IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iie/wpaper/wp01-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Subsidies, Market Closure, Cross-Border Investment, and Effects on Competition: The Case of FDI in the Telecommunications Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Edward M. Graham

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

Abstract

Telecommunications long was a sector where sellers of services operated in protected local markets, where law and government regulation created and enforced barriers to entry, especially by foreign firms. In many nations, in fact, the provision of telecommunications services was reserved for state-owned monopoly suppliers. During the late 1980s and through the 1990s, however, many of these barriers have been removed while formerly state-owned firms have been partially or wholly privatized. This has in turn engendered some cross entry by telecom service providers; firms that once were purely domestic in the scope of their operations thus have become multinational. During the summer of 2000, however, US Senator Ernest Hollings, with co-sponsorship of 29 other US Senators, introduced a bill (S.2793) in the US Congress that would have effectively blocked non-US telecommunications service providers from acquiring US telecom firms if the former were state-owned, or even only partly state-owned. The bill was aimed specifically at the proposed acquisition of US mobile telecommunications service provider Voice Stream by the German firm Deutsche Telekom (DT), but the language of the bill would have served to block virtually any non-US state-owned firm in the telecom sector from buying a US firm. While the bill did not become law, it reflected a long history of efforts in Congress to prevent US firms from being acquired by state-owned non-US firms (e.g., a legislative bill to do this had been introduced by Senator Frank Murkowski during the late 1980s, and while this bill also failed to be passed into law, some provisions from the bill were incorporated into the Exon-Florio legislation that was first enacted as a temporary measure in 1988 but subsequently made part of US permanent law in 1992). The Hollings bill was doubtlessly motivated in part by xenophobia (Senator Hollings is himself of the American generation that fought Germany during World War II). But it was also motivated, as was the Murkowski bill a decade earlier, by fears that subsidies and/or monopoly profits accruing to state-owned firms in their home markets might be used to affect operations in the US market to the detriment of locally-owned competitors. The extreme case of such behavior would be predatory pricing by the state-owned firm aimed at bankrupting its competitors, where temporary losses created by below-cost pricing in the US market would be offset by subsidies or monopoly profits in the home market. The ultimate goal of the predatory firm would be to establish a monopoly in the United States. In fact, the Hollings bill was shelved in part because DT was able to establish that it was neither a recipient of significant subsidies in Germany nor a monopoly service provider in the German market (although the firm once held a statutory monopoly there, the market has been opened to competition and some new entry has occurred). Also figuring in the shelving of the bill was argumentation that competition in the US market for wireless telecom services would be enhanced by the entry of DT. However, fears have persisted about the possibly deleterious effects of subsidies or monopoly profits garnered by a firm in its home market on competition in a geographically separate market in which that firm (or a subsidiary of that firm) is a seller. Indeed, the issues raised by the Hollings bill pertain to numerous sectors in which multinational firms compete. Accordingly, the US Council of Economic Advisors was ordered by the US President following the introduction of the Hollings bill to advise on what might be the effects of such competition.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward M. Graham, 2001. "Subsidies, Market Closure, Cross-Border Investment, and Effects on Competition: The Case of FDI in the Telecommunications Sector," Working Paper Series WP01-2, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:iie:wpaper:wp01-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/subsidies-market-closure-cross-border-investment-and-effects-competition
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James W. Friedman, 1971. "A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(1), pages 1-12.
    2. Sidak, J. Gregory, 1997. "Foreign Investment in American Telecommunications," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226756264, October.
    3. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 83-100, February.
    4. Rickard, John A. & Murray, Ian W., 1978. "The dynamics of some duopoly games involving the Market Share and Nichol strategies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 51-65, February.
    5. Edward M Graham, 1998. "Market Structure and the Multinational Enterprise: A Game-theoretic Approach1," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 29(1), pages 67-83, March.
    6. Dixit, Avinash & Pindyck, Robert S & Sodal, Sigbjorn, 1999. "A Markup Interpretation of Optimal Investment Rules," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(455), pages 179-189, April.
    7. Raymond Atje & Gary Clyde Hufbauer, 1996. "The Market Structure Benefits of Trade and Investment Liberalization," Working Paper Series WP96-7, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    8. David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bagwell, Kyle & Wolinsky, Asher, 2002. "Game theory and industrial organization," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 49, pages 1851-1895, Elsevier.
    2. Lambertini, Luca, 1997. "Prisoners' Dilemma in Duopoly (Super)Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 181-191, November.
    3. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2000. "Robust Rules for Industrial Policy in open Economies," Working Papers 200021, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    4. Steffen Huck & Kai A. Konrad, 2004. "Merger Profitability and Trade Policy," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(1), pages 107-122, March.
    5. Andreas Haufler & Søren Bo Nielsen, 2008. "Merger policy to promote 'global players'? A simple model," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(3), pages 517-545, July.
    6. Bagwell, Kyle & Staiger, Robert W., 1994. "The sensitivity of strategic and corrective R&D policy in oligopolistic industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-2), pages 133-150, February.
    7. Requate, Till, 2005. "Environmental Policy under Imperfect Competition: A Survey," Economics Working Papers 2005-12, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    8. Kazuharu Kiyono & Fang Wei, 2008. "The role of location choice in strategic export promotion policy: capital liberalization incentives of exporting countries," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 55-74, October.
    9. Pedro Dal Bó, 2007. "Tacit collusion under interest rate fluctuations," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 533-540, June.
    10. Yasushi Kawabata, 2010. "Strategic Export Policy In Vertically Related Markets," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 109-131, April.
    11. Elizabeth Schroeder & Victor Tremblay, 2015. "A Reappraisal of Strategic Trade Policy," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 435-442, December.
    12. C. Monica Capra & Jacob K Goeree & Rosario Gomez & Charles A Holt, 2002. "Learning and Noisy Equilibrium Behavior in an Experimental Study of Imperfect Price Competition," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 613-636, August.
    13. Trost, Michael, 2022. "Unraveling the spreading pattern of collusively effective competition clauses," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 01-2022, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    14. Greaker, Mads, 2003. "Strategic environmental policy; eco-dumping or a green strategy?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 692-707, May.
    15. Andrew F. Daughety, 2006. "Cournot Competition," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0620, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    16. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2013. "Oligopoly Experiments In The Current Millennium," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 439-460, July.
    17. Louis Kaplow, 2024. "The 2023 Merger Guidelines and Market Definition: Doubling Down or Folding?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 65(1), pages 7-37, August.
    18. Ishikawa, Jota & Spencer, Barbara J., 1999. "Rent-shifting export subsidies with an imported intermediate product," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 199-232, August.
    19. Kuo-Feng Kao & Cheng-Hau Peng, 2017. "Trade liberalization, forward-looking firms, and welfare," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(5), pages 999-1016, November.
    20. Volker Nocke & Lucy White, 2007. "Do Vertical Mergers Facilitate Upstream Collusion?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1321-1339, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iie:wpaper:wp01-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peterson Institute webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iieeeus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.