IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5415.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Whither Flat Panel Displays?

Author

Listed:
  • Kala Krishna
  • Marie Thursby

Abstract

This paper examines possible consequences of subsidies to R&D and to volume production proposed under the Clinton administration's flat panel display initiative. We do this in the context of a model in which firms behave competitively in the short run, while realizing that their choices of capacity and yield-improving R&D in the medium and long run will affect market price. Policy simulations show that steady state yields and profits are lower, while prices are higher with subsidies for capacity acquisition than with R&D subsidies. This occurs because a firm's incentives to do R&D are diminished by a subsidy on capacity costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Kala Krishna & Marie Thursby, 1996. "Whither Flat Panel Displays?," NBER Working Papers 5415, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:5415
    Note: ITI
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5415.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard E. Baldwin & Paul Krugman, 1986. "Market Access and International Competition: A Simulation Study of 16K Random Access Memories," NBER Working Papers 1936, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, 1987. "A Decision Theoretic Model of Innovation, Technology Transfer, and Trade," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 54(4), pages 631-647.
    3. Jeffrey J. Schott, 1994. "Uruguay Round: An Assessment," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 64, January.
    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. J. Mutti & R. Sampson & B. Yeung, 2000. "The effects of the Uruguay round: empirical evidence from U.S. industry," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(1), pages 59-69, January.
    2. Marin, Dalia, 1992. "Is the Export-Led.Growth Hypothesis Valid for Industrialized Countries?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(4), pages 678-688, November.
    3. Aradhna Aggarwal, 2003. "Patterns and determinants of anti-dumping: A worldwide perspective," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 113, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    4. Lin, Hwan C., 2010. "Technology diffusion and global welfare effects: Imitative R&D vs. South-bound FDI," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 231-247, November.
    5. Damien NEVEN & Paul SEABRIGHT, 1995. "European Industrial Policy: The Airbus Case," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 9509, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    6. Paqué, Karl-Heinz & Stehn, Jürgen & Horn, Ernst-Jürgen & Scharrer, Hans-Eckart & Koopmann, Georg, 1996. "National technology policies and international friction: Theory, evidence, and policy options," Kiel Discussion Papers 279, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Siegfried Bender & Kui-Wai Li, 2002. "The Changing Trade and Revealed Comparative Advantages of Asian and Latin American Manufacture Exports," Working Papers 843, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    8. Reimer, Jeffrey J. & Stiegert, Kyle W., 2006. "Evidence on Imperfect Competition and Strategic Trade Theory," Staff Paper Series 498, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    9. Krishna, Kala & Erzan, Refik & Tan, Ling Hui, 1994. "Rent Sharing in the Multi-fibre Arrangement: Theory and Evidence from U.S. Apparel Imports from Hong Kong," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(1), pages 62-73, February.
    10. Pol Antràs, 2005. "Incomplete Contracts and the Product Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1054-1073, September.
    11. Michael D. Bordo & Barry Eichengreen & Douglas A. Irwin, 1999. "Is Globalization Today Really Different than Globalization a Hunderd Years Ago?," NBER Working Papers 7195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Lu, Chia-Hui, 2007. "Moving up or moving out? A unified theory of R&D, FDI, and trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 324-343, April.
    13. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1989. "Product Development and International Trade," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(6), pages 1261-1283, December.
    14. Levinsohn, James, 1993. "Testing the imports-as-market-discipline hypothesis," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 1-22, August.
    15. Peter G. WARR, 1997. "The Uruguay Round And The Developing Countries: Thailand And The Philippines," The Developing Economies, Institute of Developing Economies, vol. 35(2), pages 142-165, June.
    16. Conconi, P., 2000. "Trade Bloc Formation Under Imperfect Competition," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 571, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    17. J. David Richardson, 2000. "The WTO and market-supportive regulation: a way forward on new competition, technological and labor issues," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 82(Jul), pages 115-130.
    18. Vanzetti, David, 1996. "The next round: Game theory and public choice perspectives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4-5), pages 461-477.
    19. William R. Cline, 1995. "Evaluating the Uruguay Round," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 1-23, January.
    20. Ian Wooton & Maurizio Zanardi, 2002. "Trade and Competition Policy: Anti-Dumping versus Anti-trust," Working Papers 2002_6, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Oct 2002.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy

    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:nbr:nberwo:5415. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.