Relation entry, exit and productivity: an overview of recent theoretical and empirical literature

This document provides a review of recent theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between entry, exit and productivity. Decomposition methods show that entry and exit considerably contribute to productivity growth, but are unable to shed any light on the ultimate sources of productivity growth. However, the theories discussed do provide options for effective policy instruments. We argue that productivity or welfare should be the aim of policy and not the number of entrants, the intensity of competition or the amount of innovation expenditures. Taking a welfare approach, we address market failures with respect to entry. The most eminent market failure is market power of dominant incumbents. Lowering institutional entry barriers economy-wide is a promising policy option for further consideration. Whether such a policy measure actually improves social welfare depends also on the extent of other failures. Therefore, an ex ante cost-benefit analysis needs to precede intervention.

Barriers to Entry and Profitability

Barriers to entry are regarded as major impediments to the working of markets. Entry must not necessarily actually take place - the perceived threat of entry may encourage incumbent firms to behave as if they are in a competitive market, even if they are not. We present empirical evidence on effects of perceived threat of entry on profitability. Using information from managers about how they assess the existence of entry barriers a strong impact of these assessments on profitability is confirmed. The number and the relative size of competitors also exert considerable effects. We find no statistically significant relation between the perceived threat of entry and the actual number of firms if the size of the relevant market is taken into account. --Barriers to Entry,Profitability,Discrete Regression Models

Trade, Foreign Direct Investment or Acquisition: Optimal Entry Modes for Multinationals

We examine multinationals’ optimal entry modes into foreign markets as a function of market size, FDI fixed costs, tariffs and transport costs. Our results highlight why large countries are more likely to attract acquisition investment, while intermediate-sized countries may be served predominantly through trade, even in the presence of high tariffs. Small countries are most likely to experience either FDI or no entry. We also show how these results vary with the competition intensity in the host country. FDI fixed costs, tariffs and transport costs are crucial not only in determining whether to engage in FDI or trade, but they are also shown to influence the acquisition choice as trade and FDI threats influence the acquisition price. Finally we explore the welfare implications of tariff reductions for both the local firm and the multinational and investigate political motives to impose endogenous tariffs that influence not only the welfare of a local firm, but also the entry mode of the multinational

Should Merchant Transmission Investment be Subject to a Must-offer Provision?

Merchant electricity transmission investment is a practically relevant example of an unregulated investment with monopoly properties. However, while leaving the investment decision to the market, the regulator may decide to prohibit capacity withholding with a must-offer provision. This paper examines the welfare effects of a must-offer provision prior to the capacity choice, given three reasons for capacity withholding: uncertainty, demand growth and pre-emptive investment. A must-offer provision will decrease welfare in the first two cases, and can enhance welfare only in the last case. In the presence of importer market power, a regulatory test might be needed

Tax Structure in Developing Countries: Many Puzzles and a Possible Explanation

Tax policies seen in developing countries are puzzling on many dimensions. To begin with, revenue/GDP is surprisingly small compared with that in developed economies. Taxes on labor income play a minor role. Taxes on consumption are important, but effective tax rates vary dramatically by firm, with many firms avoiding taxes entirely by operating through cash in the informal economy and others facing very high liabilities. Taxes on capital are an important source of revenue, as are tariffs and seignorage, all contrary to the theoretical literature. In this paper, we argue that all of these aspects of policy may be sensible responses if a government is able in practice to collect taxes only from those firms that make use of the financial sector. Through use of the financial sector, firms generate a paper trail, facilitating tax enforcement. The threat of disintermediation then limits how much can be collected in taxes. Taxes can most easily be collected from the firms most dependent on the financial sector, presumably capital-intensive firms. Given the resulting differential tax rates by sector, other policies would sensibly be used to offset these tax distortions. Tariff protection for capital-intensive firms is one. Inflation, imposing a tax on the cash economy is another.

Static inefficiency of compulsory licensing: Quantity vs. price competition.

A common argument against compulsory licensing of intellectual property maintains that it facilitates the entry of inefficient producers, which may reduce social welfare independently of any effects on R and D incentives. We study the issue in a model where the innovative firm, under the threat of compulsory licensing, react strategically by choosing between quantity and price competition. We show that the risk of a reduction in static welfare due to the entry of highly inefficient firms is avoided if licensing entails a royalty per unit of output and zero fixed fee. The rationale behind this result lies in the fact that compulsory licensing threat works as a disciplining device to improve static social welfare, even when the applicant is a high cost inefficient firm.compulsory licensing, essential facilities, entry, welfare

Firm’s Intangible Assets and Multinational Activity: Joint-Venture Versus FDI

This paper provides a theoretical formalisation of the joint-venture contract, as an alternative to Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), within a Dissipation of Intangible Assets framework. In a two-period, two-country equilibrium model, we discuss how the threat of knowledge spillover shapes the boundaries of a Multinational Enterprise. Similarly to the theoretical findings on the FDI-licensing trade off, we show that Foreign Direct Investment is more likely to emerge when know-how easily spills over – i.e. when firms are endowed with more intangible assets or they belong to high tech industries. Probit estimates, from an entirely new firm-level dataset, constructed by the author, show that the experience of Italian multinationals in Asia is in line with our theoretical predictions.Intangible assets, Internalisation, FDI, Joint-venture, Asia

The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity

How does firm entry affect innovation incentives and productivity growth in incumbent firms? Micro-data suggests that there is heterogeneity across industries--incumbents in technologically advanced industries react positively to foreign firm entry, but not in laggard industries. To explain this pattern, we introduce entry into a Schumpeterian growth model with multiple sectors which differ by their distance to the technological frontier. We show that technologically advanced entry threat spurs innovation incentives in sectors close to the technological frontier--successful innovation allows incumbents to prevent entry. In laggard sectors it discourages innovation--increased entry threat reduces incumbents' expected rents from innovating. We find that the empirical patterns hold using rich micro-level productivity growth and patent panel data for the UK, and controlling for the endogeneity of entry by exploiting the large number of policy reforms undertaken during the Thatcher era

The Theory of Transformation Pressure - a New Perspective on Growth and Economic Policy

The theory of transformation pressure offers a uniquely Swedish perspective on the "productivity slowdown" of the 1970s and 1980s. One example of this theory can be found in an influential argument from the early 1990s which states that devaluations of the Swedish currency lessened the external pressure on manufacturing and led to a delay in structural change and rationalisations. The theory generalises the idea that productivity growth in firms is stimulated by intense competition, cost pressures and low or qualified demand. The main challenge faced by such a theory is to explain why it seems that an immediate threat is needed to get a productive response from firms. The theory presented here assumes either genuine uncertainty, irrational behaviour or that firms become more creative when they are put under real pressure. Productivity growth is not always promoted by tight external circumstances. Growth may be maximised if pressure in each period is moderate or if periods with strong pressure are followed by periods of financial and technical consolidation.Transformation Pressure; Competition; X-inefficiencies; Innovations; Productivity; Growth; Rationality; Uncertainty; R&D Investments