1 / 15

CHAPTER 1: PRO-COMPETITVE EFFECT OF TRADE

CHAPTER 1: PRO-COMPETITVE EFFECT OF TRADE. 1A: Imports as market discipline 1B: Empirical evidence 1C: Heterogeneity of firms, productivity, mark-ups Paper analysis: Bernard, Jensen & Schott (2006) Globalisation and labour markets, H. Boulhol. 1C: Heterogeneity of firms.

overton
Download Presentation

CHAPTER 1: PRO-COMPETITVE EFFECT OF TRADE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CHAPTER 1:PRO-COMPETITVE EFFECT OF TRADE 1A: Imports as market discipline 1B: Empirical evidence 1C: Heterogeneity of firms, productivity, mark-ups Paper analysis: Bernard, Jensen & Schott (2006) Globalisation and labour markets, H. Boulhol

  2. 1C: Heterogeneity of firms • Intensity of competition and aggregated mark-ups when firms are heterogenous • Burgeoning literature on firms’ heterogeneity: reallocation of resources / activities across firms

  3. 1C: Measures of increased competition • Theory: - Reduction in entry barriers (domestic, foreign) - More agressive interactions between firms (e.g. Bertrand vs Cournot) • Increase in the elasticity of substitution between goods • Empirics: - Industry concentration, bumber of firms, mark-up, PCMs, profit ratios, etc.

  4. 1C: Problem • These theoretical and empirical measures are not necessarily consistent • Market structure is endogenous • Example:

  5. 1C: Two main results (Boone, 2000) • Profits of the least efficient firm is reduced by increased competition (when firms are identical, all mark-ups / PCMs decrease) • Competition increases the profits and output of any firm relative to those of a less efficient one Darwinian metaphor Competition magnifies differences in efficiency by punishing the laggards more severely

  6. 1C: Firms in trade theory (Antras, lecture notes) • Neo-classical trade theory: - Firms are treated as a blackbox - c.r.s. means that size of firm is indeterminate • New trade theory (DSK): - each industry variety is produced by a single firm in just one country … - … which exports everywhere else in the world (iceberg transport costs affect only m.c., foreign competition does not affect mark-ups)

  7. 1C: Stylised facts • Exporters are a minority (20% of US plants) • Exporters sell most of their output domestically (2/3 of exporters sell less than 10% of their output abroad) • Larger firms tend to be more productive and have higher mark-ups

  8. 1C: Stylised facts • Exporters are (5 times) bigger than non exporters • Exporters are on average 30% more productive (suggests that firm self-select into export markets) • After trade liberalisation episodes, substantial reallocation effects within industries: market share reallocation towards more productive firms, thereby increasing aggregate productivity

  9. 1C: Implications for theory Theory should include: • Firm heterogeneity in size and productivity • A feature that leads only the most productive firms to engage in foreign trade (e.g. sunk cost of exporting)

  10. 1C: Melitz (2003)

  11. 1C: Melitz (2003)

  12. 1C: Melitz (2003) • Aggregate productivity gains: • trade reallocates market shares from purely low efficient to high efficient firms, from domestic producers to exporters • most efficient firms gain the most from exposure to trade • Two opposite effects for surviving firms: - face increase in competition from importers - Benefit from the exit of less efficient domestic firms • The most efficient firms also expand in the foreign markets

  13. 1C: What drives reallocation? • More efficient trade-induced reallocation across firms is a common feature of new firm heterogenity models, but channels differ: • in Melitz (2003, CES+monopolistic competition=no effect on mark-up), channel = increase in labour market competition: trade triggers increased competition for scarce labour resources as real wages are bid up by the more productive firms who expand to serve the export markets • in Melitz and Ottaviano (2005, mark-up depends on market share), channel = increase in product market competition: no labour market channel as supply of labour to the differentiated goods sector is perfectly elastic; however, least-efficient firms (low mark-up) are forced to exit

  14. 1C: Pro-competitve effect of trade and heterogeneity of firms Three effects: • Direct pro-competitve effect: import competition tends to reduce market power of all firms (foreign firms that effectively enter the market are de facto more competitive than domestic firms that exit) • Reallocation effect: to the extent that most efficient firms have bigger mark-ups, reallocation tends to mitigate the first effect • Access to foreign markets? Total effect depends on the distribution of firms’ heterogeneity Example: in BEJK (2003) with Frechet distribution, aggregate mark-up is not affected by trade In this case (BEJK), as in Melitz, trade leads to a more efficient equilibrium generating productivity gains at constant mark-up

More Related