The name is absent



Since this is always an increasing function of s, it is optimal to increase subsi-
dization as long as there is entry. But entry is deterred at:

sH = a - c - 3√F> 0                   (12)

which is the optimal subsidy. The intuition for this result is the following.
Free entry pins down the equilibrium price level of the foreign firms as long as
some of them enter. This implies that the choice of the subsidy does not affect
the equilibrium price at which the domestic firm will sell its production but
increases its market share. Since there are fixed costs of production, an increase
in the market share reduces average costs and hence it increases net profits.
Consequently it is optimal to raise the market share as much as possible, which
amounts to full entry deterrence.

Summarizing:

Proposition 4. Under quantity competition and free entry, an
export subsidy is always optimal, since it helps the domestic firm to
sell more than others in the foreign market
.

2.2 Optimal export subsidy with Bertrand competition

Consider our general model of price competition with an export specific subsidy,
so that the gross profit function for the leader is:

ΠH =(pH - c + s) D (pHH)

where we remember that D () is the direct demand depending on the price of
the domestic firm p
H and on the spillovers from the prices of the other firms
β
H . This profit function clearly satifies Π1H3 = -p2H D1 > 0.

It is tedious to characterize the optimal export subsidy under barriers to
entry, but Appendix D solves for this in the case of the Dixit-Stiglitz specification
of the demand function. Here we will focus on the free entry case, in which the
equilibrium conditions in the second stage are:

(p - c)D1(p,β)+D(p,β)=0

(pH - c + s)D1 (pHH)+D(pHH)=0
(p
- c)D(p, β) = F

where β =(n - 2)g(p)+g(pH) is the spillover received by an international firm
from the strategies of all the other firms in the market and β
H =(n - 1)g(p)
is the spillover for the domestic country. This system expresses prices and the
number of firms as functions of the subsidy s, but we know from Prop. 2 that
the price of foreign firms p and their spillover β are actually unchanged with
changes in the subsidy, while p
H (s) and βH (s) depend on it. Hence, assuming

12



More intriguing information

1. Work Rich, Time Poor? Time-Use of Women and Men in Ireland
2. The name is absent
3. News Not Noise: Socially Aware Information Filtering
4. Industrial Employment Growth in Spanish Regions - the Role Played by Size, Innovation, and Spatial Aspects
5. The open method of co-ordination: Some remarks regarding old-age security within an enlarged European Union
6. Survey of Literature on Covered and Uncovered Interest Parities
7. The name is absent
8. Fiscal Reform and Monetary Union in West Africa
9. DISCRIMINATORY APPROACH TO AUDITORY STIMULI IN GUINEA FOWL (NUMIDA MELEAGRIS) AFTER HYPERSTRIATAL∕HIPPOCAMP- AL BRAIN DAMAGE
10. Les freins culturels à l'adoption des IFRS en Europe : une analyse du cas français
11. The name is absent
12. Corporate Taxation and Multinational Activity
13. Wettbewerbs- und Industriepolitik - EU-Integration als Dritter Weg?
14. Effects of a Sport Education Intervention on Students’ Motivational Responses in Physical Education
15. On Dictatorship, Economic Development and Stability
16. Gender stereotyping and wage discrimination among Italian graduates
17. Creating a 2000 IES-LFS Database in Stata
18. The name is absent
19. Ruptures in the probability scale. Calculation of ruptures’ values
20. Behaviour-based Knowledge Systems: An Epigenetic Path from Behaviour to Knowledge