25 research outputs found

    Export, Assembly-line FDI or FDI with the Possibility of Technology Diffusion: Optimal Entry Mode for Multinationals

    Get PDF
    The paper tries to evaluate the optimal entry mode of a Multinational Company that is choosing among export, fragmented production structure with assembly-line FDI in LDC or complete production in LDC with FDI. The results show that if the plant installation cost is sufficiently high then the firm will find it profitable to export the finished product to the LDC market and the Government will not exercise any IPR restriction. If plant installation cost is below a certain critical level the MNC chooses complete LDC production with FDI over assembly-line FDI if the IPR restriction is strong, where the model assumes that a fake producer can copy the product if complete production takes place in LDC. In such a situation government will choose to protect IPR if government earning exceeds the cost of IPR protection, otherwise no monitoring is the optimal strategy of the government and MNC will choose the strategy of fragmented production structure and assembly-line FDI will take place in LDC.Export, Assembly-line FDI, FDI with Complete Production, IPR Protection

    Embedding Landfill Diversion in Economic, Geographical and Policy Settings Panel based evidence from Italy

    Get PDF
    This paper analyses the process of delinking for landfilling trends embedding the dynamics in a frame where economic, geographical and policy variables enter the arena We aim at investigating in depth what main drivers may be responsible for such a phenomenon, and whether differences may be observed focusing the lens on a decentralised provincial based setting. We exploit a rich panel dataset stemming from Official sources (APAT, Italian environmental agency) merged with other provincial and regional based information, covering all the 103 Italian provinces over 1999-2005. The case study on Italy is worth being considered given that Italy is a main country in the EU. Thus it offers important pieces on information on the evaluation of policies. Evidence shows that the observed decoupling between economic growth and landfilling is driven by a mix of structural factors, as population density and other waste management opportunity: local opportunity costs and landfill externalities matter in shaping waste policies and local commitment to landfill diversion. But not only structural factors are relevant. If on the one hand landfill taxation is a significant driver of the phenomenon, even at the more coherent regional level, where the tax is implemented, waste management instruments, when we exploit the provincial dataset, are associated to high significant negative effect on landfilled waste. A good performance on managing waste according to economic rationales helps reducing the amount that is landfilled. In association to the features of the tariff system, we also underline the key role played by the share of separated collection. Both the evolution of collection and tariff system are joint factors that may drive a wedge between the comparative waste performances of northern and southern regions. We finally note that lock in effects linked to the intensity of incinerator sites in the area are relevant for landfilling: past investments in incineration lock in the region in this technological path, which may be associated to less opportunity cost and lower external effects. Summing up, landfill diversion is stronger where the economic cost deriving from high population density, a structural factor, are higher, and waste management collection systems and economic instruments are associated with higher performances.Landfill Policies, Incineration, Landfill Tax, Policy Effectiveness, Waste Management, Delinking, Landfill Trends, Kuznets Curves

    Effects of the CDM on Poverty Eradication and Global Climate Protection

    Get PDF
    In an impure public good model we analyze the effects of CDM transfers on poverty as well as on the global climate protection level. We construct an analytical model of a developing and an industrialized region, both of which independently seek to maximize their utility – a function of private consumption, domestic air quality, and global climate protection. They do so by distributing their finite expenditures across (1) the aggregate consumption good, (2) end-of-pipe pollution control technologies, and (3) greenhouse gas abatement. Based on our analytical findings, we develop two sets of simulations for China in which we vary the rate of the CDM transfer. The simulations differ by the assumption of China’s domestic air quality policy – the first assumes a technology-standards policy which fixes a level of end-of-pipe SO2 control, whereas the second assumes a technology-neutral policy which simply fixes the level of total SO2 emissions.Ancillary Benefits, CDM, Climate Policy, Impure Public Goods, Transfers, Abatement Technology

    What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions

    Get PDF
    Land-use changes involve important economic and environmental effects with implications for international trade, global climate change, wildlife, and other policy issues. We use an econometric model to identify factors driving land-use change in the United States between 1982 and 1997. We quantify the effects of net returns to alternative land uses on private landowners’ decisions to allocate land among six major uses, drawing on detailed micro-data on land use and land quality that are comprehensive of the contiguous U.S. This analysis provides the first evidence of the relative historical importance of markets and Federal farm policies affecting land-use changes nationally.Land Use, Land-Use Change, Econometric Analysis, Simulations

    The American Experiment: Guaranteed in Writing, 1999

    Get PDF

    Linkage of Tradable Permit Systems in International Climate Policy Architecture

    Get PDF
    Cap-and-trade systems have emerged as the preferred national and regional instrument for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases throughout the industrialized world, and the Clean Development Mechanism — an international emission-reduction-credit system — has developed a substantial constituency, despite some concerns about its performance. Because linkage between tradable permit systems can reduce compliance costs and improve market liquidity, there is great interest in linking cap-and-trade systems to each other, as well as to the CDM and other credit systems. We examine the benefits and concerns associated with various types of linkages, and analyze the near-term and long-term role that linkage may play in a future international climate policy architecture. In particular, we evaluate linkage in three potential roles: as an independent bottom-up architecture, as a step in the evolution of a top-down architecture, and as an ongoing element of a larger climate policy agreement. We also assess how the policy elements of climate negotiations can facilitate or impede linkages. Our analysis throughout is both positive and normative.Linkage, Cap-and-Trade, Tradable Permits, Global Climate Change

    Changing the Allocation Rules in the EU ETS: Impact on Competitiveness and Economic Efficiency

    Get PDF
    We assess five proposals for the future of the EU greenhouse gas Emission Trading Scheme (ETS): pure grandfathering allocation of emission allowances (GF), output-based allocation (OB), auctioning (AU), auctioning with border adjustments (AU-BA), and finally output-based allocation in sectors exposed to international competition combined with auctioning in electricity generation (OB-AU). We look at the impact on production, trade, CO2 leakage and welfare. We use a partial equilibrium model of the EU 27 featuring three sectors covered by the EU ETS – cement, steel and electricity – plus the aluminium sector, which is indirectly impacted through a rise in electricity price. The leakage ratio, i.e. the increase in emissions abroad over the decrease in EU emissions, ranges from around 8% under GF and AU to -2% under AU-BA and varies greatly among sectors. Concerning the overall economic cost, OB appears to be the least efficient policy, even when taking into account its ability to prevent CO2 leakage. On the other hand, this policy minimises production losses and wealth transfers among stakeholders, which is likely to soften oppositions. GF and AU are the most efficient policies from an EU perspective, even when leakage is accounted for. From a world welfare perspective and whatever the emission reductioEmission Trading, Allowance Allocation, Leakage, Spillover, Climate Policy, Kyoto Protocol, Border Adjustment

    Accountability in Government and Regulatory Policies: Theory and Evidence

    Get PDF
    This paper analyzes the political economy of regulatory and judicial appointment rules. I study a model of price-setting by a political principal faced with a firm with unknown costs, and endowed with an information-gathering technology whose efficiency rises with the effort exerted by two accountable supervisors (a regulator and a judge). This set-up captures the institutions of several international markets. The model predicts that reforms toward election rather than appointment of regulators are more likely the less efficient is the information-gathering technology, the less stringent are the investment concerns of society, the stronger are regulators’ revolving-door motivations, and the closer is political competition. These predictions are consistent with US electric power market data. Moreover, in accordance with the model, electricity rates are lower and respond less to shock in input costs in states that elect their regulators or their High Court judges.Election, Agency, Judges, Regulation, Electricity

    The American Experiment: Guaranteed in Writing, Second Edition

    Get PDF
    It is presently the second decade of the 21st Century. And is this still a great country, or what? Today, there are more people connected to the Internet than were hooked up to water, sewer, or electricity 100 years ago. It started out like any other day back in Yesteryear. However, on July 4, 1776, our Founding Fathers, pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, made it official with a one-page Declaration that said, in effect, “We’re in charge here!
    corecore