存在中間財市場下的跨國廠商進入模式選擇

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：42

、訪客IP：18.191.21.86

姓名

戴良信(LIANG-HSIN TAI) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

經濟學系

論文名稱

存在中間財市場下的跨國廠商進入模式選擇
(Optimal entry modes for MNE while host country exist intermediate good market)

相關論文

★ 匯率與本國中間財廠商的直接投資決策	★ 太陽光電躉購制度國際比較
★ 人口結構變遷對電力需求之影響	★ 企業社會責任對消費者剩餘的影響
★ 從產業關聯表檢視中國大陸進口替代之情形	★ 網路外部性下的利潤廠商跟共營廠商競爭分析
★ 寡占市場下的自動進口擴張政策分析	★ 寡占廠商成本歧異下之最適產業與貿易政策
★ 雙邊市場下之平台定價策略之研究	★ 線上遊戲廠商定價策略之研究
★ 雙邊貿易的最適關稅	★ 平行輸入、仿冒與服務品質
★ Linux與Windows平台競爭的經濟分析	★ 經濟成長、消費者信心與銀行風險
★ 網路外部性與最適民營化政策	★ 雙邊市場論文集：搜尋、配對與多重據點

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

摘要
本文建立一個三階段的賽局來討論存在中間財市場下的跨國廠商進入模式選擇。結果發現，當地主國存在獨占的中間財市場時，雖然跨國廠商採取直接進入下最終財市場的競爭程度會比跨國商採取併購下高，不過此時最終財廠商可以面對的中間財價格也較低。地主國中間財獨占廠商的利潤及消費者剩餘在跨國廠商採取直接進入時較高，但是不同進入模式對地主國最終財廠商利潤的影響效果不確定，以社會福利為考量的地主政府必須衡量此兩個效果的衝突，我們發現此時地主國政府會希望跨國廠商採取直接進入；至於跨國廠商的最適進入模式則視直接進入所需的固定成本高低而定。當跨國廠商的進入模式與地主國政府所希冀其所採取的進入模式相違背時，就形成政策干預的空間。
我們亦探討地主國中間財市場自由進出的情況，結果與中間財市場獨占時的結論大致相同。不同的是，當中間財市場自由進入時，兩種模式下中間財廠商對中間財的訂價皆較中間財市場獨占時低。此外，有別於中間財市場獨占時的情況，當中間財市場自由進入時，以社會福利為考量的地主國政府可能會希望跨國商採取併購。最後，我們發現若跨國廠商與地主國最終財廠商成本差距不大，則比起中間財市場自由進入的情況，中間財市場獨占時跨國廠商會更偏好採取併購。

摘要(英)

Abstract
This article establishes three stages game to discuss optimal entry modes for MNE while host country exist intermediate good market. The MNE can enter the host’s final good market through direct entry or mergers & acquisition. We find that if host country exist monopoly intermediate good market, the competition degree of final good market is greater when MNE chooses direct entry. But, at this time, the final good firm may face low intermediate good price. In the host country, the profit of the monopoly firm in intermediate good market and the consumer surplus will be high when the MNE chooses direct entry. But, the effect of different entry modes on the firm in final good market is uncertain. Given this conflict, the host country government must measure which entry mode of MNE can bring higher domestic welfare. We discovered that, at this time, the host country government will hope MNE choosing direct entry. However, the optimal entry mode for MNE is depend on the volume of fixed cost while MNE choose direct entry. The clash, between the MNE’s optimal choice and the host government’s expectation, forms the space which policy maker can intervene.
We also discuss the case, which the host country’s intermediate good market is free entry for firm. The result is almost the identical as before. The difference is that, at this condition, the intermediate good price in both entry modes is lower than that intermediate good market is monopoly. In addition, if intermediate good market is free entry, the host country’s government may hope MNE choosing M&A. Finally, we discovered that, if the production cost is similar between the MNE and the host firm in final good market, compare to intermediate good market is free entry, the MNE may prefer to choose M&A when the intermediate good market is monopoly.

關鍵字(中)

★ 外人直接投資
★ 進入模式
★ 直接進入
★ 併購
★ 中間財市場

關鍵字(英)

★ intermediate good market
★ mode of entry
★ direct entry
★ greenfield investment
★ mergers &
★ acquisition
★ FDI

論文目次

目錄
第 1 章緒論 1
1.1 研究動機與目的1
1.2 文獻回顧 3
1.3 文章架構 8
第 2 章中間財市場獨占的情況 9
2.1 模型架構 9
2.2 跨國廠選擇併購 10
2.3 跨國廠商選擇直接進入 16
2.4 最適進入模式 21
第 3 章中間財市場自由進入的情況 30
3.1 模型架構 30
3.2 跨國廠選擇併購及直接進入 30
3.3 最適進入模式 34
第 4 結論 43
參考文獻 45
附錄一跨國廠商選擇併購及直接進入下地主國中間財獨占廠商的
利潤高低 48
附錄二中間財市場獨占時，跨國廠商選擇併購及直接進入下地主
國福利的高低 48

參考文獻

參考文獻
蔡宜臻與邱俊榮 (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》，37，1–26。
Ara, A. and B. Mittendorf (2006),“Enhancing Vertically Efficiency through Horizontal Licensing,”Journal of
Regulatory Economics, 29, 333–342.
Bernhofen D. M. (1997),“ Strategic Trade Policy in a Vertically Related Industry,”Review of International Economics, 5(3), 429–433.
Buckley, P. J. and M. Casson (1998b),“Analyzing Foreign Market Entry Strategies: Extending the International Approach,”Journal of International Business Studies, 29, 539–562.
Chang, W. and H. Sugeta (2004),“ Conjectural Variations, Market Power, and Optimal Trade Policy in a Vertically Related Industry,”Review of International Economics, 12, 12–26.
Davies, R.B., Egger H., and P. Egger (2010),“Profit Taxation and the Mode of Foreign Market Entry,”Canadian Journal of Economics, 43, 704–727.
Ethier, T. and J. W. Kang (2005),“Trade, Foreign Direct Investment or Acquisition:Optimal Entry Modes for Multinationals,”Journal of Development Economics,77,207–228.
Greenhut, M. L. and H. Ohta (1976),“Related Market
Conditions and Interindustrial Mergers,”The American Economic Review, 66 (3), 267–277.
Halle, S. A. (2009),“The Impact of Multinational Entry on Domestic Market Structure and Investment,”International Review of Economics and Finance, 18, 52–62.
Jocelyn, G. A. and K. Saggi (2002),“Licensing versus Direct Investment: Implications for Economic Growth,”
Journal of International Economics, 56, 131–153.
Kabiraj, T. and S. Marjit (2003),“Protecting Consumers
through Protection: The Role of Tariff-Induced Technology Transfer,”European Economic Review, 47,113–124.
Kamien, M. I. and I. Zang (1990),“The Limits of Monopolization through Acquisition,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 465–499.
Kim, Y. H. (2009),“Cross-border M&A vs. Greenfield FDI: Economic Integration and its Welfare Impact,”Journal of Policy Modeling, 31, 87–101.
Mattoo, A., M. Olarreage, and K. Saggi (2004),“Mode of Foreign Entry, Technology Transfer, and FDI Policy,”Journal of Development Economics, 75, 95–111.
Mueller, T. (2007),“Analyzing Modes of Foreign Entry: Greenfield Investment Versus Acquisition,”Review of International Economics, 15,93–111.
Mukherjee, A. (2004),“ Entry in a Vertically Separated Industry : Price vs. Quantity Competition,”Discussion Paper No. 04/11, University of Nottingham,UK.
Mukheriee, A. and A. Ray (2007),“ Strategic Outsourcing and R&D in a Vertical Structure,”The Manchester School, 75, 297–310.
Mukheriee, A. and P. Enrico (2006),“Tariffs, Licensing and Market Structure,”European Economic Review, 50, 1699–1707.
Nocke, V. and S. Yeaple (2007),“Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions vs. Greenfield Foreign Direct Investment: The Role of Firm Heterogeneity,”Journal of International Economics, 72, 336–365.
Norbäck, P. J. and L. Persson (2007),“Investment
liberalization—Why a Restrictive Cross-border Merger Policy can be Counterproductive,”Journal of International Economics, 72, 366–380.
Pinopoulos, I. N. (2010),“ Input pricing by an upstream monopolist into imperfectly competitive downstream markets,”Research in Economics, 1-18.
Qiu, L. D. and Z. Tao (2001),“Export, Foreign Direct Investment, and Local Content Requirement,”Journal of Development Economics, 66, 101–125.
Raff, H., M. Ryan, and F. Stähler (2009),“The Choice of Market Entry Mode: Greenfield Investment, M&A and Joint venture,”International Review of Economics and Finance, 18, 3–10.
Rowthorn, R. E. (1992),“Intra-Industry Trade and Investment under Oligopoly: The Role of Market Size,” Economic Journal, 102, 402–414.
Saggi, K. (1996),“Entry into a Foreign Market: Foreign Direct Investment versus Licensing,”Review of
International Economics, 4, 99–104.
Saggi, K. (1999),“Foreign Direct Investment, Licensing and Incentives for Innovation,”Review of International Economics, 7, 699–714.
Salant, S.W., S. Switzer, and R.J. Reynolds (1983),“Losses from Horizontal Merger: the Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot– Nash Equilibrium.”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 185-199.
Stahler, F. (2006),“Market Entry and Foreign Direct Investment,”International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 335–347.
Tyagi, R. K. (1999),“On the Effects of Downstream Entry,”Management Science, 45(1), 59–73.
UNCTAD (2009), World Investment Report.

指導教授

邱俊榮、吳大任
(Jiunn-Rong Chiou、Dachrahn Wu)

審核日期

2010-7-26

推文