As East Asia follows Europe and other regions by deepening regional economic integration, an important consideration is the likely effect on competition and ownership of production in the region. Traditional analysis of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) focuses on trade creation and trade diversion effects, with no consideration of changes in market structure. Panagariya (1999) argues that ASEAN members are unlikely to gain from these traditional effects, due to their relatively small market sizes and low levels of intra-regional trade. However, PTAs have also tended to be accompanied by increased production by firms from outside the region, attempting to take advantage of a larger internal market by avoiding tariffs on non-member countries, and any analysis of the welfare implications of a PTA should take such effects into account. This chapter draws on previous theoretical work by the authors and presents a theoretical framework for analysing the effects of a PTA on both greenfield FDI and mergers and acquisitions, and considers the implications for ASEAN members' welfare and competition policy.
Increasingly governments are looking to regional trade agreements as a means of promoting domestic industry in the belief that bigger markets will enable domestic firms to grow and prosper. While some literature has studied the effects of such integration in monopolistic industries where economies of scale are prevalent, the impact of regional agreements in oligopolistic industries is less well understood.1 This chapter focuses on the strategic aspects of such trade agreements in the context of a Cournot model and considers the influence of regional integration on the incentives of foreign firms to export, to engage in greenfield FDI or to merge with domestic firms. We show that, contrary to government intentions, such agreements are likely to increase foreign participation in the customs union at the expense of domestic and union partner firms. This may take the form of increased greenfield investment or takeovers of domestic firms by foreign predators even in situations where a potential domestic predator has the superior technology. However, consumer welfare unambiguously rises as a result of the union formation.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Baye, M.R., Crocker, K.J., & Ju, J. (1996). Divisionalisation, franchising and divestiture incen-tives in oligopoly. American Economic Review, 86, 223-236.
Calderón, C., Loayza, N., & Servén, L. (2002). Greenfield FDI vs mergers and acquisitions: Does the distinction matter? World Bank mimeo.
Collie, D.R. (1997). Bilateralism is good: Trade blocs and strategic export subsidies. Oxford Economic Papers, 94, 504-520.
Dunning, J.H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.
Falvey, R. (1998). Mergers in open economies. World Economy, 21, 1061-1076.
Falvey, R., & Nathananan, M. (2002). Tariffs, quotas and mergers (Research Paper 2002/30). Leverhulme Centre for Research on Globalisation and Economic Policy.
Horn, H., & Levinsohn, J. (2001). Merger policies and trade liberalisation. Economic Journal, 111, 244-276.
Kendall, T., & Ryan, C. (2001). Regional economic integration, mergers and FDI (Discussion Paper 01-11). University of Birmingham Department of Economics.
Lahiri, S., & Ono, Y. (1988). Helping minor firms reduces welfare. Economic Journal, 98, 1199-1202.
Long, N.V., & Vousden, N. (1995). The effects of trade liberalisation on cost-reducing horizontal mergers. Review of International Economics, 3, 141-155.
Motta, M., & Norman, G. (1996). Does economic integration cause foreign direct investment? International Economic Review, 37, 757-783.
Norman, G., & Motta, M. (1993). Eastern european economic integration and foreign direct investment. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 2, 483-508.
OECD. (2001). New patterns of industrial globalisation: Cross-border mergers and acquisitions and strategic alliances.
Panagariya, A. (1999). Should East Asia go regional? In Regionalism in trade policy: Essays on preferential trading. Singapore: World Scientific.
Ryan, C. (2005). Technology Transfer, Merger activity and Trade Liberalisation. Review of International Economics. 14 (4), 582-599 (2006)
Ryan, C., & Kendall, T. (2005). Trade, product differentiation, and technology transfer mergers in oli-gopolistic markets (Discussion Paper). University of Birmingham Department of Economics.
Salant, S., Switzer, S., & Reynolds, R. (1983). Losses from merger: The effects of an exogenous change in industry structure on Cournot-Nash equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 185-199.
Thanadsillapakul, L. (2004). The harmonisation of ASEAN competition laws and policy from an economic integration perspective. Online Thailand Law Journal, http://www.thailawforum. com/journal.html.
YI, S.-S. (1996). Endogenous formation of customs unions under imperfect competition: Open regionalism is good. Journal of International Economics, 44, 153-177.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kendall, T., Ryan, C. (2009). Regional Economic Integration, Mergers and FDI: Welfare and Policy Implications for ASEAN. In: Welfens, P.J.J., Ryan, C., Chirathivat, S., Knipping, F. (eds) EU - Asean. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87389-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87389-1_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-87388-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-87389-1
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)