Search results

This paper aims to examine the effects of marginal and general wage subsidies on employment and income distribution.

The paper constructs a theoretical, partial‐equilibrium model of an economy in which a large number of competitive firms produce a homogeneous output good. Involuntary unemployment arises from a too high and rigid wage. By conducting comparative static analyses, the paper evaluates the impact of general and marginal wage subsidies on employment and incomes.

The paper shows that a marginal wage subsidy is a fiscally more efficient instrument for employment creation than a general wage subsidy because it resembles a combination of a general wage subsidy with a profit tax. These favorable effects persist even if between‐firm displacement effects are taken into account.

In line with most of the literature on marginal employment subsidies, attention is restricted to a partial‐equilibrium analysis in which the wage is assumed to be fixed. This helps to sharpen the focus on between‐firm competition, but is perhaps implausible when analyzing a general‐equilibrium setting. The inclusion of endogenous wage setting is bound to provide an interesting area for future research.

If politicians want to implement a wage subsidy scheme that has to be self‐financing, marginal wage subsidies are an effective policy instrument for employment creation. Its downside is an inefficient allocation of labor among firms, because some firms become larger than is necessary.

The paper provides a novel approach to model the between‐firm displacement effects of marginal wage subsidies and derives policy conclusions.

The SCP school prefers to use accounting data for the industry “average” profit rate to measure market power. This article emphasizes that over-reliance on average profit across all firms to infer excess profit might lead to incorrect inferences regarding market power. Based on the conventional insights of Mill, Fawcett, Hobson, and Friedman, this article recommends using the profit rate of the marginal firm (the least efficient firm) as an indicator to measure market power, rather than the industry average profit rate.

The representative firm model is used to demonstrate that competitive markets yield least‐cost production in the long run. This model is deficient in two respects: The demonstration's validity is suspect and it fails to show that least‐cost production occurs in the short run as well.

Allyn Young′s lectures, as recorded by the young Nicholas Kaldor, survey the historical roots of the subject from Aristotle through to the modern neo‐classical writers. The focus throughout is on the conditions making for economic progress, with stress on the institutional developments that extend and are extended by the size of the market. Organisational changes that promote the division of labour and specialisation within and between firms and industries, and which promote competition and mobility, are seen as the vital factors in growth. In the absence of new markets, inventions as such play only a minor role. The economic system is an inter‐related whole, or a living “organon”. It is from this perspective that micro‐economic relations are analysed, and this helps expose certain fallacies of composition associated with the marginal productivity theory of production and distribution. Factors are paid not because they are productive but because they are scarce. Likewise he shows why Marshallian supply and demand schedules, based on the “one thing at a time” approach, cannot adequately describe the dynamic growth properties of the system. Supply and demand cannot be simply integrated to arrive at a picture of the whole economy. These notes are complemented by eleven articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica which were published shortly after Young′s sudden death in 1929.

We model the interaction between a profit-maximizing firm and an activist using an infinite-horizon dynamic stochastic game. The firm enhances its reputation through “self-regulation”: voluntary provision of an abatement activity that reduces a negative externality. We show that in equilibrium the externality-reducing activity is subject to decreasing marginal returns, which can cause the firm to “coast on its reputation,” that is, decrease the level of externality-reducing activity as its reputation grows. The activist, which benefits from increases in the externality-reducing activity, can take two types of action that can harm the firm’s reputation: criticism, which can impair the firm’s reputation on the margin, and confrontation, which can trigger a crisis that may severely damage the firm’s reputation. The activist changes the reputational dynamics of the game by tending to keep the firm in reputational states in which it is highly motivated to invest in externality-reducing activity. Criticism and confrontational activity are shown to be imperfect substitutes. The more patient the activist or the more passionate it is about externality reduction, the more likely it is to rely on confrontation. The more patient the firm and the more important corporate citizenship is to firm’s brand equity, the more likely that it will be targeted by an activist that relies on confrontation.

To analyse the implications of signs of reform modification, stoppage or reversal, such as price controls, that have emerged in many developing economies, it is necessary to understand their efficiency consequences. This paper aims to study the effect of price interventions in imperfectly competitive product markets, to investigate whether reforms reversals are necessarily harmful.

The model assumes firm set prices and face sunk costs of entry.

The paper shows that a minimum price can induce a Pareto improvement, by preventing price wars and encouraging entry. The result is supported by empirical evidence from some developed economies, holds when sunk cost vanishes, and is robust to some extensions. A fixed price may be optimal in the environment investigated.

The results may be of interest to theorists and policy-makers interested in imperfectly competitive markets.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the export behaviour of manufacturing firms located in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region using data from the World Bank's Enterprise Surveys Database.

This paper examines the factors influencing the export behaviour of manufacturing firms located in the MENA region through a probit model for export decision and through a fractional logit model for export intensity.

The empirical results show significant positive effects of private foreign ownership, information and communication technology, and firm size on the probability of exporting and on export intensity of MENA manufacturing firms. Government ownership tends to exert negative effects on firms’ propensity to export. The results underscore enhancing effects of national economic development levels on firms’ export performance. Also, they indicate that firms’ propensity to export decreases with larger domestic market size. The empirical analysis reveals considerable heterogeneity in the implications of firm characteristics for firms’ export behaviour through firm size categories and across MENA countries.

This paper contributes to the literature by conducting overall and comparative cross-country empirical analyses of the factors influencing the export behaviour of manufacturing firms located in the MENA region. It also explores the specificities of small and large firms’ responses to the factors influencing firms’ export behaviour. The results have implications for policies intended to enhance industrial growth and international competitiveness of the manufacturing sector in the MENA region.

In this paper, the authors examine the association between a firm's geographical location and the value of its cash holdings.

Following Loughran and Schultz (2005) and Nielsson and Wójcik (2016), the authors define firms as either geographically remote or geographically proximate based on their distance to areas that are either largely populated or concentrated in financial expertise. We also estimate the marginal value of cash using the model developed by Faulkender and Wang (2006).

The authors find that the marginal value of cash is $0.10–$0.16 lower in remotely located firms than in geographically proximate firms. The lower marginal value of cash is prominent among remotely located firms with greater severity of information asymmetry. Our findings support the view that the inability of shareholders to closely monitor how managers use of firm cash may increase the perceived conflicts of interest associated with managers' cash spending and decrease the value of cash.

Previous studies try to explain the cash holdings puzzle by attributing it to CEO overconfidence, external funding constraints, poor corporate governance, difference in corporate financial policy, poor investor protection, lack of firm diversification and large operating losses. This study contributes to the extant literature by offering new evidence of the role of geographic location on the value of cash holdings.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an alternative way of calculating the deadweight loss triangle in oligopolistic markets which takes inefficient use of inputs into account. The author shows that the result of the approach coincides with the one that exists in the economics literature. However, the author explicitly accounts for the inefficient use of inputs.

The market supply curve that is extensively used for competitive markets has been reconsidered for the imperfectly competitive markets. The necessary condition for the efficient use of resources is investigated and a price level is derived at which the market output of oligopoly is produced efficiently. The degree of inefficient use of inputs is reported via the definitions of Input Inefficiency Measure (IIM) and the Ratio of Inefficient usage of Inputs to Total Deadweight Loss (RITD).

The author discovers that the area under the supply curve of the competitive market corresponds precisely to the minimum total costs of producing any given market output. To make this important finding operational in imperfectly competitive markets, the IIM reports the degree of distorted input allocation among firms with differentiated cost structures in producing a given equilibrium imperfectly competitive market output. In measuring the monopoly power, it is known that CRn or HHI market concentration indexes, which are calculated based on the market shares of firms regarding the demand side of the market, are widely used. The measures, which take into account of the distortions in input usage, and hence, the supply side may be considered as an additional index. For example, if the market demand were shared equally by two firms (no dominant firm with respect to the demand side), it is known that the leadership would still arise when the costs of firms differed as in the dominant firm model in favor of the lower cost producing firm.

The author recommends some more theoretical research extensions of the approach suggested here to other oligopolistic markets like the Cournot-Nash, the Stackelberg and other models. In all cases, there is a need for additional work to find some measurable variables in practice in order to estimate the input inefficiency given by the two measures and differentiate it from the inefficiency of units of outputs that are not produced.

It may be interesting to decompose the various estimates of welfare losses due to monopoly power as a percentage of GNP that were discussed in the literature into two inefficiency components: units of outputs that are not produced and units of inputs that are misallocated among firms.

The government officials might be interested in assessing the degree of loss of input usage by firms in addition to output loss in oligopolistic markets summarized by the two inefficiency indexes. Law economists may be inspired in discussing the issue of input inefficiency in the context of on antitrust policy.

The author emphasized that the area under the market supply curve minimized the aggregate cost of producing a given total market output in competitive markets. Having recognized the importance of this finding, the author tried to apply it to imperfectly competitive markets and especially to the calculation of deadweight loss in such markets. The author showed that the total social cost could be calculated by including the input inefficiency which can be defined as the extra cost to society arising from not using the most appropriate economic resource allocation among firms in addition to the usual deadweight loss triangle. Moreover, the author had to introduce some more new terms like the market supply curve allocation, the adjusted competitive price, efficiency gain and so on, as they were necessary along the course of the analysis.

This chapter provides a theory model of trade finance to explain the “great trade collapse.” The model shows that, first, the riskiness of international transactions rises relative to domestic transactions during economic downturns; and second, the exclusive use of a letter of credit in international transactions exacerbates a collapse in trade during a financial crisis. The basic model considers banks’ optimal screening decisions in the presence of counterparty default risks. In equilibrium, banks will maintain a higher precision screening test for domestic firms and a lower precision screening test for foreign firms, which constitutes the main mechanism of the model.