Advertisement

Investments in R&D in Monopolistic Competitive Trade Model

  • Igor BykadorovEmail author
Conference paper
  • 197 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12095)

Abstract

We study a monopolistic competition model in the open economy case. The utility of consumers are additive separable. The producers can choose technology (R&D) endogenously. We examine the local comparative statics of market equilibrium with respect to trade costs (of iceberg type). Our main finding is the following: increasing trade costs has opposite impacts on mass of firms and productivity. Moreover, we study the cases of small trade costs and symmetric (on numbers of consumers) countries.

Keywords

Dixit-Stiglitz-Krugman model Market equilibrium Endogenous choice of technology Comparative statics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was carried out within the framework of the state contract of the Sobolev Institute of Mathematics (project no. 0314-2019-0018). The work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (projects no. 18-010-00728 and no. 19-010-00910) and by the Russian Ministry of Science and Education under the 5-100 Excellence Programme.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoshchenkova, I.V., Bykadorov, I.A.: Monopolistic competition model: the impact of technological innovation on equilibrium and social optimality. Autom. Remote Control 78(3), 537–556 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0005117917030134MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aw, B.Y., Roberts, M.J., Xu, D.Y.: R&D investments, exporting, and the evolution of firm productivity. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 98(2), 451–456 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldwin, R.E., Forslid, R.: Trade liberalization with heterogeneous firms. Rev. Dev. Econ. 14(2), 161–176 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behrens, K., Murata, Y.: General equilibrium models of monopolistic competition: a new approach. J. Econ. Theory 136(1), 776–787 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belyaev, I., Bykadorov, I.: International trade models in monopolistic competition: the case of non-linear costs. IEEE Xplore, pp. 12–16 (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bykadorov, I.: Monopolistic competition model with different technological innovation and consumer utility levels. In: CEUR Workshop Proceeding, vol. 1987, pp. 108–114 (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bykadorov, I.: Monopolistic competition with investments in productivity. Optim. Lett. 13(8), 1803–1817 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-018-1336-9MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bykadorov, I.: Social optimality in international trade under monopolistic competition. In: Bykadorov, I., Strusevich, V., Tchemisova, T. (eds.) MOTOR 2019. CCIS, vol. 1090, pp. 163–177. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33394-2_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bykadorov, I., Ellero, A., Funari, S., Kokovin, S., Pudova, M.: Chain store against manufacturers: regulation can mitigate market distortion. In: Kochetov, Y., Khachay, M., Beresnev, V., Nurminski, E., Pardalos, P. (eds.) DOOR 2016. LNCS, vol. 9869, pp. 480–493. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44914-2_38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bykadorov, I., Gorn, A., Kokovin, S., Zhelobodko, E.: Why are losses from trade unlikely? Econ. Lett. 129, 35–38 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bykadorov, I., Kokovin, S.: Can a larger market foster R&D under monopolistic competition with variable mark-ups? Res. Econ. 71(4), 663–674 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bykadorov, I., Kokovin, S., Zhelobodko, E.: Investments in productivity and quality under trade liberalization: monopolistic competition model. Contrib. Game Theory Manage. 5, 61–72 (2012). Vol. V. Collected papers presented on the Fifth International Conference Game Theory and Management (GTM2011). Graduate School of Management SpbUGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bykadorov, I., Kokovin, S., Zhelobodko, E.: Investments in productivity under monopolistic competition: large market advantage. The Economic Education and Research Consortium, Working Paper No 13/08E (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campbell, J.R., Hopenhayn, H.A.: Market size matters. J. Ind. Econ. 53(1), 1–25 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis, D.R.: The home market, trade, and industrial structure. Am. Econ. Rev. 88(5), 1264–1276 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dhingra, S., Morrow, J.: Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity under firm heterogeneity. J. Polit. Econ. 127(1), 196–232 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dixit, A., Stiglitz, J.: Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am. Econ. Rev. 67(3), 297–308 (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hummels, D., Klenow, P.T.: The variety and quality of a nation’s exports. Am. Econ. Rev. 95(3), 704–723 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krugman, P.R.: Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade. J. Int. Econ. 9(4), 469–479 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krugman, P.R.: Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade. Am. Econ. Rev. 70(5), 950–959 (1980)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Melitz, M.J.: The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6), 1695–1725 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Redding, S.: Theories of heterogeneous firms and trade. Ann. Rev. Econ. 3, 1–24 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Syverson, C.: Prices, spatial competition, and heterogeneous producers: an empirical test. J. Ind. Econ. 55(2), 197–222 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tilzo, O., Bykadorov, I.: Retailing under monopolistic competition: a comparative analysis. IEEE Xplore, pp. 156–161 (2019)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vives, X.: Innovation and competitive pressure. J. Ind. Econ. 56(3), 419–469 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu, Z.: Trade, market size, and industrial structure: revisiting the home-market effect. Can. J. Econ. 38(1), 255–272 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhelobodko, E., Kokovin, S., Parenti, M., Thisse, J.-F.: Monopolistic competition in general equilibrium: beyond the constant elasticity of substitution. Econometrica 80(6), 2765–2784 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sobolev Institute of Mathematics SB RASNovosibirskRussia
  2. 2.Novosibirsk State UniversityNovosibirskRussia
  3. 3.Novosibirsk State University of Economics and ManagementNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations