symmetric learning effect, a firm will use export or foreign direct investment to serve all foreign markets, but not both. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents ContentsChapter 1 Introduction 1Chapter 2 Endogenous Strategic Trade Policy: The case of the Third Market Model 51. Introduction 52. The Models 62.1 Equilibrium profits 72.2 Firms’ optimal strategies 82.3 Home government’s optimal policy 113. Concluding Remarks 15References 16Appendix 1. The value of sl, l=1,...,8, in Figure 2.1 21Appendix 2. Derivation of W_h^((C,C)) (s^((C,C)*))>W_h^((B,B)) (s^((B,B)*)) 22Chapter 3 Learning-by-Exporting and Firm Heterogeneity 231. Introduction. 232. The Model 262.1. Closed economy 273. Firm Entry and Exit 303.1. ZCP condition 303.2. FE condition 314. Closed Economy Equilibrium 335. Open Economy 345.1. Assumptions in the open economy 355.2. A firm’s total revenue under open economy 366. The Decision for Export. 376.1. The sign of each term in equation (3.25) 416.2. Discussions of case 1~case 3 417. The ZCP Curve in the Open Economy 477.1. φ^*>φ_c (case 1 and case 3) 477.2. φ^*≤φ_c (case 2) 497.3. Brief summary of the ZCP curve 508. The FE Curve in the Open Economy 529. Open Economy Equilibrium 5310. The Effect of Trade 5910.1. Decrease in the equilibrium mass of incumbent firms 5910.2. The reallocation of market share (r(φ)/R) 6010.3. The change in firms’ profits 6210.4. Change in welfare per worker. 6611. Conclusions 67Appendix 1. Derivation of equation (3.27) 70Appendix 2. Derivation of the condition φ_x^s>φ_c 70Appendix 3. The existence and uniqueness of equilibrium in the open economy 72Appendix 4. Aggregation on the open economy 74References 76Chapter 4 The Relationship between Export and Foreign Direct Investment with Technology Upgrade 791. Introduction 792. The model 822.1. Productivity growth and cost assumptions 822.2. The cutoff productivity between export and FDI 843. The symmetric productivity growth (α=β) 864. The asymmetric productivity growth with α>β 895. The asymmetric productivity growth with β>α 926. The effect of an increase in τ 957. Conclusion 96Appendices. 99References 109Chapter 5 Conclusions 111 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2220769 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104258502 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 內生化策略性貿易政策 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 異質廠商 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 出口學習效果 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 出口與對外直接投資 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Endogenous strategic trade policy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Heterogeneous firms en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Learning-by-exporting en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Export and foreign direct investment en_US dc.title (題名) 內生化策略性貿易、出口學習效果以及對外直接投資: 國際貿易政策與理論論文三篇 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Endogenous Strategic Trade Policy, Learning-by-Exporting and Foreign Direct Investment: Three Essays in International Trade Theory and Policy en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chapter 1.Bernard, A. B. and J. B. Jensen, (1995). “Exporters, Jobs, and Wages in U.S. Manufacturing: 1975-1987.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics. 67-119.Brander, J.A. and B.J. Spencer, (1985). “Export Subsidies and International Market Share Rivalry”, Journal of International Economics 18: 83-100.Eaton, J. and G.M. Grossman, (1986). “Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy under Oligopoly”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 101: 383-406.Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., and Yeaple, S. R., (2004). “Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms.” American Economic Review, 94(1), 300-316.Melitz, M. J., (2003). “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725.Chapter 2.Basak, D. and L.F.S. Wang, (2016). “Endogenous Choice of Price or Qnantity Contract and the Implications of Two-Part-Tariff in a Vertical Structure”, Economic Letters 138: 53-56.Brander, J.A., (1995). “Strategic Trade Policy”, in: G. Grossman and K. Rogoff eds., Handbook of International Economics (Elsevier science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherland): 1397-1455.Brander, J.A. and B.J. Spencer, (1985). “Export Subsidies and International Market Share Rivalry”, Journal of International Economics 18: 83-100.Choi, K., K.D. Lee, and S. Lim, (2016). “Strategic Trade Policies in International Rivalry when Competition Mode is Endogenous”, Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics 57(2): 223-241.Eaton, J. and G.M. Grossman, (1986). “Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy under Oligopoly”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 101: 383-406.Feenstra, R.C. and A.K. Rose, (2000). “The Journal of International Economics at Fifty: A Retrospective”, Journal of International Economics 50: 3-15.Head, K. and B.J. Spencer, (2017). “Oligopoly in International Trade: Rise, Fall and Resurgence,” NBER Working Paper 23720.Maggi, G., (1996). “Strategic Trade Policies with Endogenous Mode of Competition”, American Economic Review 86: 237-258.Schroeder, E. and V.J. Tremblay, (2015). “A Reappraisal of Strategic Trade Policy”, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 15: 435-442.Singh, N. and X. Vives, (1984). “Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly”, Rand Journal of Economics 15: 546-554.Tsai, S.R., P.L. Tsai and Y. Weng, (2016). “Cournot-Bertrand Competition: A Revisit of Strategic Trade Policy in the Third-Market Model”, Journal of Economic Studies 43: 475 - 487.Zanchettin, P., (2006). “Differentiated Duopoly with Asymmetric Costs”, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 15: 999-1015.Chapter 3.Arnold, J. M. and K. Hussinger, (2005a). “Export Behavior and Firm Productivity in German Manufacturing. A Firm‐level Analysis.” Review of World Economics, 141, 2, 219–43Bai, X., K. Krishna, and H. Ma, (2017). “How You Export Matters: Export Mode, Learning and Productivity in China.” Journal of International Economics, 104, 122-137.Baldwin, J. R. and W. Gu, (2003). “Export-market Participation and Productivity Performance in Canadian Manufacturing.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 36, 634-657.Bernard, A. B. and J. B. Jensen, (1995). “Exporters, Jobs, and Wages in U.S. Manufacturing: 1975-1987.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics. 67-119.Bernard, A. B. and J. B. Jensen, (1999). “Exceptional exporter performance: cause, effect, or both?” Journal of International Economics, 47(1), 1-25.Crespi, G., Criscuolo., C, and Haskel, J., (2008). “Productivity, exporting and the learning-by-exporting hypothesis: Direct evidence from UK firms.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 41(2), 619–638.De Loecker, J., (2007). “Do Exports Generate Higher Productivity? Evidence from Slovenia.” Journal of International Economics, 73, 69-98.De Loecker, J., (2013). “Detecting Learning by Exporting.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 5 (3), 1–21Krugman, P. R., (1979). “Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade.” Journal of International Economics, 9, 469-479.Melitz, M. J., (2003). “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725.Temouri, Y., Vogel., A, and Wagner, J., (2013). “Self-selection into export markets by business services firms—Evidence from France, Germany and the United Kingdom.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Volume 25, June 2013, 146-158Chapter 4.Clausing, K. A., (2000). “Does Multinational Activity Displace Trade?” Economy Inquiry, 38(2), 190-205.Conconi, P., Sapir A, and Zanardi M., (2016). “The internationalization process of firms: from exports to FDI.” Journal of International Economics, 99, 16-30.Head, K. and J. Ries, (2001). “Overseas Investment and Firms Exports.” Review of International Economics, 9(1), 108-122.Head, K. and J. Ries, (2004). “Exporting and FDI as alternative strategies.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20, 409-423Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., and Yeaple, S. R., (2004). “Export Versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms.” American Economic Review, 94(1), 300-316.Lipsey, R. E. and M. Y. Weiss, (1981). “Foreign Production and Exports in manufacturing industries.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 63(4), 488-494.Lipsey, R. E. and M. Y. Weiss, (1984). “Foreign Production and Exports of Individual Firms.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 66(2), 304-308.Melitz, M. J., (2003). “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725.Rob, R. and N. Vettas, (2003). “Foreign direct investment and exports with growing demand.” Review of Economics Studies, 70, 629–648.Chapter 5.Brander, J.A. and B.J. Spencer, (1985). “Export Subsidies and International Market Share Rivalry”, Journal of International Economics 18: 83-100.Melitz, M. J., (2003). “The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity.” Econometrica, 71, 1695-1725. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202100569 en_US
