Equilibrium Audit Strategies Against Tax Treaty Shopping
|
|
- Rolf Randall
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Equilibrium Audit Strategies Against Tax Treaty Shopping Sunghoon Hong April 2019 Abstract This paper examines game-theoretic models of tax treaty shopping. An investor can choose a direct or indirect investment route across countries to minimize tax. A tax agency can audit the investor. The audit is costly but it can give additional revenue to the tax agency. In simultaneous-move games, regardless of whether incomplete information exists and whether a home country allows foreign tax credits, there are mixed-strategy equilibria where the investor may choose taxminimizing indirect routes and the tax agency may audit the investor. This equilibrium random audit strategy helps the tax agency raise revenue and reduce treaty shopping. Comparative statics yields an implication consistent with empirical evidence. However, if the home country has a foreign tax credit system with a high tax rate, or if the tax agency observes the investor s action in a sequential-move game, the investor always chooses the direct route, and no treaty shopping occurs in equilibrium. JEL classification: H25, H87, K34 Keywords: tax treaty shopping, tax-minimizing route, random audit, foreign tax credit, incomplete information I would like to thank Professor Myrna Wooders for her advice and encouragement. Korea Institute of Public Finance, 336 Sicheong-daero, Sejong 30147, South Korea, sunghoonhong@kipf.re.kr. 1
2 1 Introduction Tax treaty shopping, or simply treaty shopping, generally refers to the use of indirect investment structures through countries with beneficial tax treaties. 1 Multinational investors can remit profits to their home countries through taxminimizing indirect routes. Treaty shopping is considered to be an improper use of tax treaties, especially under the circumstances where obtaining treaty benefits is one of the principal purposes of using indirect investment structures. OECD (2015) emphasizes that treaty shopping is one of the most serious concerns regarding the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project. In this paper, I develop game-theoretic models of treaty shopping and study equilibrium strategies of a tax agency and a multinational investor. The investor lives in a home country and plans to invest in a source country. From this investment the investor will earn dividend income in the source country and remit her income to the home country. The investor intends to minimize tax, i.e., to maximize her net-of-tax income, by choosing an investment route from home to source. The investor can choose a direct route or an indirect route, which may pass through intermediate entities established in countries with beneficial tax treaties. Meanwhile, the tax agency of the source country can choose to audit the investor to find out the investment route. The audit is costly. If the audit reveals that the investor chose an indirect route, the tax agency imposes a penalty tax. This situation can be viewed as a simultaneous-move game. In simultaneous-move games, regardless of whether incomplete information exists and whether the home country allows foreign tax credits, there are mixed-strategy equilibria where the tax agency audits the investor with positive probability and the investor chooses tax-minimizing indirect routes 1 For instance, a US multinational company, Corning, invested in a Korean manufacturer, Samsung Corning, through a Hungarian subsidiary, Corning Hungary Data Services Kft., where Kft. is a form of a Limited Liability Company (LLC) in Hungary. According to the Korea-US tax treaty, withholding tax rates on dividends are set at 10 or 15 percent depending on percentages of shares. However, the Korea-Hungary tax treaty sets the minimum withholding tax rate at 5 percent, and in Hungary, there is no withholding tax on dividends paid to non-residents. 2
3 with positive probability. Comparative statics shows an interesting implication about the relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI) and tax-minimizing direct routes, which is consistent with empirical evidence in Hong (2018). If the penalty tax rate is high enough, the equilibrium random audit strategy helps the tax agency increase revenue and decrease the probability of treaty shopping. When designing audit rules to counter treaty shopping, tax agencies may consider using the equilibrium random audit strategy with a high penalty tax rate. However, if the home country operates a foreign tax credit system with a relatively high tax rate, or if the tax agency observes the investor s action in a sequential-move game, the investor always chooses the direct route, and no treaty shopping occurs in equilibrium. The contribution of this paper is threefold. Broadly, this paper contributes to the economics of international taxation. In the literature, a central theme has been tax competition between countries, which can choose tax rates, as well as tax relief rules, such as foreign tax credit, deduction, and exemption systems. 2 Another important issue is to examine empirical relations between FDI and tax treaties. Blonigen and Davies (2004) examine the effects of tax treaties on FDI stocks in the United States, and discover substantial heterogeneity in treaty effects across countries. Hong (2018) and van t Riet and Lejour (2018) examine the structure of tax-minimizing investment routes in tax treaty networks. In addition, Hong (2018) finds a positive and significant relationship between FDI and tax-minimizing direct routes. Recently, increasing attention has been paid to international tax policies regarding the BEPS project. Dharmapala (2014) provides a survey of empirical studies to assess the magnitude of BEPS. 3 Bloch and Demange (2018) analyze efficient taxation and privacy protection on a monopolistic digital platform. 4 In contrast, this paper analyzes 2 For related studies, see Stöwhase (2013) and Eggert and Itaya (2014). Gauthier (2018) studies consumption tax competition in a trade model with home bias. 3 Regarding specific BEPS actions, Johannesen (2016) studies tax avoidance with debt financing. Behrens et al. (2014) examine transfer pricing regulation. 4 Kind and Koethenbuerger (2018) examine consumption taxes in a platform model. 3
4 the effects of tax treaties, tax relief systems, and incomplete information on strategic interactions between investors and tax agencies. More specifically, this paper contributes to the literature on treaty shopping and the ownership structures of multinational firms. This literature uses firm-level data to examine tax variables affecting ownership structures. Mintz and Weichenrieder (2010) show that there is a growing number of German firms organizing indirect ownership structures for foreign subsidiaries and suggest that treaty shopping is a main reason for indirect structures. Dyreng et al. (2015) examine indirect ownership structures of American multinational firms. Weyzig (2013) finds that reductions in withholding tax rates on dividends are significant determinants of FDI indirectly routed through the Netherlands. To the best of my knowledge, this paper is the first attempt to analyze strategic interactions in the context of treaty shopping. This paper also contributes to the theory of auditing. This literature has developed principal-agent models to examine optimal audit design. For instance, Mookherjee and Png (1989) analyze a model where a risk-averse agent has private information about her income and reports it to a riskneutral principal who then chooses to audit the agent at a cost. In their model, random audits turn out to be optimal because random audits can reduce expected costs without significantly distorting the agent s incentive to report truthfully. Border and Sobel (1987) also show the efficiency of random auditing in a model with a risk-neutral agent. These studies only deal with auditing against underreported income in a single jurisdiction. In contrast, this paper examines random audit strategies against tax planning techniques in a multi-jurisdictional setting. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 develops a gametheoretic model of treaty shopping. Section 3 analyzes equilibrium behavior and random audit strategies. Section 4 extends the equilibrium analysis in various models. Section 5 concludes. 4
5 2 Model An investor, individual or corporate, plans to invest in country s but lives in country h. From this investment, the investor will earn income m R ++ as dividends in country s and remit her income to country h. Country s is called the source country. Country h is called the residence (or home) country. The investor intends to minimize tax when she remits her income to country h, i.e., the investor intends to maximize her net-of-tax income in the residence country. An investment route, or simply a route, is defined as a series of countries, h, i,..., j, s, from country h to country s. A route h, i,..., j, s is often written as h i j s when it is necessary to highlight the direction of the route. The investor chooses a route b. If b = h, s, she chooses the direct route h s. If b = h, i,..., j, s, she chooses an indirect route h i j s by using entities in countries i through j and making her investment indirectly through these entities. Countries i through j are called pass-through countries. When the investor remits her income from country s to country h, the remittance route follows the reverse order of the countries in the investment route. In the source country, a tax agency chooses an action a to audit the investor. If a = 1, the tax agency audits the investor. If a = 0, the tax agency does not. When auditing the investor, the tax agency incurs the audit cost c R ++. The tax agency and the investor know a corporate income tax (CIT) rate t i in country i and a withholding tax (WHT) rate t ij on dividends paid from an entity in country i to another entity in country j. Tax treaties determine WHT rates on dividends paid across countries. Let w(b) denote the withholding tax rate of a route b at source such that w(b) = t sh if b = h, s and w(b) = t sj if b = h, i,..., j, s. Let f(b) denote the foreign tax rate of a route b such that f(b) = t sh if b = h, s and f(b) = 1 (1 t sj )(1 t j ) (1 t i )(1 t ih ) if b = h, i,..., j, s. 5
6 When the investor chooses a route b, the net-of-tax income in country h is m(1 f(b))(1 t h ), and the tax revenue of country s is mw(b). Here I assume that country h has either a deduction or an exemption system. Later I will consider a foreign tax credit system in the residence country. 5 Let p R ++ and let p(a, b) denote the penalty tax rate of an action a and a route b such that p(a, b) = p if a = 1 and b = h, i,..., j, s and p(a, b) = 0 otherwise. If the investor chooses an indirect route and the tax agency audits the investor, the tax agency imposes the penalty tax mp. Otherwise, there is no penalty tax. The tax agency incurs the audit cost ca. To summarize, the payoff function of the tax agency (or player A) can be written as follows: u A (a, b) = mw(b) + mp(a, b) ca The payoff function of the investor (or player B) can be written as follows: u B (a, b) = m(1 f(b))(1 t h ) mp(a, b) The tax agency and the investor play a simultaneous-move game with complete information. Later I will consider a sequential-move game as well as a game with incomplete information. Let R(h, s) denote the set of all routes from country h to country s. A route b R(h, s) is tax-minimizing if for each b R(h, s), f(b ) f(b). The treaty shopping rate among routes from country h to country s is defined as t sh f(b ), the difference between the foreign tax rates of the direct route and a tax-minimizing route b. 3 Analysis In this section I analyze the (Nash) equilibrium of the model under the following assumptions: First, the direct route h s is not tax-minimizing, 5 These tax relief systems may affect the net-of-tax income of investors in home countries. Under deduction systems, foreign taxes are deducted as costs from taxable income before taxes are imposed by home countries. Under exemption systems, certain items of foreign-source income, such as dividends, are exempt from home country taxation. Under tax credit systems, foreign taxes are credited against tax liabilities in home countries. 6
7 i.e., there is a tax-minimizing indirect route b with f(b ) < t sh. Second, the audit cost is smaller than the penalty tax, i.e., c < mp. Third, the treaty shopping rate net of home country taxation is smaller than the penalty tax rate, i.e., (t sh f(b ))(1 t h ) < p. Remark 1. Under these assumptions, there is no pure-strategy equilibrium. If the tax agency audits, the investor s best response is to choose the direct route, because (t sh f(b ))(1 t h ) < p. If the investor chooses the direct route, the tax agency s best response is no audit, because c > 0. However, if the tax agency does not audit, the investor s best response is to choose a tax-minimizing indirect route, because the direct route is not tax-minimizing, and because any indirect route that is not tax-minimizing is dominated by a tax-minimizing indirect route. If the investor chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route, the tax agency s best response is to audit, because c < mp. Remark 2. If one of these assumptions is violated, the following purestrategy equilibrium exists: (i) If the direct route is tax-minimizing, there is an equilibrium where the tax agency chooses not to audit and the investor chooses the direct route. If the investor chooses the direct route, the tax agency s best response is no audit, because c > 0. Given no audit, the investor s best response is to choose the direct route, because the direct route is tax-minimizing. (ii) If the penalty tax is smaller than the audit cost, i.e., if mp < c, there is an equilibrium where the tax agency chooses not to audit and the investor chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route. Even if the investor chooses a taxminimizing indirect route, the tax agency s best response is no audit, because mp < c. Given no audit, the investor s best response is to choose a taxminimizing indirect route, because the direct route is not tax-minimizing, and because any indirect route that is not tax-minimizing is dominated by a tax-minimizing indirect route. (iii) If the penalty tax rate is smaller than the treaty shopping rate net of home country taxation, i.e., if p < (t sh f(b ))(1 t h ), there is an equilibrium 7
8 where the investor chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route, regardless of whether the tax agency audits the investor. If the tax agency does not audit, the investor s best response is to choose a tax-minimizing indirect route, because the direct route is not tax-minimizing, and because any indirect route that is not tax-minimizing is dominated by a tax-minimizing indirect route. Even if the tax agency audits, the investor s best response is to choose a tax-minimizing indirect route, because p < (t sh f(b ))(1 t h ). Now I characterize the equilibrium. Proposition 1. (i) If there is a unique tax-minimizing indirect route b, there is a unique equilibrium where the tax agency audits the investor with probability α = (t sh f(b ))(1 t h )/p and the investor chooses the indirect route b with probability β = c/mp. (ii) If there is more than one tax-minimizing indirect route, in equilibrium, β is the total probability of the investor choosing tax-minimizing indirect routes. The tax agency s equilibrium audit strategy remains the same. Proof. Because any indirect route that is not tax-minimizing is dominated by a tax-minimizing indirect route, in equilibrium, the investor will choose either the direct route or a tax-minimizing indirect route. Because there is no pure-strategy equilibrium, as in Remark 1, it is sufficient to show that each player is indifferent between the pure strategies played with positive probability in equilibrium. (i) Suppose there is a unique tax-minimizing indirect route b = h, i,..., j, s. Given α, the investor is indifferent between the direct route b and the taxminimizing indirect route b, since u B (α, b) = m(1 t sh )(1 t h ) = u B (α, b ). Given β, the tax agency is indifferent between no audit a = 0 and audit a = 1, since u A (0, β) = mt sh (c/p )(t sh t sj ) = u A (1, β). Thus, (α, β) characterizes a unique equilibrium. (ii) Suppose there are l 2 tax-minimizing indirect routes. Each of the taxminimizing indirect routes is denoted by b k = h, i k,..., j k, s, where k = 1,..., l, and is played with probability β k, where l k=1 β k = β. Given 8
9 (β 1,..., β l ), the tax agency is indifferent between no audit a = 0 and audit a = 1, because u A (0, (β 1,..., β l )) = mt sh l k=1 β km(t sh t sjk ) = u A (1, (β 1,..., β l )). Given α, the investor is indifferent between the direct route b and a tax-minimizing indirect route b k = h, i k,..., j k, s, because u B (α, b) = m(1 t sh )(1 t h ) = u B (α, b k ). Thus, (α, (β 1,..., β l )) characterizes a unique equilibrium. In equilibrium, the probability α of the tax agency auditing the investor is calculated with treaty shopping rate, home CIT rate, and penalty tax rate, and the probability β of the investor choosing tax-minimizing indirect routes is calculated with audit cost and penalty tax. The comparative statics of the unique equilibrium shows interesting implications. Remark 3. In equilibrium: (i) The audit probability α is increasing in the treaty shopping rate t sh f(b ), decreasing in the home CIT rate t h, decreasing in the penalty tax rate p, while independent of the income m. (ii) The indirect-route probability β is increasing in the audit cost c, decreasing in the income m, decreasing in the penalty tax rate p, while independent of the source WHT rate t sj. These equilibrium results are not in contradiction with the situation when the signing of a tax treaty induces more investment activity. Investors may choose the direct route more frequently to obtain the benefits of the new tax treaty, such as low or zero WHT rates. Remark 4. Proposition 1, as well as the comparative statics in Remark 3, holds when f(b ) < t sh, i.e., when the direct route is not tax-minimizing. In contrast, as Remark 2 (i) shows, when the direct route is tax-minimizing, the investor may choose the direct route with probability 1 in equilibrium. Thus, if home and source countries sign a new tax treaty to make the direct route tax-minimizing, the direct-route probability increases from 1 β to 1 as the new treaty enters into force. However, if the new treaty still makes an indirect route tax-minimizing, Remark 3 (ii) implies that the direct-route probability remains the same, because it is independent of the WHT rates. 9
10 Consistent with the implications in Remark 4, empirical studies show that the existence of a tax-minimizing direct route is positively and significantly related to FDI. For instance, Hong (2018) finds that the inward FDI stock via a tax-minimizing direct route is about 2.14 times larger than the inward FDI stock via a direct route that is not tax-minimizing. By subtracting the tax agency s equilibrium payoff from the maximum possible revenue, I compute the equilibrium loss of tax revenue in my model. 6 Remark 5. If there are l 1 tax-minimizing indirect routes, and if each tax-minimizing indirect route is played with equal probability (c/mp )(1/l) in equilibrium, the tax agency s payoff is mt sh (c/p )(1/l) l k=1 (t sh t sjk ), where j k is the last pass-through country in each tax-minimizing indirect route b k = h, i k,..., j k, s for k = 1,..., l. The tax agency s revenue would be mt sh if only the direct route was available to the investor. equilibrium loss of tax revenue is (c/p )(1/l) l k=1 (t sh t sjk ). Thus, the Note that t sjk < t sh for k = 1,..., l. Because b k is a tax-minimizing indirect route, f(b k ) < t sh. Because t sjk f(b k ), for k = 1,..., l, it holds that t sjk < t sh. Hence, the tax revenue loss in Remark 5 is positive. For countries h and s with l 1 tax-minimizing indirect routes, the tax rate spread is defined as (1/l) l k=1 (t sh t sjk ), the average difference of the WHT rates imposed by country s in the direct route and in the indirect routes. In country s, the tax agency can raise more revenue by adopting the equilibrium random audit strategy than by sticking to non-random strategies. Remark 6. When each tax-minimizing indirect route is played with equal probability, if the tax rate spread is smaller than the penalty tax rate, i.e., if (1/l) l k=1 (t sh t sjk ) < p, the tax agency raises more revenue by adopting the equilibrium random audit strategy than by sticking to nonrandom (pure) strategies. In equilibrium, the tax agency s payoff is mt sh 6 However, if a tax agency is expected to audit investors too frequently, investors may adjust their investment as well as their income, which is assumed to be given and fixed in my model. This adjustment may affect tax revenue loss as well. 10
11 (c/p )(1/l) l k=1 (t sh t sjk ), because each tax-minimizing indirect route is played with equal probability. To compare payoffs, consider two cases where the tax agency chooses pure strategies. First, suppose that the tax agency does not audit the investor at all, and knowing this, the investor always uses tax-minimizing indirect routes. In this case, the tax agency s payoff is (1/l) l k=1 mt sj k. This payoff is smaller than the equilibrium payoff because c < mp and t sjk < t sh for k = 1,..., l. Second, suppose that the tax agency always audits the investor, and knowing this, the investor always chooses the direct route. In this case, the tax agency s payoff is mt sh c, which is smaller than the equilibrium payoff, because (1/l) l k=1 (t sh t sjk ) < p. In both cases, the tax agency raises greater revenue by adopting the equilibrium audit strategy. In classical studies on random audits, e.g., Border and Sobel (1987) and Mookherjee and Png (1989), a taxpayer s avoidance technique is based on income underreporting. In this paper, the tax avoidance technique is based on indirect routing, i.e., treaty shopping. Even if the investor reports her income truthfully, she can still use a tax-minimizing indirect route. To deal with this situation, the tax agency can adopt a random audit rule with a sufficiently high penalty tax rate and raise more revenue. To counter treaty shopping, a number of countries have introduced limitation on benefits (LOB) and principal purpose test (PPT) provisions in tax treaties. 7 These treaty provisions give tax agencies the discretion to audit foreign investors who receive treaty benefits. When designing discretionary audit rules, tax agencies may consider using the equilibrium random audit strategy with a high penalty tax rate. 7 OECD (2015) discusses the development of LOB and PPT provisions. Under the LOB provision, tax agencies have the discretion to deny treaty benefits unless foreign investors meet certain residency requirements. Under the PPT provision, tax agencies have the discretion to deny treaty benefits if they reasonably conclude that obtaining the treaty benefits is one of the principal purposes of using indirect transaction structures. 11
12 4 Extension In this section I examine the equilibria of the models that incorporate foreign tax credit, sequential movement, and incomplete information. 4.1 Foreign tax credit Under a foreign tax credit system in country h, the investor s net-of-tax income is determined by the greater of the foreign tax rate f(b) and the home CIT rate t h. The payoff function of the investor (or player B) is given as follows: u B (a, b) = m(1 max{f(b), t h }) mp(a, b) If f(b) t h, foreign taxes are no greater than domestic tax liabilities, and thus, the investor pays m(t h f(b)) in country h and mf(b) in countries along the investment route b. The investor s net-of-tax income is m(1 t h ). However, if t h < f(b), foreign taxes are greater than domestic tax liabilities, and thus, the investor pays no tax in country h. The investor s net-of-tax income is m(1 f(b)). The following proposition shows equilibrium behavior under a foreign tax credit system. Proposition 2. Suppose that country h operates a foreign tax credit system. (i) If t sh t h, there is an equilibrium where the tax agency of country s chooses no audit and the investor chooses the direct route. (ii) If t h < t sh, there is an equilibrium where the tax agency audits the investor with probability (t sh max{f(b ), t h })/p and the investor chooses tax-minimizing indirect routes with probability c/mp. Proof. (i) Because t sh t h, if the investor chooses the direct route, the investor s payoff is m(1 t h ). However, if the investor chooses an indirect route b, the investor s payoff is at most m(1 max{f(b), t h }), which is obtained when the tax agency does not audit the investor. Because t h max{f(b), t h }, regardless of whether the tax agency audits the investor, it is a best response for the investor to choose the direct route. Given the investor s direct route, 12
13 the tax agency s best response is to choose no audit. Thus, there is an equilibrium where the tax agency chooses no audit and the investor chooses the direct route. (ii) To show the mixed-strategy equilibrium, it is sufficient to show that each player is indifferent between the pure strategies played with positive probability. Suppose there are l 1 tax-minimizing indirect routes. Each of the tax-minimizing indirect routes is denoted by b k = h, i k,..., j k, s, where k = 1,..., l, and is played with probability β k, where l k=1 β k = c/mp. Given (β 1,..., β l ), the tax agency is indifferent between no audit a = 0 and audit a = 1, because u A (0, (β 1,..., β l )) = mt sh l k=1 β km(t sh t sjk ) = u A (1, (β 1,..., β l )). Given the audit probability α = (t sh max{f(b ), t h })/p, if the investor chooses the direct route b, the payoff is u B (α, b) = m(1 max{f(b), t h }) = m(1 t sh ), because f(b) = t sh and t h < t sh. If the investor chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route b k, the payoff is u B (α, b k ) = m(1 t sh ). Thus, the investor is indifferent between the direct route b and a taxminimizing indirect route b k. Hence, (α, (β 1,..., β l )) is an equilibrium. If t sh t h, in the equilibrium of Proposition 2 (i), no treaty shopping occurs, and the source country earns the maximum possible tax revenue without incurring the audit cost. However, the residence country earns tax revenues reduced by foreign tax credits given to the investor. If t h < t sh, in the equilibrium of Proposition 2 (ii), the investor chooses tax-minimizing indirect routes with positive probability, and the source country earns less tax revenue due to treaty shopping. Moreover, the residence country earns zero tax revenue when foreign tax credits exceed domestic tax liabilities. Treaty shopping can be prevented by foreign tax credit systems in residence countries with relatively high CIT rates. When no treaty shopping occurs, source countries earn maximum possible tax revenue. However, this comes at the cost of tax credits given by residence countries. Source countries benefit from foreign tax credit systems in the residence countries that pay for the cost of the systems. Without overcoming such free-rider problems be- 13
14 tween countries, it may be difficult to sustain foreign tax credit systems in residence countries. Recently, major capital-exporting countries, i.e., investors residence countries, such as the United States, Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, have abolished tax credits for certain foreign-source dividends to introduce deduction or exemption systems. 4.2 Sequential movement Tax agencies often obtain certain information about investment structures. For instance, if a company s financial statements show that dividends are paid directly to entities in the residence country, tax agencies may presume that investors use direct investment structures and can choose not to audit. If dividends are paid to entities in countries other than the residence country, tax agencies may presume that investors use indirect investment structures and can choose to audit. This situation can be thought of as a two-stage (sequential-move) game between a tax agency and an investor. In the first stage, the investor chooses a direct or indirect investment route. In the second stage, the tax agency knows whether or not the investor chose the direct route and chooses whether to audit. 8 Nash) equilibrium of this two-stage game. I present the (subgame perfect Proposition 3. In the two-stage game where the investor moves first, there is a unique equilibrium where the investor chooses the direct route and the tax agency selectively audits the investor who chose an indirect route. Proof. The unique equilibrium is constructed by backward induction. Because the tax agency knows whether or not the investor chose the direct route, there are two subgames in the second stage. In the subgame after the investor chose the direct route, the tax agency earns a greater payoff by choosing not to audit, because c > 0. In the subgame after the investor chose an indirect route, the tax agency earns a greater payoff by auditing 8 Even if the tax agency knows that the investor chose an indirect route, the tax agency may still have to conduct an audit to gather sufficient evidence to impose a penalty tax. 14
15 the investor, because c < mp. Thus, in the second stage, the tax agency selectively audits the investor who chose an indirect route. By backward induction, in the first stage, if the investor chooses the direct route, the payoff is m(1 t sh )(1 t h ). If the investor chooses an indirect route, the payoff is at most m(1 f(b ))(1 t h ) mp, which is obtained when the investor chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route b. In the first stage, because (t sh f(b ))(1 t h ) < p, the investor earns a greater payoff by choosing the direct route. Therefore, in the unique equilibrium of the two-stage game, the investor chooses the direct route and the tax agency selectively audits the investor who chose an indirect route. In the two-stage game, the tax agency enjoys the second mover s advantage by observing whether or not the investor chose the direct route. In the unique equilibrium, the tax agency can prevent treaty shopping by selectively auditing the investor who did not choose the direct route. 4.3 Incomplete information So far I assumed complete information. But what if the tax agency and the investor face incomplete information about each other s type? In reality, the tax agency may not know the investor s residence country, and the investor may not know the tax agency s audit cost. In these circumstances, are random audit rules supported as equilibrium strategies? Let us consider a game with incomplete information. The investor s type is determined by her residence country h {1, 2}. The direct route is not tax-minimizing from residence country 1 to source country s. The direct route is tax-minimizing from residence country 2 to source country s. A strategy of the investor, denoted by b( ), is a function mapping each type h to a route b(h). The tax agency s type is determined by the audit cost c {c L, c H }, where c L < c H. A strategy of the tax agency, denoted by a( ), is a function mapping each type c to an action a(c) {0, 1}. The investor knows her own type h {1, 2} but the tax agency may 15
16 not know the investor s type. The tax agency has subjective beliefs about the investor s type, described by a probability distribution π. The investor s residence country is h with probability π h. The tax agency knows its own type c {c L, c H } but the investor may not know the tax agency s type. The investor has subjective beliefs about the tax agency s type, described by a probability distribution φ. The tax agency s audit cost is c L with probability φ L and c H with probability φ H. Given a probability distribution π and a type c, the payoff function of the tax agency (or player A) is defined as follows: u A (a( ), b( ); c) = E π [mw(b( )) + mp(a(c), b( )) ca(c)] Given a probability distribution φ and a type h, the payoff function of the investor (or player B) is defined as follows: u B (a( ), b( ); h) = E φ [m(1 f(b(h)))(1 t h ) mp(a( ), b(h))] I analyze (Bayesian Nash) equilibrium strategies under two assumptions. First, the low audit cost is smaller than the expected penalty tax when indirect routes are chosen only by the investor of country 1, i.e., c L < π 1 mp. Second, the treaty shopping rate net of home country taxation is smaller than the penalty tax rate discounted by the probability of the low audit cost, i.e., (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) < φ L p, where b is a tax-minimizing route from 1 to s. The following results are comparable with the equilibria of the model in Section 3. All proofs are presented in the Appendix. Remark 7. Under the assumptions, there is no pure-strategy equilibrium. Remark 8. If one of the assumptions is violated, the following equilibrium exists: (i) If π 1 mp < c L, there is an equilibrium where the tax agency of each type chooses not to audit, the investor of country 1 chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route, and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route. (ii) If c L < π 1 mp < c H and φ L p < (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ), there is an equilibrium where the tax agency of type c L chooses to audit, the tax agency of type 16
17 c H chooses not to audit, the investor of country 1 chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route, and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route. (iii) If c H < π 1 mp and φ L p < (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) < p, there is an equilibrium where the tax agency of type c L audits for sure, the tax agency of type c H audits with probability ((t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) φ L p )/φ H p, the investor of country 1 chooses tax-minimizing indirect routes with probability c H /π 1 mp, and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route for sure. (iv) If c H < π 1 mp and p < (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ), there is an equilibrium where the tax agency of each type chooses to audit, the investor of country 1 chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route, and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route. Proposition 4. There is an equilibrium where (i) the tax agency of the low cost type c L audits the investor with probability (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 )/φ L p, (ii) the tax agency of the high cost type c H chooses no audit for sure, (iii) the investor of country 1 chooses tax-minimizing indirect routes with probability c L /π 1 mp, and (iv) the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route for sure. In the equilibrium of Proposition 4, for the tax agency of the low cost type, the audit probability is calculated with treaty shopping rate, home CIT rate, penalty tax rate, and the probability of the low cost type. For the investor of the country with tax-minimizing indirect routes, the indirectroute probability is calculated with audit cost, income, penalty tax rate, and the probability of the country with tax-minimizing indirect routes. As Remark 8 and Proposition 4 show, the indirect-route probability is minimized in the equilibrium of Proposition 4, which exists under the assumptions that c L < π 1 mp and (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) < φ L p. Under (i), (ii), and (iv) of Remark 8, the investor of the country with tax-minimizing indirect routes uses such routes for sure in equilibrium. Under (iii), the investor uses such routes with probability c H /π 1 mp, which is greater than the equilibrium probability c L /π 1 mp of Proposition 4. Therefore, to minimize the probability of using tax-minimizing indirect routes, the tax agency can 17
18 set up a penalty tax rate p satisfying the assumptions of Proposition 4. This penalty tax rate can be thought of as an optimal rate for the tax agency of the source country because it minimizes the probability of treaty shopping. 5 Conclusion In this paper I develop game-theoretic models of treaty shopping and analyze equilibrium strategies. In simultaneous-move games, regardless of whether incomplete information exists and whether a home country allows foreign tax credits, there are mixed-strategy equilibria where an investor chooses tax-minimizing indirect routes with positive probability and a tax agency audits the investor with positive probability. This equilibrium random audit strategy helps the tax agency increase revenue and decrease the probability of treaty shopping. However, if the home country operates a foreign tax credit system with a relatively high tax rate, or if the tax agency observes the investor s action in a sequential-move game, the investor always chooses the direct route, and no treaty shopping occurs in equilibrium. For future studies, it will be important to examine foreign tax credit systems from the perspectives of capital exporting or investors residence countries. Foreign tax credit systems can help prevent treaty shopping but may also be vulnerable to other tax planning techniques, such as foreign tax credit generators, unfairly reducing tax revenue in residence countries. In an extended model, residence countries may choose tax relief systems to maximize their own revenue, and then investors and source countries may play the game of treaty shopping and tax auditing. It will also be interesting to study a model where an investor can choose a destination of investment. In this paper, given a pair of residence and source (destination) countries, an investor chooses a direct or indirect route. However, if the tax agency of the source country is expected to be aggressive, or to audit frequently, the investor may want to adjust her destination. Moreover, expecting this adjustment, the tax agency may have to be more accommodating toward the investor who uses a tax-minimizing indirect route. 18
19 Appendix Proof of Proposition 4. This proof proceeds in five steps. Step 1. For the investor of type h = 2, it is weakly dominant to choose the direct route. Let b (2) = 2, s be the direct route. Because the direct route is tax-minimizing from 2 to s, for each b R(2, s), f(b (2)) f(b). For each b R(2, s) with b b (2), if a(c) = 0, then p(a(c), b (2)) = p(a(c), b) = 0 and u B (a(c), b; 2) u B (a(c), b (2); 2). If a(c) = 1, then p(a(c), b (2)) = 0 < p = p(a(c), b) and u B (a(c), b; 2) < u B (a(c), b (2); 2). Step 2. Suppose that the investor of type h = 2 chooses the direct route for sure. Also, suppose that the investor of type h = 1 chooses tax-minimizing indirect routes with probability c L /π 1 mp. Let b ( ) denote such a strategy. Given b ( ), the tax agency of type c H chooses not to audit. Let a (c H ) = 0 and a(c H ) = 1. Given b ( ), u A (a (c H ), b ( ); c H ) = E π [mw(b ( ))]. Also, u A (a(c H ), b ( ); c H ) = E π [mw(b ( ))] + E π [mp(a(c H ), b ( ))] c H. Because E π [mp(a(c H ), b ( ))] = c L and c L < c H, it holds that u A (a(c H ), b ( ); c H ) < u A (a (c H ), b ( ); c H ). Step 3. For the investor of type h = 1, it is dominated to choose an indirect route that is not tax-minimizing. Let b(h) = b denote such a route. Note that there is a tax-minimizing indirect route b = 1, i,..., j, s with f(b ) < t s1. Let b (h) = b. Because b and b are indirect routes, for each a(c) {0, 1}, p(a(c), b) = p(a(c), b ). Because b is tax-minimizing but b is not, f(b ) < f(b). Thus, for each a(c) {0, 1} and for type h = 1, it holds that u B (a(c), b; h) < u B (a(c), b ; h). Step 4. Suppose that there are l 1 tax-minimizing indirect routes from country 1 to country s. Each of such routes is denoted by b k = 1, i k,..., j k, s with k = 1,..., l, and is played with probability q k, where l k=1 q k = c L /π 1 mp. Let (a ( ), b ( )) denote the strategy profile specified as follows: 1 with probability (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 )/φ L p for c = c L a (c) = 0 with probability 1 (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 )/φ L p for c = c L 0 with probability 1 for c = c H 19
20 b k with probability q k for h = 1 b (h) = 1, s with probability 1 l k=1 q k for h = 1 2, s with probability 1 for h = 2 Given the investor s strategy b ( ), for type c L, E π [mp(1, b ( ))] = c L and u A (1, b ( ); c L ) = E π [mw(b ( ))]. Also, u A (0, b ( ); c L ) = E π [mw(b ( ))]. Thus, the tax agency of type c L is indifferent between a (c L ) = 1 and a (c L ) = 0. Given the tax agency s strategy a ( ), for type h = 1, it holds that u B (a ( ), b k ; h) = m(1 t s1 )(1 t 1 ) = u B (a ( ), h, s; h). Hence, the investor of type h = 1 is indifferent between b (h) = b k and b (h) = h, s. Step 5. From Step 1, it is weakly dominant for the investor of type h = 2 to choose the direct route. Thus, regardless of what the tax agency does, the investor of type h = 2 will choose the direct route, as specified in b ( ). Given b ( ), from Step 2, the tax agency of type c H will choose no audit, as specified in a ( ). Because it is dominated for the investor of type h = 1 to choose an indirect route that is not tax-minimizing, from Step 3, the investor of type h = 1 will only choose either the direct route or a tax-minimizing indirect route. By choosing the mixed strategy specified in Step 4, each player makes the other player indifferent between the actions played with positive probability. Therefore, (a ( ), b ( )) is an equilibrium. Proof of Remark 7. Because a(c) {0, 1} for c {c L, c H }, there are four pure strategies for the tax agency. Let a 1 ( ) denote the strategy such that a 1 (c L ) = 0 and a 1 (c H ) = 0. Let a 2 ( ) denote the strategy such that a 2 (c L ) = 0 and a 2 (c H ) = 1. Let a 3 ( ) denote the strategy such that a 3 (c L ) = 1 and a 3 (c H ) = 0. Let a 4 ( ) denote the strategy such that a 4 (c L ) = 1 and a 4 (c H ) = 1. This proof is divided into four cases. Case 1. Suppose that the tax agency chooses a 1 ( ). Given a 1 ( ), to maximize her expected payoff, the investor chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route when she is of type h = 1 and chooses the direct route when she is of type h = 2. Let b 0 ( ) denote such a strategy. Because b 0 ( ) is the best response to a 1 ( ), (a 1 ( ), b 0 ( )) is the only strategy profile that can be 20
21 an equilibrium. Given b 0 ( ), if the tax agency chooses a 1 ( ), for type c L, u A (a 1 ( ), b 0 ( ); c L ) = E π [mw(b 0 ( ))]. If the tax agency chooses a 3 ( ), for type c L, u A (a 3 ( ), b 0 ( ); c L ) = E π [mw(b 0 ( ))] + E π [mp(1, b 0 ( ))] c L. Because E π [mp(1, b 0 ( ))] = π 1 mp and c L < π 1 mp, it holds that u A (a 1 ( ), b 0 ( ); c L ) < u A (a 3 ( ), b 0 ( ); c L ). Thus, a 1 ( ) is not a best response to b 0 ( ), and (a 1 ( ), b 0 ( )) is not an equilibrium. Case 2. Suppose that the tax agency chooses a 2 ( ). By way of contradiction, suppose that for some b( ), (a 2 ( ), b( )) is an equilibrium. For type c H, u A (a 2 ( ), b( ); c H ) = E π [mw(b( ))]+E π [mp(1, b( ))] c H and u A (0, b( ); c H ) = E π [mw(b( ))]. Because (a 2 ( ), b( )) is an equilibrium, u A (a 2 ( ), b( ); c H ) u A (0, b( ); c H ), which implies E π [mp(1, b( ))] c H. Because c L < c H, c L < E π [mp(1, b( ))]. However, for type c L, u A (a 2 ( ), b( ); c L ) = E π [mw(b( ))] and u A (1, b( ); c L ) = E π [mw(b( ))] + E π [mp(1, b( ))] c L. Because (a 2 ( ), b( )) is an equilibrium, it must be that u A (a 2 ( ), b( ); c L ) u A (1, b( ); c L ), which implies that E π [mp(1, b( ))] c L. This is a contradiction. Thus, there is no b( ) for which (a 2 ( ), b( )) is an equilibrium. Case 3. Suppose that the tax agency chooses a 3 ( ). Given a 3 ( ), to maximize her expected payoff, the investor always chooses the direct route regardless of her type. This is because (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) < φ L p implies that, for the investor of type h = 1, u B (a 3 ( ), b ; 1) = m(1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) φ L mp < m(1 t s1 )(1 t 1 ) = u B (a 3 ( ), 1, s; 1). For the investor of type h = 2, the direct route is tax-minimizing with no risk of the penalty tax. Let b 1 ( ) denote the strategy that the investor always chooses the direct route. Because b 1 ( ) is the best response to a 3 ( ), (a 3 ( ), b 1 ( )) is the only strategy profile that can be an equilibrium. Given b 1 ( ), if the tax agency chooses a 3 ( ), for type c L, the expected payoff is u A (a 3 ( ), b 1 ( ); c L ) = E π [mt sh ] c L. If the tax agency chooses a 1 ( ), for type c L, the expected payoff is u A (a 1 ( ), b 1 ( ); c L ) = E π [mt sh ]. Thus, a 3 ( ) is not a best response to b 1 ( ), and (a 3 ( ), b 1 ( )) is not an equilibrium. Case 4. Suppose that the tax agency chooses a 4 ( ). Because the tax agency of each type audits the investor, as in Case 3, b 1 ( ) is the best response to 21
22 a 4 ( ). However, a 4 ( ) is not a best response to b 1 ( ), and (a 4 ( ), b 1 ( )) is not an equilibrium. Proof of Remark 8. This proof is divided into four parts. (i) Assume π 1 mp < c L. Let a 1 ( ) be the strategy that the tax agency of each type chooses no audit. Let b 0 ( ) be the strategy that the investor of country 1 chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route. Show that (a 1 ( ), b 0 ( )) is an equilibrium. Let a 1 ( ) be given. Because the tax agency of each type chooses not to audit at all, the investor of country 1 can maximize her payoff by choosing a tax-minimizing indirect route and the investor of country 2 can maximize her payoff by choosing the direct route. Thus, for the investor, b 0 ( ) is a best response to a 1 ( ). Let b 0 ( ) be given. Because π 1 mp < c L and c L < c H, when the investor of country 1 chooses an indirect route and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route, the tax agency of each type can maximize its payoff by not auditing. Thus, for the tax agency, a 1 ( ) is a best response to b 0 ( ). Therefore, (a 1 ( ), b 0 ( )) is an equilibrium. (ii) Assume c L < π 1 mp < c H and φ L p < (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ). Let a 3 ( ) be the strategy that the tax agency of type c L chooses to audit and the tax agency of type c H chooses not to audit. Let b 0 ( ) be the strategy that the investor of country 1 chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route. Show that (a 3 ( ), b 0 ( )) is an equilibrium. Let a 3 ( ) be given. For the investor of country 1, it is dominated to choose an indirect route that is not tax-minimizing, as shown in the proof of Proposition 4. Also, because φ L p < (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ), it holds that u B (a 3 ( ), 1, s; 1) = m(1 t s1 )(1 t 1 ) < m(1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) φ L mp = u B (a 3 ( ), b ; 1). Thus, the investor of country 1 earns a greater payoff by choosing a tax-minimizing indirect route b than by choosing the direct route. Moreover, for the investor of country 2, it is weakly dominant to choose the direct route, as in the proof of Proposition 4. Thus, for the investor, b 0 ( ) is a best response to a 3 ( ). Let b 0 ( ) be given. Because c L < π 1 mp, u A (0, b 0 ( ); c L ) = E π [mw(b 0 ( ))] < E π [mw(b 0 ( ))] + π 1 mp c L = 22
23 u A (1, b 0 ( ); c L ). Thus, the tax agency of type c L earns a greater payoff by auditing. However, because π 1 mp < c H, the tax agency of type c H earns a greater payoff by not auditing. Thus, for the tax agency, a 3 ( ) is a best response to b 0 ( ). Therefore, (a 3 ( ), b 0 ( )) is an equilibrium. (iii) Assume c H < π 1 mp and φ L p < (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) < p. Let a ( ) be the strategy that the tax agency of type c L audits for sure and the tax agency of type c H audits with probability α = ((t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) φ L p )/φ H p. Let b ( ) be the strategy that the investor of country 1 chooses tax-minimizing indirect routes with probability β = c H /π 1 mp and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route for sure. Show that (a ( ), b ( )) is an equilibrium. Let a ( ) be given. As in the proof of Proposition 4, the investor of country 1 chooses either the direct route 1, s or a tax-minimizing indirect route b. Because E φ [mp(a ( ), b )] = φ L mp + φ H αmp = m(t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ), it holds that u B (a ( ), 1, s; 1) = m(1 t s1 )(1 t 1 ) = u B (a ( ), b ; 1). Thus, the investor of country 1 is indifferent between 1, s and b. Moreover, for the investor of country 2, it is weakly dominant to choose the direct route. Thus, for the investor, b ( ) is a best response to a ( ). Let b ( ) be given. For the tax agency of type c, because E π [mp(1, b ( ))] = π 1 βmp = c H, u A (1, b ( ); c) = E π [mw(b ( ))] + c H c. Because u A (0, b ( ); c) = E π [mw(b ( ))], the tax agency of type c L prefers audit, and the tax agency of type c H is indifferent between audit and no audit. Thus, for the tax agency, a ( ) is a best response to b ( ). Therefore, (a ( ), b ( )) is an equilibrium. (iv) Assume c H < π 1 mp and p < (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ). Let a 4 ( ) be the strategy that the tax agency of each type chooses to audit. Let b 0 ( ) be the strategy that the investor of country 1 chooses a tax-minimizing indirect route and the investor of country 2 chooses the direct route. Show that (a 4 ( ), b 0 ( )) is an equilibrium. Let a 4 ( ) be given. For the investor of country 1, it is dominated to choose an indirect route that is not tax-minimizing, as shown in the proof of Proposition 4. Also, because p < (t s1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ), it holds that u B (a 4 ( ), 1, s; 1) = m(1 t s1 )(1 t 1 ) < m(1 f(b ))(1 t 1 ) mp = u B (a 4 ( ), b ; 1). Thus, the investor of country 1 earns a greater payoff by 23
24 choosing a tax-minimizing indirect route b than by choosing the direct route. Moreover, for the investor of country 2, it is weakly dominant to choose the direct route, as in the proof of Proposition 4. Thus, for the investor, b 0 ( ) is a best response to a 4 ( ). Let b 0 ( ) be given. Because c L < c H and c H < π 1 mp, u A (0, b 0 ( ); c L ) = E π [mw(b 0 ( ))] < E π [mw(b 0 ( ))] + π 1 mp c L = u A (1, b 0 ( ); c L ). Thus, the tax agency of type c L earns a greater payoff by auditing. Similarly, because c H < π 1 mp, the tax agency of type c H earns a greater payoff by auditing. Thus, for the tax agency, a 4 ( ) is a best response to b 0 ( ). Therefore, (a 4 ( ), b 0 ( )) is an equilibrium. References [1] Behrens, K., Peralt, S., & Picard, P. M. (2014). Transfer pricing rules, OECD guidelines, and market distortions. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 16, [2] Border, K. C., & Sobel, J. (1987). Samurai accountant: A theory of auditing and plunder. Review of Economic Studies, 54, [3] Bloch, F., & Demange, G. (2018). Taxation and privacy protection on internet platforms. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 20, [4] Blonigen, B. A., & Davies, R. B. (2004). The effects of bilateral tax treaties on U.S. FDI activity. International Tax and Public Finance, 11, [5] Dharmapala, D. (2014). What do we know about Base Erosion and Profit Shifting? A review of the empirical literature. Fiscal Studies, 35, [6] Eggert, W., & Itaya, J.-I. (2014). Tax rate harmonization, renegotiation, and asymmetric tax competition for profits with repeated interaction. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 16, [7] Gauthier, S. (2018). Efficient tax competition under the origin principle. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 20,
Strategic Treaty Shopping
Strategic Treaty Shopping Sunghoon Hong March 2017 Abstract Treaty shopping refers to the use of indirect investment structures through countries with favorable tax treaties. This paper examines a game-theoretic
More informationTax Treaties and Foreign Equity Holding Companies of Multinational Corporations
Tax Treaties and Foreign Equity Holding Companies of Multinational Corporations Sunghoon Hong March 2018 Abstract Multinational corporations can organize indirect ownership chains with foreign equity holding
More informationAll Equilibrium Revenues in Buy Price Auctions
All Equilibrium Revenues in Buy Price Auctions Yusuke Inami Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University This version: January 009 Abstract This note considers second-price, sealed-bid auctions with
More informationComparing Allocations under Asymmetric Information: Coase Theorem Revisited
Comparing Allocations under Asymmetric Information: Coase Theorem Revisited Shingo Ishiguro Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University 1-7 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan August 2002
More informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications Final Exam Ronaldo Carpio Jan. 13, 2015
CUR 41: Game Theory and its Applications Final Exam Ronaldo Carpio Jan. 13, 015 Instructions: Please write your name in English. This exam is closed-book. Total time: 10 minutes. There are 4 questions,
More information6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts
6.254 : Game Theory with Engineering Applications Lecture 3: Strategic Form Games - Solution Concepts Asu Ozdaglar MIT February 9, 2010 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria
More informationFinancial Fragility A Global-Games Approach Itay Goldstein Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Financial Fragility A Global-Games Approach Itay Goldstein Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Financial Fragility and Coordination Failures What makes financial systems fragile? What causes crises
More informationGame Theory with Applications to Finance and Marketing, I
Game Theory with Applications to Finance and Marketing, I Homework 1, due in recitation on 10/18/2018. 1. Consider the following strategic game: player 1/player 2 L R U 1,1 0,0 D 0,0 3,2 Any NE can be
More informationGames of Incomplete Information
Games of Incomplete Information EC202 Lectures V & VI Francesco Nava London School of Economics January 2011 Nava (LSE) EC202 Lectures V & VI Jan 2011 1 / 22 Summary Games of Incomplete Information: Definitions:
More informationMA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE
MA200.2 Game Theory II, LSE Problem Set 1 These questions will go over basic game-theoretic concepts and some applications. homework is due during class on week 4. This [1] In this problem (see Fudenberg-Tirole
More informationM.Phil. Game theory: Problem set II. These problems are designed for discussions in the classes of Week 8 of Michaelmas term. 1
M.Phil. Game theory: Problem set II These problems are designed for discussions in the classes of Week 8 of Michaelmas term.. Private Provision of Public Good. Consider the following public good game:
More informationAnswers to Problem Set 4
Answers to Problem Set 4 Economics 703 Spring 016 1. a) The monopolist facing no threat of entry will pick the first cost function. To see this, calculate profits with each one. With the first cost function,
More informationTax Treaty Networks and Ownership Structures of Multinational Corporations
Tax Treaty Networks and Ownership Structures of Multinational Corporations Sunghoon Hong October 27, 2017 Preliminary Draft Abstract Multinational corporations can organize indirect ownership chains with
More informationHW Consider the following game:
HW 1 1. Consider the following game: 2. HW 2 Suppose a parent and child play the following game, first analyzed by Becker (1974). First child takes the action, A 0, that produces income for the child,
More informationIntroduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4)
Introduction to Industrial Organization Professor: Caixia Shen Fall 2014 Lecture Note 5 Games and Strategy (Ch. 4) Outline: Modeling by means of games Normal form games Dominant strategies; dominated strategies,
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2016
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Game Theory (EMBA 296 & EWMBA 211) Summer 2016 More on strategic games and extensive games with perfect information Block 2 Jun 11, 2017 Auctions results Histogram of
More informationECON 803: MICROECONOMIC THEORY II Arthur J. Robson Fall 2016 Assignment 9 (due in class on November 22)
ECON 803: MICROECONOMIC THEORY II Arthur J. Robson all 2016 Assignment 9 (due in class on November 22) 1. Critique of subgame perfection. 1 Consider the following three-player sequential game. In the first
More informationOn Forchheimer s Model of Dominant Firm Price Leadership
On Forchheimer s Model of Dominant Firm Price Leadership Attila Tasnádi Department of Mathematics, Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration, H-1093 Budapest, Fővám tér 8, Hungary
More informationPh.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 12
CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 12 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO May 24, 2016 Announcements Homework #4 is due next week. Review of Last Lecture In extensive games with imperfect information,
More informationSupplementary Material for: Belief Updating in Sequential Games of Two-Sided Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study of a Crisis Bargaining
Supplementary Material for: Belief Updating in Sequential Games of Two-Sided Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study of a Crisis Bargaining Model September 30, 2010 1 Overview In these supplementary
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 2017
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 017 1. Sheila moves first and chooses either H or L. Bruce receives a signal, h or l, about Sheila s behavior. The distribution
More informationLoss-leader pricing and upgrades
Loss-leader pricing and upgrades Younghwan In and Julian Wright This version: August 2013 Abstract A new theory of loss-leader pricing is provided in which firms advertise low below cost) prices for certain
More informationPAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV
GAME THEORY SOLUTION SET 1 WINTER 018 PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV Introduction For suggested solution to problem 4, last year s suggested solutions by Tsz-Ning Wong were used who I think used suggested
More informationPh.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2017
Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2017 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationMicroeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions
Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions 1. (45 points) Consider the following normal form game played by Bruce and Sheila: L Sheila R T 1, 0 3, 3 Bruce M 1, x 0, 0 B 0, 0 4, 1 (a) Suppose
More informationTrading Company and Indirect Exports
Trading Company and Indirect Exports Kiyoshi atsubara August 0 Abstract This article develops an oligopoly model of trade intermediation. In the model, two manufacturing firms that want to export their
More informationGame Theory. Important Instructions
Prof. Dr. Anke Gerber Game Theory 2. Exam Summer Term 2012 Important Instructions 1. There are 90 points on this 90 minutes exam. 2. You are not allowed to use any material (books, lecture notes etc.).
More informationECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HANDOUT ON PERFECT BAYESIAN EQUILIBRIUM- III Semi-Separating equilibrium
ECONS 424 STRATEGY AND GAME THEORY HANDOUT ON PERFECT BAYESIAN EQUILIBRIUM- III Semi-Separating equilibrium Let us consider the following sequential game with incomplete information. Two players are playing
More informationNotes for Section: Week 4
Economics 160 Professor Steven Tadelis Stanford University Spring Quarter, 2004 Notes for Section: Week 4 Notes prepared by Paul Riskind (pnr@stanford.edu). spot errors or have questions about these notes.
More informationKIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
KIER DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES KYOTO INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH http://www.kier.kyoto-u.ac.jp/index.html Discussion Paper No. 657 The Buy Price in Auctions with Discrete Type Distributions Yusuke Inami
More informationEcon 711 Homework 1 Solutions
Econ 711 Homework 1 s January 4, 014 1. 1 Symmetric, not complete, not transitive. Not a game tree. Asymmetric, not complete, transitive. Game tree. 1 Asymmetric, not complete, transitive. Not a game tree.
More informationEconomics 230a, Fall 2014 Lecture Note 12: Introduction to International Taxation
Economics 230a, Fall 2014 Lecture Note 12: Introduction to International Taxation It is useful to begin a discussion of international taxation with a look at the evolution of corporate tax rates over the
More informationMIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 395
MIDTERM ANSWER KEY GAME THEORY, ECON 95 SPRING, 006 PROFESSOR A. JOSEPH GUSE () There are positions available with wages w and w. Greta and Mary each simultaneously apply to one of them. If they apply
More informationMicroeconomics I. Undergraduate Programs in Business Administration and Economics
Microeconomics I Undergraduate Programs in Business Administration and Economics Academic year 2011-2012 Second test 1st Semester January 11, 2012 Fernando Branco (fbranco@ucp.pt) Fernando Machado (fsm@ucp.pt)
More informationDynamic Inconsistency and Non-preferential Taxation of Foreign Capital
Dynamic Inconsistency and Non-preferential Taxation of Foreign Capital Kaushal Kishore Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA. Santanu Roy Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA June
More informationTrading Company and Indirect Exports
Trading Company and Indirect Exports Kiyoshi Matsubara June 015 Abstract This article develops an oligopoly model of trade intermediation. In the model, manufacturing firm(s) wanting to export their products
More informationInternet Taxation. Francis Bloch. Toulouse, Postal Conference, April 16, Université Paris 1 and PSE
Internet Taxation Francis Bloch Université Paris 1 and PSE Toulouse, Postal Conference, April 16, 2016 Bloch (PSE) Internet Taxation April 1, 2016 1 / 29 Introduction Taxation of Internet Platforms Internet
More informationFDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.
FDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.) Hints for Problem Set 3 1. Consider the following strategic
More informationAn introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1]
An introduction on game theory for wireless networking [1] Ning Zhang 14 May, 2012 [1] Game Theory in Wireless Networks: A Tutorial 1 Roadmap 1 Introduction 2 Static games 3 Extensive-form games 4 Summary
More informationMicroeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems
Microeconomics II CIDE, MsC Economics List of Problems 1. There are three people, Amy (A), Bart (B) and Chris (C): A and B have hats. These three people are arranged in a room so that B can see everything
More informationFinitely repeated simultaneous move game.
Finitely repeated simultaneous move game. Consider a normal form game (simultaneous move game) Γ N which is played repeatedly for a finite (T )number of times. The normal form game which is played repeatedly
More informationVolume 29, Issue 1. Second-mover advantage under strategic subsidy policy in a third market model
Volume 29 Issue 1 Second-mover advantage under strategic subsidy policy in a third market model Kojun Hamada Faculty of Economics Niigata University Abstract This paper examines which of the Stackelberg
More informationFinite Memory and Imperfect Monitoring
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Research Department Finite Memory and Imperfect Monitoring Harold L. Cole and Narayana Kocherlakota Working Paper 604 September 2000 Cole: U.C.L.A. and Federal Reserve
More informationLiquidity saving mechanisms
Liquidity saving mechanisms Antoine Martin and James McAndrews Federal Reserve Bank of New York September 2006 Abstract We study the incentives of participants in a real-time gross settlement with and
More informationGame Theory Lecture #16
Game Theory Lecture #16 Outline: Auctions Mechanism Design Vickrey-Clarke-Groves Mechanism Optimizing Social Welfare Goal: Entice players to select outcome which optimizes social welfare Examples: Traffic
More informationMKTG 555: Marketing Models
MKTG 555: Marketing Models A Brief Introduction to Game Theory for Marketing February 14-21, 2017 1 Basic Definitions Game: A situation or context in which players (e.g., consumers, firms) make strategic
More informationEcon 101A Final exam May 14, 2013.
Econ 101A Final exam May 14, 2013. Do not turn the page until instructed to. Do not forget to write Problems 1 in the first Blue Book and Problems 2, 3 and 4 in the second Blue Book. 1 Econ 101A Final
More informationEcon 101A Final exam Mo 18 May, 2009.
Econ 101A Final exam Mo 18 May, 2009. Do not turn the page until instructed to. Do not forget to write Problems 1 and 2 in the first Blue Book and Problems 3 and 4 in the second Blue Book. 1 Econ 101A
More informationresearch paper series
research paper series Research Paper 00/9 Foreign direct investment and export under imperfectly competitive host-country input market by A. Mukherjee The Centre acknowledges financial support from The
More informationRobust Trading Mechanisms with Budget Surplus and Partial Trade
Robust Trading Mechanisms with Budget Surplus and Partial Trade Jesse A. Schwartz Kennesaw State University Quan Wen Vanderbilt University May 2012 Abstract In a bilateral bargaining problem with private
More informationAuctions That Implement Efficient Investments
Auctions That Implement Efficient Investments Kentaro Tomoeda October 31, 215 Abstract This article analyzes the implementability of efficient investments for two commonly used mechanisms in single-item
More informationMicroeconomic Theory III Final Exam March 18, 2010 (80 Minutes)
4. Microeconomic Theory III Final Exam March 8, (8 Minutes). ( points) This question assesses your understanding of expected utility theory. (a) In the following pair of games, check whether the players
More informationUniversité du Maine Théorie des Jeux Yves Zenou Correction de l examen du 16 décembre 2013 (1 heure 30)
Université du Maine Théorie des Jeux Yves Zenou Correction de l examen du 16 décembre 2013 (1 heure 30) Problem (1) (8 points) Consider the following lobbying game between two firms. Each firm may lobby
More informationSequential-move games with Nature s moves.
Econ 221 Fall, 2018 Li, Hao UBC CHAPTER 3. GAMES WITH SEQUENTIAL MOVES Game trees. Sequential-move games with finite number of decision notes. Sequential-move games with Nature s moves. 1 Strategies in
More informationProblem 3 Solutions. l 3 r, 1
. Economic Applications of Game Theory Fall 00 TA: Youngjin Hwang Problem 3 Solutions. (a) There are three subgames: [A] the subgame starting from Player s decision node after Player s choice of P; [B]
More informationAUCTIONEER ESTIMATES AND CREDULOUS BUYERS REVISITED. November Preliminary, comments welcome.
AUCTIONEER ESTIMATES AND CREDULOUS BUYERS REVISITED Alex Gershkov and Flavio Toxvaerd November 2004. Preliminary, comments welcome. Abstract. This paper revisits recent empirical research on buyer credulity
More informationSimon Fraser University Fall Econ 302 D200 Final Exam Solution Instructor: Songzi Du Wednesday December 16, 2015, 8:30 11:30 AM
Simon Fraser University Fall 2015 Econ 302 D200 Final Exam Solution Instructor: Songzi Du Wednesday December 16, 2015, 8:30 11:30 AM NE = Nash equilibrium, SPE = subgame perfect equilibrium, PBE = perfect
More informationSequential Investment, Hold-up, and Strategic Delay
Sequential Investment, Hold-up, and Strategic Delay Juyan Zhang and Yi Zhang December 20, 2010 Abstract We investigate hold-up with simultaneous and sequential investment. We show that if the encouragement
More informationIn reality; some cases of prisoner s dilemma end in cooperation. Game Theory Dr. F. Fatemi Page 219
Repeated Games Basic lesson of prisoner s dilemma: In one-shot interaction, individual s have incentive to behave opportunistically Leads to socially inefficient outcomes In reality; some cases of prisoner
More informationDynamic Inconsistency and Non-preferential Taxation of Foreign Capital
Dynamic Inconsistency and Non-preferential Taxation of Foreign Capital Kaushal Kishore Madras School of Economics, Chennai, India. Santanu Roy Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA February
More informationCUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 9
CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 9 Prof. Ronaldo CARPIO May 22, 2015 Announcements HW #3 is due next week. Ch. 6.1: Ultimatum Game This is a simple game that can model a very simplified
More informationTopics in Contract Theory Lecture 3
Leonardo Felli 9 January, 2002 Topics in Contract Theory Lecture 3 Consider now a different cause for the failure of the Coase Theorem: the presence of transaction costs. Of course for this to be an interesting
More informationSignaling Games. Farhad Ghassemi
Signaling Games Farhad Ghassemi Abstract - We give an overview of signaling games and their relevant solution concept, perfect Bayesian equilibrium. We introduce an example of signaling games and analyze
More informationDuopoly models Multistage games with observed actions Subgame perfect equilibrium Extensive form of a game Two-stage prisoner s dilemma
Recap Last class (September 20, 2016) Duopoly models Multistage games with observed actions Subgame perfect equilibrium Extensive form of a game Two-stage prisoner s dilemma Today (October 13, 2016) Finitely
More informationTHEORIES OF BEHAVIOR IN PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIPS WITH HIDDEN ACTION*
1 THEORIES OF BEHAVIOR IN PRINCIPAL-AGENT RELATIONSHIPS WITH HIDDEN ACTION* Claudia Keser a and Marc Willinger b a IBM T.J. Watson Research Center and CIRANO, Montreal b BETA, Université Louis Pasteur,
More informationMicroeconomic Theory August 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program
Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program August 2013 The time limit for this exam is four hours. The exam has four sections. Each section includes two questions.
More informationChapter 3. Dynamic discrete games and auctions: an introduction
Chapter 3. Dynamic discrete games and auctions: an introduction Joan Llull Structural Micro. IDEA PhD Program I. Dynamic Discrete Games with Imperfect Information A. Motivating example: firm entry and
More informationNot 0,4 2,1. i. Show there is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium where player A chooses to play, player A chooses L, and player B chooses L.
Econ 400, Final Exam Name: There are three questions taken from the material covered so far in the course. ll questions are equally weighted. If you have a question, please raise your hand and I will come
More informationAnswer Key: Problem Set 4
Answer Key: Problem Set 4 Econ 409 018 Fall A reminder: An equilibrium is characterized by a set of strategies. As emphasized in the class, a strategy is a complete contingency plan (for every hypothetical
More information(a) (5 points) Suppose p = 1. Calculate all the Nash Equilibria of the game. Do/es the equilibrium/a that you have found maximize social utility?
GAME THEORY EXAM (with SOLUTIONS) January 20 P P2 P3 P4 INSTRUCTIONS: Write your answers in the space provided immediately after each question. You may use the back of each page. The duration of this exam
More information1 x i c i if x 1 +x 2 > 0 u i (x 1,x 2 ) = 0 if x 1 +x 2 = 0
Game Theory - Midterm Examination, Date: ctober 14, 017 Total marks: 30 Duration: 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM Note: Answer all questions clearly using pen. Please avoid unnecessary discussions. In all questions,
More informationANASH EQUILIBRIUM of a strategic game is an action profile in which every. Strategy Equilibrium
Draft chapter from An introduction to game theory by Martin J. Osborne. Version: 2002/7/23. Martin.Osborne@utoronto.ca http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne Copyright 1995 2002 by Martin J. Osborne.
More informationIncomplete contracts and optimal ownership of public goods
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Incomplete contracts and optimal ownership of public goods Patrick W. Schmitz September 2012 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41730/ MPRA Paper No. 41730, posted
More informationBest-Reply Sets. Jonathan Weinstein Washington University in St. Louis. This version: May 2015
Best-Reply Sets Jonathan Weinstein Washington University in St. Louis This version: May 2015 Introduction The best-reply correspondence of a game the mapping from beliefs over one s opponents actions to
More informationOutline for today. Stat155 Game Theory Lecture 13: General-Sum Games. General-sum games. General-sum games. Dominated pure strategies
Outline for today Stat155 Game Theory Lecture 13: General-Sum Games Peter Bartlett October 11, 2016 Two-player general-sum games Definitions: payoff matrices, dominant strategies, safety strategies, Nash
More informationPAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV. If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to
GAME THEORY PROBLEM SET 1 WINTER 2018 PAULI MURTO, ANDREY ZHUKOV Introduction If any mistakes or typos are spotted, kindly communicate them to andrey.zhukov@aalto.fi. Materials from Osborne and Rubinstein
More informationGame Theory. Analyzing Games: From Optimality to Equilibrium. Manar Mohaisen Department of EEC Engineering
Game Theory Analyzing Games: From Optimality to Equilibrium Manar Mohaisen Department of EEC Engineering Korea University of Technology and Education (KUT) Content Optimality Best Response Domination Nash
More informationGeneral Examination in Microeconomic Theory SPRING 2014
HARVARD UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS General Examination in Microeconomic Theory SPRING 2014 You have FOUR hours. Answer all questions Those taking the FINAL have THREE hours Part A (Glaeser): 55
More informationUNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM. Discussion Papers in Economics
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Discussion Papers in Economics Discussion Paper No. 07/05 Firm heterogeneity, foreign direct investment and the hostcountry welfare: Trade costs vs. cheap labor By Arijit Mukherjee
More informationAgenda. Game Theory Matrix Form of a Game Dominant Strategy and Dominated Strategy Nash Equilibrium Game Trees Subgame Perfection
Game Theory 1 Agenda Game Theory Matrix Form of a Game Dominant Strategy and Dominated Strategy Nash Equilibrium Game Trees Subgame Perfection 2 Game Theory Game theory is the study of a set of tools that
More informationLocation, Productivity, and Trade
May 10, 2010 Motivation Outline Motivation - Trade and Location Major issue in trade: How does trade liberalization affect competition? Competition has more than one dimension price competition similarity
More informationExercises Solutions: Oligopoly
Exercises Solutions: Oligopoly Exercise - Quantity competition 1 Take firm 1 s perspective Total revenue is R(q 1 = (4 q 1 q q 1 and, hence, marginal revenue is MR 1 (q 1 = 4 q 1 q Marginal cost is MC
More informationMicroeconomics Comprehensive Exam
Microeconomics Comprehensive Exam June 2009 Instructions: (1) Please answer each of the four questions on separate pieces of paper. (2) When finished, please arrange your answers alphabetically (in the
More informationSequential Investment, Hold-up, and Strategic Delay
Sequential Investment, Hold-up, and Strategic Delay Juyan Zhang and Yi Zhang February 20, 2011 Abstract We investigate hold-up in the case of both simultaneous and sequential investment. We show that if
More informationUsing Trade Policy to Influence Firm Location. This Version: 9 May 2006 PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE DO NOT CITE
Using Trade Policy to Influence Firm Location This Version: 9 May 006 PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE DO NOT CITE Using Trade Policy to Influence Firm Location Nathaniel P.S. Cook Abstract This paper examines
More informationEcon 101A Final Exam We May 9, 2012.
Econ 101A Final Exam We May 9, 2012. You have 3 hours to answer the questions in the final exam. We will collect the exams at 2.30 sharp. Show your work, and good luck! Problem 1. Utility Maximization.
More informationFDI with Reverse Imports and Hollowing Out
FDI with Reverse Imports and Hollowing Out Kiyoshi Matsubara August 2005 Abstract This article addresses the decision of plant location by a home firm and its impact on the home economy, especially through
More informationGame-Theoretic Approach to Bank Loan Repayment. Andrzej Paliński
Decision Making in Manufacturing and Services Vol. 9 2015 No. 1 pp. 79 88 Game-Theoretic Approach to Bank Loan Repayment Andrzej Paliński Abstract. This paper presents a model of bank-loan repayment as
More informationPhD Qualifier Examination
PhD Qualifier Examination Department of Agricultural Economics May 29, 2014 Instructions This exam consists of six questions. You must answer all questions. If you need an assumption to complete a question,
More informationGame Theory. Wolfgang Frimmel. Repeated Games
Game Theory Wolfgang Frimmel Repeated Games 1 / 41 Recap: SPNE The solution concept for dynamic games with complete information is the subgame perfect Nash Equilibrium (SPNE) Selten (1965): A strategy
More information6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2
6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2 Daron Acemoglu and Asu Ozdaglar MIT October 14, 2009 1 Introduction Outline Review Examples of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibria Mixed Strategies
More informationMicroeconomic Theory May 2013 Applied Economics. Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY. Applied Economics Graduate Program.
Ph.D. PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program May 2013 *********************************************** COVER SHEET ***********************************************
More informationAuctions: Types and Equilibriums
Auctions: Types and Equilibriums Emrah Cem and Samira Farhin University of Texas at Dallas emrah.cem@utdallas.edu samira.farhin@utdallas.edu April 25, 2013 Emrah Cem and Samira Farhin (UTD) Auctions April
More informationBAYESIAN GAMES: GAMES OF INCOMPLETE INFORMATION
BAYESIAN GAMES: GAMES OF INCOMPLETE INFORMATION MERYL SEAH Abstract. This paper is on Bayesian Games, which are games with incomplete information. We will start with a brief introduction into game theory,
More informationRevenue Equivalence and Income Taxation
Journal of Economics and Finance Volume 24 Number 1 Spring 2000 Pages 56-63 Revenue Equivalence and Income Taxation Veronika Grimm and Ulrich Schmidt* Abstract This paper considers the classical independent
More informationAppendix: Common Currencies vs. Monetary Independence
Appendix: Common Currencies vs. Monetary Independence A The infinite horizon model This section defines the equilibrium of the infinity horizon model described in Section III of the paper and characterizes
More informationForeign direct investment and export under imperfectly competitive host-country input market
Foreign direct investment and export under imperfectly competitive host-country input market Arijit Mukherjee University of Nottingham and The Leverhulme Centre for Research in Globalisation and Economic
More informationMaking Money out of Publicly Available Information
Making Money out of Publicly Available Information Forthcoming, Economics Letters Alan D. Morrison Saïd Business School, University of Oxford and CEPR Nir Vulkan Saïd Business School, University of Oxford
More informationEndogenous Transaction Cost, Specialization, and Strategic Alliance
Endogenous Transaction Cost, Specialization, and Strategic Alliance Juyan Zhang Research Institute of Economics and Management Southwestern University of Finance and Economics Yi Zhang School of Economics
More information