题名

關稅遊說與跨國廠商進入模式

并列篇名

Lobbying for Tariff and the Optimal Entry Mode of the Multinational Firm

DOI

10.29963/TOJEB.201012.0002

作者

王智賢(Jue-Shyan Wang)；曾閏瑋(Jun-Wei Tseng)

关键词

關稅 ； 遊說 ； 進入模式 ； Tariff ； Lobbying ； Entry Mode

期刊名称

真理財經學報

卷期/出版年月

23期（2010 / 12 / 01）

页次

19 - 50

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

在全球化趨勢下，擁有較佳技術的跨國廠商開始以不同方式跨足海外市場，面對國際競爭，本國廠商亦會利用政治獻金干預政府的貿易決策。本文藉由政治獻金遊說模型討論跨國廠商、本國廠商與政府三方的互動關係。本國廠商一方面運用政治獻金遊說政府，政府一方面則在政治獻金與人民福祉的抉擇中做出決策，最後跨國廠商就在給定遊說的關稅水準之下，選擇對其最有利的方式進入國內市場。本文發現除了政府制訂的關稅水準、兩國廠商成本差異外，社會福利權數亦是影響跨國廠商進入模式的重要因素。不同的社會福利權數可以對應出不同的政府政策，而不同的政府政策亦會牽動跨國廠商進入模式的選擇。此時，政府必須要相當重視社會福利權數，則跨國廠商才會選擇與本國政府偏好一致的進入模式。
英文摘要

In the trend of globalization, the multinational firm with superior technologies intend to employ various strategies for entering the foreign markets. Confronting these international competitions, then the host country firm usually utilize the political contribution to sway the policy. In this paper, we examine the relationships among the multinational firm, host country firm, and the domestic government by the political contribution model. Going with the political contribution from the host country firm, the domestic government usually works out the policy by considering the tradeoff between political contribution and social welfare. Eventually, the multinational firm selects an optimal entry mode with a given tariff to enter the markets which determined by lobby. Our result demonstrates that besides the tariff and cost difference, the social welfare is also crucial to the choice of entry mode. Different social welfare weight brings out various policies which will influence the entry mode of multinational firm. Only when the domestic government takes social welfare seriously, the multinational firm will choose the government-preferred entry mode.
主题分类 社會科學 > 經濟學
参考文献
  1. 蔡宜臻、邱俊榮(2009)。跨國廠商的進入模式─直接投資、出口與授權決策。經濟論文，37(1)，1-26。
    連結：
  2. Teng, J. T., M. S. Chern and K. H. Kim (2001), “Entry Strategies for Multinational Enterprises and Ho.
  3. Belderbos, R.,Sleuwaegen, L.(1998).Tariff Jumping FDI and Export Substitution: Japanese Electronic Firms in Europe.International Journal of Industrial Organization,16,601-638.
  4. Buckley, P. J.,Casson, M. C.(1998).Analyzing Foreign Market Entry Strategies: Extending the Internalization Approach.Journal of International Business Studies,29,539-562.
  5. Dixit, A.(1984).International Trade Policy for Oligopolistic Industries.Economic Journal,94,1-16.
  6. Eicher, T.,Kang, J. W.(2005).Trade, Foreign Direct Investment or Acquisition: Optimal Entry Modes for Multinationals.Journal of Development Economics,77,207-228.
  7. Ethier, W. J.(1986).The Multinational Firm.Quarterly Journal of Economics,80,805-833.
  8. Fosfuri, A.(2000).Patent Protection, Imitation and The Mode of Technology Transfer.International Journal of Industrial Organization,18,1129-1149.
  9. Fosfuri, A.,Motta, M.,Ronde, T.(2001).Foreign Direct Investment and Spillovers through Workers' Mobility.Journal of Development Economics,53,205-222.
  10. Grossman, G. M.,Helpman, E.(1994).Protection for Sale.American Economic Review,84,833-850.
  11. Harris, R.,Schmitt, N.(2000).Strategic Export Policy with Foreign Direct Investment and Import Substitution.Journal of Development Economics,62,85-104.
  12. Horstmann, I.,Markusen, J. R.(1992).Endogenous Market Structures in International Trade.Journal of International Economics,10,361-368.
  13. Horstmann, I.,Markusen, J. R.(1987).Licensing versus Direct Investment: A Modelof Internalization by the Multinational Enterprise.Canadian Journal of Economics,20,464-481.
  14. Horstmann, I.,Markusen, J. R.(1987).Strategic Investment and the Development of Multinationals.International Economic Review,28,109-121.
  15. Kabiraj, T.,Marjit, S.(2003).Protecting Consumers through Protection: The Role of Tariff-Induced Technology Transfer.European Economic Review,47,113-124.
  16. Kamien, M.,Tauman, Y.(1986).Fees Versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patent.Quarterly Journal of Economics,101,471-491.
  17. Konishi, H.,Saggi, K.,Weber, S.(1999).Endogenous Trade Policy under Foreign Direct Investment.Journal of International Economics,49,289-308.
  18. Motta, M.(1992).Multinational Firms and the Tariff-Jumping Argument.European Economic Review,36,1557-1571.
  19. Motta, M.,Thisse, J. F.,Cabrales, A.(1997).On the Persistence of Leadership and Leapfrogging in International Trade.International Economic Review,38,809-824.
  20. Mukheriee, A.,Enrico, P.(2006).Tariffs, Licensing and Market Structure.European Economic Review,50,1699-1707.
  21. Qiu, L. D.,Tao, Z.(2001).Export, Foreign Direct Investment, and Local Content Requirement.Journal of Development Economics,66,101-125.
  22. Rob, R.,Vettas, N.(2003).Foreign Direct Investment and Exports with Growing Demand.Review of Economic Studies,69,1-20.
  23. Rowthorn, R. E.(1992).Intra-Industry Trade and Investment under Oligopoly: The Role of Market size.Economic Journal,102,402-414.
  24. Smith, A.(1987).Strategic Investment, Multinational Corporations and Trade Policy.European Economic Review,31,89-96.
  25. Song, E. Y.(1996).Voluntary Export Restraints and Strategic Technology Transfer.Journal of International Economics,40,165-186.
  26. Stähler, F.(2006).Market Entry and Foreign Direct Investment.International Journal of Industrial Organization,24,335-347.
  27. Tang, M. J.,Yu, C. M. J.(1990).Foreign Market Entry: Production-Related Strategies.Management Science,36,476-489.
print cancel