Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 435–442 | Cite as

A Reappraisal of Strategic Trade Policy

  • Elizabeth Schroeder
  • Victor J. Tremblay


We investigate the welfare effect of an export subsidy/tax in the “third market” trade model. The conventional wisdom is that an export subsidy increases home welfare in a Cournot setting (Brander and Spencer 1985) and an export tax increases home welfare in a Bertrand setting (Eaton and Grossman 1985). By allowing firms to compete in a Cournot-Bertrand duopoly model where one firm competes in output and the other competes in price, we are able to show that the conventional wisdom is incomplete. Optimal trade policy does not depend simply on whether firms compete in a Cournot or Bertrand type game. It only depends on whether the foreign firm competes in output or price.


Strategic trade policy Cournot-Bertrand model 

JEL Classifications

C72 D43 F11 F13 



We would like to thank Patrick Emerson, Rolf Färe, Todd Pugatch, Carol Tremblay, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.


  1. Amir R, Grilo I (1999) Stackelberg versus cournot equilibrium. Games Econ Behav 26:1–21MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brander JA (1995) Strategic trade policy. In: Grossman G, Rogoff K (eds) Handbook of international economics, vol 3. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1395–1455Google Scholar
  3. Brander JA, Spencer BJ (1985) Export subsidies and international market share rivalry. J Int Econ 18:83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collie DR (2002) Prohibiting State aid in an integrated market: cournot and Bertrand oligopolies with differentiated products. J Ind Compet Trade 2(3):215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixit, A (1984) International Trade Policies for Oligopolistic Industries. Econ J, Supplement, 1984, 1–16Google Scholar
  6. Eaton J, Grossman GM (1986) Optimal trade and industrial policy under oligopoly. Q J Econ 101:383–406Google Scholar
  7. Etro F (2011) Endogenous market structures and strategic trade policy. Int Econ Rev 52(1):63–84MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feenstra RC (2004) Advanced international trade: theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Klemperer P, Meyer M (1986) Price competition vs. Quantity competition: the role of uncertainty. Rand J Econ 17(40):618–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kreps D, Scheinkman J (1983) Quantity precommitment and Bertrand competition yield cournot outcomes. Bell J Econ 14(2):326–337MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leahy D, and JP Neary, “Oligopoly and Trade,” Social Science Research Network, 2010, available at
  12. Maggi G (1996) Strategic trade policies with endogenous mode of competition. Am Econ Rev 86(1):237–258Google Scholar
  13. Martin S (2002) Advanced industrial organization. Blackwell Publishers, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  14. Singh N, Vives X (1984) Price and quantity competition in a differentiated duopoly. Rand J Econ 15(4):546–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tremblay CH, Tremblay VJ (2011) The cournot-bertrand model and the degree of product differentiation. Econ Lett 111(3):233–235MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tremblay VJ, Tremblay CH (2012) New perspectives on industrial organization: with contributions from behavioral economics and game theory. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tremblay VJ, Tremblay CH, Isariyawongse K (2013a) Endogenous timing and strategic choice: the cournot-bertrand model. Bull Econ Res 65(4):332–342MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tremblay VJ, Tremblay CH, Isariyawongse K (2013b) Cournot and Bertrand competition when advertising rotates demand: the case of Honda and scion. Int J Econ Bus 20(1):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations