Advertisement

Review of World Economics

, Volume 155, Issue 1, pp 149–179 | Cite as

A consumer-surplus standard in foreign acquisitions, foreign direct investment, and welfare

  • Onur A. KoskaEmail author
Original Paper
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

This study scrutinizes the ramifications of the strategic use of a consumer welfare argument in regulating foreign acquisitions and foreign market entry (i) on a multinational’s choice between acquiring a local firm’s existing assets (via negotiations or auctions) and investing in new assets via greenfield entry, or trade, under both complete and incomplete information; and (ii) on welfare. Any foreign acquisition fulfilling a minimum output requirement imposed by the host country as part of the foreign market entry regulation is in the best interest of the multinational even when there is complete trade liberalization. A local firm appropriates a bigger share from acquisition gains in an auction, and prefers generating information asymmetries. Welfare improves with a larger scope for ex-post firm heterogeneity when the foreign market entry regulation includes a minimum output requirement for foreign acquisitions based on consumer welfare.

Keywords

Trade Greenfield entry Foreign acquisitions Consumer welfare Foreign market entry regulation 

JEL Classification

F23 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the METU Research Grant (Project Nr. BAP-08-11-2016-052). Earlier and incomplete versions of this paper were distributed under the title “Foreign Direct Investment for Sale” and presented at the University of Otago (New Zealand) and at the Otago Workshop in International Trade. Revised versions were presented under the title “A Consumer-Surplus Standard in Merger Approvals, Foreign Direct Investment, and Welfare” at the annual meeting of the European Trade Study Group in Helsinki, at the Mainz Workshop on Foreign Direct Investment and Multinational Corporations, and at the University of Tuebingen (Germany) and greatly benefited from discussions and suggestions of the conference and seminar participants.

References

  1. Ang, J., & Kohers, N. (2001). The take-over market for privately held companies: The US experience. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 25, 723–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjorvatn, K. (2004). Economic integration and the profitability of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. European Economic Review, 48, 1211–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breinlich, H., Nocke, V., & Schutz, N. (2017). International aspects of merger policy: A survey. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 50, 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breinlich, H., Nocke, V., & Schutz, N. (2015). Merger policy in a quantitative model of international trade (CEPR Discussion Paper 10851). Center for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  5. Castellani, D., & Zanfei, A. (2007). Internationalisation, innovation and productivity: How do firms differ in Italy? World Economy, 30, 156–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deneckere, R., & Davidson, C. (1985). Incentive to form coalitions with Bertrand competition. Rand Journal of Economics, 16, 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dertwinkel-Kalt, M., & Wey, C. (2016). Merger remedies in oligopoly under a consumer welfare standard. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 32, 150–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Desai, M. A., Foley, C. F., & Hines, J. R, Jr. (2004). The costs of shared ownership: Evidence from international joint ventures. Journal of Financial Economics, 73, 323–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ding, W., Fan, C., & Wolfstetter, E. G. (2013). Horizontal mergers with synergies: Cash vs. profit-share auctions. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 31, 382–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Draper, P., & Paudyal, K. (2006). Acquisitions: Private versus public. European Financial Management, 12, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrell, J., & Shapiro, C. (1990). Horizontal mergers: An equilibrium analysis. American Economic Review, 80, 107–126.Google Scholar
  12. Fatica, S. (2010). Investment liberalization and cross-border acquisitions: The effect of partial foreign ownership. Review of International Economics, 18, 320–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. García-Canal, E., Lópes Duarte, C., Rialp, J., & Valdés, A. (2002). Accelerating international expansion through global alliances: A typology of cooperative strategies. Journal of World Business, 37, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goeree, J. K. (2003). Bidding for the future: Signaling in auctions with an aftermarket. Journal of Economic Theory, 108, 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goppelsroeder, M., Schinkel, M. P., & Tuinstra, J. (2008). Quantifying the scope for efficiency defense in merger control: The Werden–Froeb index. Journal of Industrial Economics, 56, 778–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Görg, H. (2000). Analyzing foreign market entry: The choice between greenfield investment and acquisitions. Journal of Economic Studies, 27, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., & Yeaple, S. R. (2004). Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Economic Review, 94, 300–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hennessy, D. A. (2000). Cournot oligopoly conditions under which any horizontal merger is profitable. Review of Industrial Organization, 17, 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janssen, M. C. W., & Karamychev, V. A. (2010). Do auctions select efficient firms? Economic Journal, 120, 1319–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jehiel, P., & Moldovanu, B. (2000). Auctions with downstream interaction among buyers. Rand Journal of Economics, 31, 768–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koska, O. A. (2015). A model of competition between multinationals. METU Studies in Development, 42, 271–298.Google Scholar
  22. Koska, O.A. (2018). Gains from multinational competition for cross-border firm acquisition (Economics Discussion Papers, No 2018-19). Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).Google Scholar
  23. Koska, O. A., Long, N. V., & Stähler, F. (2018). Foreign direct investment as a signal. Review of International Economics, 26, 60–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koska, O. A., Onur, I., & Stähler, F. (2017). The scope of auctions in the presence of downstream interactions and information externalities. Journal of Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-017-0590-0.
  25. Koska, O. A., & Stähler, F. (2014). Optimal acquisition strategies in unknown territories. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 170, 406–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krishna, V. (2002). Auction theory. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lommerud, K. E., & Sorgard, L. (1997). Merger and product range rivalry. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lópes Duarte, C., & García-Canal, E. (2004). The choice between joint ventures and acquisitions in foreign direct investment: The role of partial acquisitions and accrued experience. Thunderbird International Business Review, 46, 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markusen, J., & Stähler, F. (2011). Endogenous market structure and foreign market entry. Review of World Economics, 147, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller, T. (2007). Analyzing modes of foreign entry: Greenfield investment versus acquisition. Review of International Economics, 15, 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Navaretti, B. G., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Multinational firms in the world economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nocke, V., & Whinston, M. D. (2010). Dynamic merger review. Journal of Political Economy, 118, 1200–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Norbäck, P.-J., & Persson, L. (2008). Globalization and profitability of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Economic Theory, 35, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norbäck, P. J., & Persson, L. (2007). Investment liberalization—Why a restrictive cross-border merger policy can be counterproductive. Journal of International Economics, 72, 366–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norbäck, P. J., & Persson, L. (2004). Privatization and foreign competition. Journal of International Economics, 62, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norbäck, P. J., & Persson, L. (2005). Privatization policy in an international oligopoly. Economica, 72, 635–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pagnozzi, M., & Rosato, A. (2016). Entry by takeover: Auctions vs. bilateral negotiations. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 44, 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perry, M. K., & Porter, R. H. (1985). Oligopoly and the incentive for horizontal merger. American Economic Review, 75, 219–227.Google Scholar
  39. Qiu, L. D. (2010). Cross-border mergers and strategic alliances. European Economic Review, 54, 818–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Qiu, L. D., & Wang, S. (2011). FDI policy, greenfield investment and cross-border mergers. Review of International Economics, 19, 836–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Qiu, L. D., & Zhou, W. (2006). International mergers: Incentives and welfare. Journal of International Economics, 68, 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raff, H., Ryan, M., & Stähler, F. (2006). Asset ownership and foreign-market entry (CESifo Working Paper. No. 1676). Munich: Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute for Economic Research.Google Scholar
  43. Raff, H., Ryan, M., & Stähler, F. (2012). Firm productivity and the foreign-market entry decision. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 21, 849–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raff, H., Ryan, M., & Stähler, F. (2009a). The choice of market entry mode: Greenfield investment, M&A and joint venture. International Review of Economics and Finance, 18, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raff, H., Ryan, M., & Stähler, F. (2009b). Whole vs. shared ownership of foreign affiliates. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27, 572–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Salant, S., Switzer, S., & Reynolds, R. J. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shen, J., & Reuer, J. R. (2005). Adverse selection in acquisitions of small manufacturing firms: A comparison of private and public targets. Small Business Economics, 24, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. UNCTAD. (2000). World Investment Report 2000. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  49. UNCTAD. (2014). World Investment Report 2014. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  50. UNCTAD. (2015). World Investment Report 2015. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kiel Institute 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsMiddle East Technical University (METU)ÇankayaTurkey

Personalised recommendations