English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We shift the usual perspective of strategic trade policy – the “third market setup” – to the “home market” framework in order to reconsider the consequences of government (in)ability to precommit to its policy and compare these findings with those analogous from the “third market setup”. In addition, we also analyze how robust the sign is of particular policy instruments (R&D subsidies) within the home market setup, as opposed to the third market setup, when there is a shift from “second–best” to the “first–best” policy. For that purpose, we apply a standard dynamic Cournot duopoly where the firm’s strategic variable is investment in cost reduction whereas policy instruments are import tariffs and R&D subsidies.

Government's (In)Ability to Precommit, and Strategic Trade Policy: The 'Third Market' Versus the 'Home Market' Setup