• A
  • A
  • A
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • ABC
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Regular version of the site
Of all publications in the section: 2
Sort:
by name
by year
Working paper
Kichko S., Behrens K., Ushchev P. CESifo working paper. CESifo Group Munich, 2018. No. WP6965.
We develop a general equilibrium model of monopolistic competition with a traded and a nontraded sector. Using a broad class of homothetic preferences—that generate variable markups, display a simple behavior of their elasticity of substitution, and nest the ces as a limiting case— we show that trade liberalization: (i) reduces domestic markups and increases imported markups in the traded sector; (ii) increases markups in the non-traded sector; and (iii) increases firm sizes in both sectors. Thus, while domestic and export markups in the traded sector converge across countries, markups diverge across sectors within countries. The negative welfare effects of higher markups and less consumption diversity in the non-traded sector dampen the positive welfare effects of lower markups and greater diversity in the traded sector.
Added: Apr 26, 2018
Working paper
Kadochnikov S. M., Drapkin I. M. CESifo working paper. CESifo Group Munich, 2008. No. 2227.
This paper is based on the model of backward linkages from foreign direct investment (FDI) Lin/Saggi (2003), where the market structure of the final goods sector is represented by a monopoly or Cournot oligopoly, and the supplier sector – by a pure monopoly. We extend this model by examining cases of perfect competition and a vertically integrated domestic company in the intermediate goods market. Our analysis shows that coming of foreign companies to the final goods sector provides positive backward linkage effects. Although this result doesn’t depend on the market structure in the final goods sector, the latter significantly affects the size of FDI linkage effects – the more competitive is the intermediate goods sector, the larger are the backward linkage effects. They reach their maximum under perfect competition in the intermediate goods market, minimum – under monopoly in this sector, and medium size - when a vertically integrated local firm exists in the market. We have also discovered that a more competitive market structure per se doesn’t guarantee larger positive effects of FDI. It is important that in addition to a competitive structure local firms do not significantly lag behind foreign firms in their technological level.
Added: Sep 24, 2013