Discussion Paper No. 691

EXPORT, FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT,AND JOINT VENTURES:LEARNING THE RIVAL’S COSTS
THROUGH PROPINQUITY
Anthony CreaneandKaz Miyagiwa

June 2007

The Institute of Social and Economic Research
Osaka University
6-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan

Export, foreign direct investment, and joint ventures:
learning the rival’s costs through propinquity

Anthony Creane† and Kaz Miyagiwa‡,§

We examine the role of cost uncertainty in a firm’s choice between exporting and foreign investment
in oligopolistic industry. We consider both foreign direct investment and an international joint
venture, and allow country-specific and firm-specific cost uncertainty. Unlike exporting, either formof foreign investment exposes home and foreign firms to common country-specific cost shocks,
implying a better knowledge of each other’s country-specific shocks. Further, a joint venture allows
the firms to learn each other’s firm-specific cost. A firm’s plant location decision depends on theinteraction of these two effects, which depend on the type of competition and the substitutability of
the firm’s products.
JEL: D83, F12
Key words: Country-specific cost uncertainty, learning, Foreign investment, FDI, Joint ventures†‡§

Michigan State University
ISER, Osaka University, and Emory University

We thank Jim Anderson, Carl Davidson, Steve Matusz and participants at the Hitotsubashi Trade
Conference (2006), IIOC Conference (2006) and at seminars at Kobe University and George
Washington University for their comments on preliminary work. We would also like to thank the
Department of Economics at Boston College (Creane) and at Hitotsubashi University (Miyagiwa) for
their hospitality while working on this paper.

1. Introduction
Over the last quarter-century multinational activity (measured by production and sales offoreign affiliates) has grown at much faster paces than GDP and trade (Markusen, 2002). The
impressive rise in multinational activity has prompted international trade economists to seek reasons
why some firms choose foreign investment over exporting. The seminal works of Helpman (1984),
Markusen (1984) and Ethier (1986) on the emergence of multinational enterprises, and others thathave followed them, have established that market access mode decisions are influenced bytechnology characteristics such as firm-level and plant-level scale economies as well as country
characteristics such as market sizes, differences in marginal costs, and trade costs.1
In this paper we focus instead on the role of cost uncertainty in a firm’s choice between
exporting and foreign investment. There is a well-developed literature on a firm’s location choice
under exchange-rate uncertainty in non-strategic settings; see, e.g., Goldberg and Kolstad (1995),
Viaene and Zilcha (1998), Sung and Lapan (2000).2 The present paper differs from these in that it
focuses on the effect of cost uncertainty in a setting where a firm’s location choice has strategic
implications.
Our model has two features that are novel in the literature. First, we distinguish two types ofcost uncertainty. One is country-specific, that is, it depends on where production takes place andmay reflect fluctuations in locally procured input prices or supplies.3 The other is firm-specific or
idiosyncratic cost uncertainty, which reflects fluctuations in product-specific input prices or firmspecific production processes and is independent of plant location.4 Second, while the literature

1

See Caves (1991) and Markusen (1995, 2003) for reviews of this literature.
Kotseva and Vetts (2005) study the case of demand uncertainty in which a firm learns a demand parameter overtime.
3Country-specific cost or production uncertainty has been widely studied in the international macroeconomics
literature, but not in the study of international oligopoly.
4
There, of course, can additional idiosyncratic uncertainties that the rival could never learn, but adding these to themodel would not change the results.
2

2
usually considers a firm’s choice between exporting and FDI, this paper further distinguishes
between two types of foreign investment, namely, FDI, which is a stand-alone operation, and a joint
venture or a merger.
Unlike exporting, either form of foreign investment exposes foreign and home firms to thecommon country-specific cost shocks as they come to produce in the same country. For example,
facing a high wage implies that the rival is also facing a high labor cost. Other actions the firms take,e.g., using common suppliers, enhance this effect. The exposure to common country-specific costshocks allows the firms to learn the country-specific component of the rival’s cost by observing its
own. As a result, the exposure to common cost shocks introduces a correlation of strategies, thephenomenon hitherto unexamined in the literature. We call the effect from this the common-shock
effect.5 The common-shock effect occurs uniquely in an environment where a firm’s location choice
has strategic ramifications.
Further, unlike FDI, formation of a joint venture (or merger) enables the firms to learn some
information about each other’s idiosyncratic cost – the types of information that are not revealed
through common market activities. We call this the information-sharing effect. Importantly, unlike
the learning of common country-specific cost through the common-shock effect, sharing each other’sidiosyncratic cost information does not directly cause the firms’ strategies to be correlated.6 While
recent work, most notably Qiu and Zhou (2006) has considered how FDI may be chosen to acquire
information about local demand, to the best of our knowledge, the cost learning aspect as well as its
interaction with the common-shock effect has been unexplored. Furthermore, as cost information has

5This common-shock effect could be further decomposed into two components, one reflecting the learning aspect
and the other reflecting the correlation of costs without the learning aspect. In Creane and Miyagiwa (2007) westudy an environment in which only the correlation exists, separating out the learning that is inherent here.
6
The information-sharing effect has been extensively studied in the literature in context of whether contracts exists
such that in equilibrium all firms will agree to share their information with all of their rivals (for an overview, seeVives 1990; for the specific case of cost learning, see, e.g., Gal-Or 1986). The main contribution here is to examine
how the information-sharing effect interacts with the common-shock effect, which is induced one-sidedly only by
the foreign firm.

3
private-valued aspects, the strategic effects are starkly different from demand information (commonvalued). Finally, the information sharing aspect of FDI (that is, there is bilateral learning from FDI –each firm learns about the other’s costs – while in e.g., Qiu and Zhou the learning in unilateral –home firms do not learn about a foreign investor’s home demand) has gone unnoticed.
To focus on purely informational aspects of formation of a joint venture we depart from theconvention of treating a joint venture as a potential collusive device, but instead assume that firms ina joint venture continue to compete in the product markets, as with FDI. Qiu and Zhou (2006) take asimilar approach to isolate the information-gathering aspect of merger from its collusive aspect intheir study of international merger. Furthermore, the real word abounds with examples of such noncollusive production joint ventures, the best-known case being NUMMI (New United Motor
Manufacturing, Inc), in which Toyota and the General Motors produce cars under their own names at
the Freemont, California, plant. Indeed, governments typically will only sanction a joint venture if it
can be shown to be non-collusive.7
To fix these ideas, we consider a foreign firm competing with a home firm in the homecountry. We use the convention that FDI (locating an independent plant in the foreign country)
results in the firms facing a common cost shock, while a joint venture (producing in a joint factorywith the home firm) leads additionally to spillovers of each other’s idiosyncratic cost aspects. The
firms play a three-stage game. First, the foreign firm decides whether to export, or to sell from an
independent subsidiary or to set up a joint venture with the home firm, with the home firm’s
agreement. Then nature chooses cost values and each firm discovers its own costs but not the rival’s

7

From this GM has learnt a great deal from Toyota regarding quality and efficiency in production (Teresko 2006).
Other auto examples include the Flat Rock plant where Ford produces rear-wheel drive vehicles and trucks while
Mazda produces front-wheel drive vehicles (Sawyer 2004) and in Poland where Ford shares a factory with Fiat witheach producing a different car (Polish Press Agency 2005). Additional examples include flat screen televisions(Masaki 2006), flash memory (DeTar 2000), vegetable juice (where part of the agreement is the use of different
suppliers, Smith 2001), silicon wafers (Van Grinsven 2000), steel (Cullison 1989) and beer (e.g., Kirin in the US isbrewed at an Anheuser-Busch plant). Additional examples can be found in Morasch (2000).

4
idiosyncratic costs unless there is a joint venture. Finally, the firms compete in the home market,
given the plant location chosen in stage one.
Our analysis shows that whether the foreign firm exports or chooses between FDI and a joint
venture hinges crucially on the interactions of the common-shock and the information-sharing effect,
which in turn depends on the type of competition (price or quantity). We find that, if the firms
compete in quantities the common-shock effect is negative, making both types of foreign investment
a less attractive option than exporting. However, the information-sharing effect is positive, thereby
making a joint venture a more attractive choice relative to FDI. Price competition leaves thecommon-shock effect intact but the information-sharing effect becomes negative, making FDI
relatively more attractive than joint ventures.
We also examine the effect on home country welfare. The home country’s most preferred
option can differ from the foreign firm’s choice, in which case the home government has incentive tointervene so as to influence the latter’s decision. Thus, our analysis can throw new light on theformation of home country policy towards foreign investment. To illustrate the possible conflict
between the foreign firm and the home country government, suppose that firms engage in Cournot
competition with a homogeneous good. In this case, the common-shock effect is negative, making
exporting more profitable than FDI, but as we show below the information-sharing effect dominates
the common-shock effect, making a joint venture more profitable than exporting. Thus, the firms
prefer a joint venture to either exporting or FDI. However, home country welfare is greatest with
exporting. Thus, the welfare-maximizing home country government may have a rationale forbanning joint ventures and mergers between home and foreign firms even if such ventures are notcollusive. The collusive aspect of joint ventures then augments the home government’s skepticism
against joint ventures and mergers.
Finally, to explain a firm’s access mode decision much of the literature introduces someasymmetries in country or firm characteristics; for example, a firm incurs transport cost when

5
exporting, and setup or fixed cost with foreign investment (FDI).8 To prevent such asymmetries
from driving our results, we assume away any trade cost or setup cost, and assume equal variancesfor each type of cost uncertainty, so that in the absence of uncertainty the firms are completely
indifferent among the three options we consider. The symmetry we impose on our model has
additional benefits. First, it is straightforward to introduce asymmetries into the uncertainty fromwhich additional results can be obtained. Second, the symmetry allows us to readily apply our modelto other settings and examine other issues; for example, it is straightforward to extend the model to a
two-country setting to offer an explanation as to why the bulk of foreign investment today flows
between high-income economies instead of from the rich to the poor countries (Markusen, 1995 and2002, chapter 1), or why similar firms in a developed country may chose differing plant locations
when selling in a new market.
The remainder of the paper is organized in five sections. Section 2 sets up the model. Section
3 compares expected profits and host-country welfare from exporting, FDI and a joint venture forquantity competition. Section 4 does the same with price competition. Section 5 discusses additional
results that asymmetric cost variances can bring. Section 6 concludes.
2. Environment
Suppose that a foreign firm (firm 1) competes with a home firm (firm 2) in the home market(market 2). Firm i faces inverse demand pi = α – qi – δqk, where δ ∈ [0, 1] is a measure of productsubstitutability. The case in which δ =1 corresponds to the classic Cournot model. Firm 2 always
produces in country 2, but firm 1 is footloose; it may export from country 1 or produce in country 2.
Production costs are linear and separable between a country-specific component and a firm-specificcomponent: ci(q) = (ci,N + ci,F)qi, where the subscript N indicates country- or nation-specific cost and

8See, e.g., Helpman, Melitz and Yeaple (2004), Horstmann and Markusen (1992), Motta (1992) and Horn and
Persson (2001).

6
F indicates firm-specific or idiosyncratic cost.9 To prevent asymmetry from driving the results, thecharacteristics of the distribution from which each cost component is drawn, are assumed identical:
G(c) with E[ciK] = ce and Var[ciK] = σ2, while the effect asymmetries can have will be examined in
section 5. Assume further that exporting requires no transport cost and FDI and a joint venture
involve no setup or additional fixed costs. These symmetry assumptions imply that in the absence of
uncertainty, firm 1 is completely indifferent among the three options it faces, as is firm 2 to firm 1’s
choice.
We model the interaction between the firms in three stages. In stage one firm 1 chooses amode of access to country 2 buyers among exporting, FDI and a joint venture. In stage two, nature
moves and draws values for the costs, and each firm learns its own country-specific and firm-specificcost realizations. In addition, depending on the plant location choice made in the first stage as
discussed below, the firm may learn its competitor’s cost realization(s). In stage three the firms
compete in the product market, given the choice from stage one.
If exporting is chosen, production takes place in separate countries, and hence neither firm
learns about the rival’s cost realizations.

Thus, the stage-three game is one of incomplete

information as regards country-specific and firm-specific costs. With FDI, the firms learn thecommon country-specific shock but are ignorant of each other’s idiosyncratic cost, so they play agame of incomplete information regarding only idiosyncratic costs. Finally, with a joint venture thefirms learn about each other’s idiosyncratic cost, as well, and so they play a game of complete
information. We begin with quantity competition.
3. Quantity competition
In this section we assume that the firms compete in quantities. To derive the equilibrium we

9As noted earlier, adding additional idiosyncratic cost components that the rival could never learn does not change
our qualitative results.

7
first characterize the third stage for all possible outcomes and then work back to each previous stage.
3.A The third stage
In the third stage each firm simultaneously sets output. Firm i maximizes expected profit
E[(α – qi – δqk – (ci,N + ci,F))qi].
From the first order condition firm i’s best response isqi = [α – (ci,N + ci,F) – δE(qk)]/2.

(1)

Note that firm i’s output is linear in firm k’s choice and its own costs. To ease calculation ofequilibrium outputs, it is useful to first calculate the outcome as if there were no uncertainty, i.e.,each cost parameter equals its mean. In such a case, the Cournot-Nash equilibrium output is
qei = [α(2−δ) – 2(cei,N + cei,F) + δ(cek,N + cek,F)]/∆(2)where ∆ ≡ 4 − δ2 and the subscript ei indicates the expected for firm i.
With this preliminary calculation made, we derive the equilibrium outputs and profits forexporting, FDI and a joint venture. With exporting, the firms learn neither a rival’s country-specificnor firm-specific cost shocks and so they play a game of incomplete information. Noting that firm
i’s expectation of firm k’s output equals qek, the Bayesian-Nash equilibrium outputs and profits are
straightforward to derive from (1) and (2):q iX = [α(2−δ) – 2(ci,N + ci,F) + δ(ce + ce)]/∆ + δ2[(ci,N − ce) + (ciF −ce)]/2∆
where the superscript X represents firm 1 choosing to produce and export from country 1. Firm i,after setting its output, expects its third stage profits to be (i.e., conditioned on its observation {ci,N,
ci,F})

E ci [π iX ] = [α – q iX – δ E ci [q Xk ] – (ci,N + ci,F)] q iX = [q iX ]2 .
With FDI, firm 1 produces at an independent plant in country 2, by which the firms learncommon country-specific cost shocks but not each other’s idiosyncratic cost shocks. Using (1) and8modifying (2) in this setting yields the equilibrium levels of output of:q iFDI = [α(2−δ) – 2(c2,N + ci,F) + δ(c2,N + ce)]/∆ + δ2(ci,F −ce))/2∆.
Firm i, after setting its output, expects its third stage profits to be
FDI
E ci [π iFDI ] = [α – q iFDI – δ E ci [q FDI= [q iFDI ]2 .
k ] – (ci,N + ci,F)] q i

Finally, with a joint venture, in addition to country-specific costs, the joint factory results in
firm-specific aspects of costs also being revealed to the rival. The firms thus play a game ofcomplete information, so the usual calculus yields equilibrium outputs and profits. Outputs are

q iJ = [α(2−δ) – 2(c2,N + ci,F) + δ(c2,N + ck,F)]/∆,
where J indicates joint venture. With complete information firm i knows at the beginning of the third
stage what its profits will be

π iJ = [α – q iJ – δ q kJ – (ci,N + ci,F)] q iJ = [q iJ ]2 .
Now all the third-stage games have been characterized. In stage two Nature moves, revealing
relevant information to the firms. We are ready to proceed to the first stage.
3.B The access mode decision
The first thing to note is that in the first stage the expected output is the same independent of
the firm’s access mode decision. That is, from the definitions above of q iX , q iFDI , and q iJ we can seethat in stage one (before costs are realized) their expectations are equal: E[ q iX ] = E[ q iFDI ] = E[ q iJ ].
It is convenient to define this “mean” output asq. Note thatq1 =q2 by symmetry. It follows fromthe definitions of profits in section 3.A that the profit evaluated at the expected cost are also equal
across access model decisions and firms: π iX (c e ) = π iFDI (c e ) = π iJ (c e ) for i = 1, 2, which allows us
to focus on a representative firm. In particular, it is useful to define this common profit by:π.
We can now write the stage-one expectation of the profits in a useful manner. When firm 19chooses exporting, each firm observes its own costs but not the competitor’s, so neither firm
responds to the competitor’s cost realizations.

Hence, the competitor’s cost cannot introduce

variance into the firm’s profits as it only enters linearly. Firm i’s expected profits are

E[π iX ] = π + σ2/4 + σ2/4(3)where the first variance term corresponds to firm i’s idiosyncratic cost term and the second to its
country-specific cost term.
With FDI, taking the expectation yields

E[π iFDI ] =π + σ2/4 + σ2/(2+δ)2.

(4)

Here again the first term is the variance representing the firm’s idiosyncratic cost shock and is
identical to that with exporting. The second variance term, reflecting the country-specific cost
uncertainty, differs from its counterpart with exporting, now that both firms face the same country
specific shock. This difference is what we termed the common-shock effect. Using (3) and (4), we
state our first result (Q indicates quantity competition).
Lemma 1Q: With quantity competition the common-shock effect is negative.
To gain an intuitive understanding of the common-shock effect, suppose that firm 2 has ahigher-than-average country-specific shock and contracts its output, benefiting firm 1.

However,with FDI firm 1 also faces the same high cost and contracts its output as well – the common-shock
effect. In contrast, with exporting the firm’s costs are uncorrelated and firm 1 is ignorant of firm 2
having high cost, so this has no effect on firm 1’s output. Thus, the common-shock effect makes
profits less convex, and hence is negative, implying that firm 1 is better off with exporting than with
FDI. By symmetry firm 2 also prefers exporting to FDI. Finally, observe that due to the symmetryboth firms have exactly the same preference between the two access modes firm 1 chooses.
Turning to a joint venture, the first-stage expected profits are calculated to be10
E[ π iJ ] =π + 4σ2/(4 − δ2)2 + σ2/(2 + δ)2 + σ2δ2/(4 − δ2)2.

(5)

The middle variance term is the same as with FDI and reflects the common-shock effect discussed
above. With a joint venture, however, the first variance term, which reflects the firm’s idiosyncratic
uncertainty, differs from its counterpart under exporting or FDI. Furthermore, there also appears athird variance term, σ2δ2/(4 − δ2)2. These differences between FDI and a joint venture capture theinformation-sharing effect. Using (4) and (5) we obtain
Lemma 2Q: With quantity competition the information-sharing effect is positive.
To intuitively understand the nature of the information-sharing effect, consider first the third
variance term in (5). This is the variance in the rival’s idiosyncratic cost. Suppose that firm 2 draws
a higher-than-average firm-specific cost. Then, firm 2’s best-response function shifts down, which
benefits firm 1 at any output level it produces. But if it knows that firm 2 has a high cost, firm 1 canincrease output and earn an even greater profit. By the same logic, if firm 2 has a low cost, it is bad
for firm 1, but firm 1 could minimize the damage by contracting its output if it knew firm 2 has ahigh cost. Thus, knowing firm 2’s idiosyncratic cost shocks allows firm 1 to react optimally andraises expected profits to firm 1.
Turning now to the first variance term in (5), we see that the own firm-specific cost variancealso is larger than with FDI. The intuition is similar to the previous intuition. If firm 1 has a lowerthan-average cost, it can capture a larger market share if firm 2 is informed and contracts output thanif firm 2 does not respond. Although by the same logic firm 1 is hurt more when it has a higher costand firm 2 responds, the benefit from being able to expand output when its cost is low more thanoffsets the harm when its cost is high.10 In sum, the information-sharing effect is positive, as a10

As discussed in the introduction this is a well-know feature of the models analyzing similar issues; see, e.g, Qiu(1994) and Creane and Miyagiwa (2005) in an international trade setting and more generally, see Vives (1990). As

11comparison of (5) with (4) shows, implying the firms always prefer a joint venture to FDI.
We can now examine location choice so as to characterize the trade-offs between the two
effects. Since the common-shock effect and information-sharing effect have opposite signs, thechoice between exporting and a joint venture depends on which effect dominates. Intuitively, themore substitutable the products, the more convex the profits are, and hence the greater the
information-sharing effect – the first and third variance terms in (5). On the other hand, starting fromindependent products (δ = 0), as the substitutability δ increases, the common-shock effect intensifies,
reducing expected profits. As a result, there is a range of positive δ in which exporting is preferred toa joint venture. Denote this critical δ by δ*, which is defined as the unique root of {δ3 − 12δ2 + 8 =0} on the interval [0,1] (δ* ≈ 0.7). By an explicit comparison of (3) and (5) we can now characterize

Proposition 1Q: With quantity competition(a) FDI is less profitable than either exporting or a joint venture.
(b) A joint venture is the most profitable strategy if δ > δ*; exporting is the most profitable strategy
otherwise.
For reference to the literature, in the classic Cournot case of homogeneous goods the firms prefer ajoint venture to exporting, and exporting to FDI.
3.C. Host country policy
We next examine the effect on country 2 welfare, given by the sum of consumer surplus andprofit to firm 2. The main focus is when the firms’ and the host-country (country 2) government’s
plant location choices diverge, and what type of government interventions can be inferred from it.

previously noted, one difference here is that the foreign firm can make a unilateral decision to force information
sharing between firms. This can be important when firms compete, instead, in prices (see the footnote after lemma
2P in section 4) because then their incentives can be opposed.

12
To make welfare comparisons possible we introduce preferences that would generate the demand
specified in the previous subsections. Assume that there is a continuum of identical consumers withseparable, linear utility in the numeraire good and quadratic preferences for the differentiated goods.
For the demand specified in quantity competition this implies that utility is represented by thequadratic function
U(q1,q2) = α(q1 + q2) – (1/2)(q12 + 2δq1q2 + q22), α > 0, 1 ≥ δ > 0.
Hence, welfare isW(q1,q2) = U(q1,q2) − p1q1 − p2q2 + π2.
Using the consumer’s first order conditions (i.e., the inverse demand facing each firm), consumer
surplus isCS(q1,q2) = q12 + δq1q2 + q22.
As firm 2’s profits have already been derived in (3) – (5), we need only derive the expectedconsumer surplus for each access mode choice, using q iX , q iFDI , q iJ .

Again, given the certainty

equivalence of these outputs, we need only calculate the variance in stage one for each of the three
options, letting CS2 denote consumer surplus evaluated at the expected costs.
If firm 1 exports, consumers are subject to all shocks, two country-specific and two firmspecific shocks, which are all uncorrelated. Thus, expected consumer surplus is

E[CSX2 ] = CS2 + σ2/8 + σ2/8 + σ2/8 + σ2/8

(11)where the convention remains the same on the variance terms: the first is firm 1’s idiosyncratic noise,
the second is the variance on country 1’s noise, the third is firm 2’s idiosyncratic variance and thelast is country 2’s country-specific variance.
With FDI, country 2 consumers are no longer affected by country 1 specific noise but are13
subject to the correlation of strategies. Thus, expected consumer surplus is22
2
2
E[CSFDI2 ] = CS2 + σ /8 + σ (1+δ)/(2+δ) + σ /8(12)where the middle term is the variance arising from country 2’s noise, reflecting the correlation ofstrategies. Correlated strategies under FDI reduce price variability, making consumer surplus lessconvex, which reduces the opportunity to diversify, and harms consumers.
With a joint venture, expected consumer surplus is

E[CSJ2 ] = CS2 + σ2(4−3δ2)/2(4−δ2)2+ σ2(1+δ)/(2+δ)2 + σ2(4−3δ2)/2(4−δ2)2.

(13)

Comparing (13) with (12) we find that expected consumer surplus is greater with FDI than with ajoint venture. The following then summarizes consumers’ preferences.
Proposition 2Q: With quantity competition, country 2 consumers always prefer exporting to FDI,and FDI to a joint venture.
Turning to host country (country 2) welfare, the common-shock effect is negative, so country
2 consumers’ and firm 2’s preferences align, implying that welfare is greater with exporting thanwith FDI. Comparing welfare with FDI and that with a joint venture, recall that the informationsharing effect is positive, meaning the firm’s expected profit is greater with a joint venture than with
FDI. However, it is consumers’ preference ranking that dictates the welfare ranking because theconsumers always gain more than the firms when prices vary more. Thus,
Proposition 3Q: With quantity competition, country 2 welfare is greatest with exporting and lowest
with FDI.
Thus, the product characteristics are key in determining the welfare ordering.
It is clear that there can be conflict between country 2 and firm 1. For example, if the firms

14
produce strong substitutes (δ > δ*), or more specifically, if they produce homogenous goods, firm 1
would prefer a joint venture to exporting (Proposition 1Q), while country 2 would prefer exporting(proposition 3Q).

In such a case, the country 2 government may want to ban or tax foreign

investment so as to encourage exporting. Furthermore, if it cannot, perhaps for political reasons, stop
the foreign firm from investing, then the host country government would encourage a joint venture
over an independent plant. While other work has attempted to explain these host country government
policy choices through asymmetry, i.e. assuming that the home firm acquires knowledge that theforeign firm has, here no asymmetry has been imposed.
4. Price competition.
Following the strategic trade literature (e.g., Eaton and Grossman 1986), assume that pricesetting firms produce differentiated goods and, by the appropriate choice of units, write demand forgood i as
qi = A – pi + dpk,
where d ∈ (0,1) measures the degree of product differentiation between the two goods. Thus, profitsare(A – pi + dpk)(pi − (c1,N + c1,F)).11
The remainder of the analysis closely follows the steps from the previous section.
4.A The third stage
Firms simultaneously set their price. From the maximization of profits, firm i’s best responseis
Pi = [A + (ci,N + ci,F) + d⋅E(pk)]/2.

11

(6)

Alternatively, we could invert the inverse demands from the previous section to derive the demands for thissection. The results would not change. However, there would be significantly more notation.

15
Note that as with output competition firm i’s price is linear in firm k’s choice and its own costs. As aresult, it is again useful to calculate the equilibrium prices when there is no uncertainty, i.e., each cost
parameter equals its mean. In such a case, the equilibrium prices are
pei = [2(A + cei,N + cei,F) + d(A + cek,N + cek,F)]/∆(7)

where ∆ ≡ 4 − d2 and the subscript ei indicates the expected cost for firm i.
When firm 1 exports, neither firm learns a rival’s cost. Following the analysis from section
3.A, the Nash equilibrium prices are:p iX = [A(2 + d)) + 2(ci,N + ci,F) + d(ce + ce)]/∆ − d2[(ci,N − ce) + (ci,F −ce))/2∆.
Firm i, after setting its price, expects its third-stage profits to be (i.e., conditioned on its observation{ci,N, ci,F})

E ci [π iX ( p)] = (A – piX + d E ci [p Xk ] )( piX − (ci,N + ci,F)) = [q iX (p)]2where q(p) is to indicate outputs when firms compete in prices.
With FDI the equilibrium prices are

p iFDI = [A(2 + d) + 2(c2,N + ci,F) + d(c2,N + ce)]/∆ − d2(ci,F −ce))/2∆.
Firm i, after setting its price expects its third stage profits to be
FDI
E ci [π iFDI ( p )] = (A – p iFDI + d E ci [p FDI− (ci,N + ci,F)) = [q iFDI (p)]2 .
k ] )( p i

Finally, if the firms engage in a joint venture, prices are

p iJ = [2(A + c2,N + ci,F) + d(A + c2,N + ck,F)]/∆.
With complete information firm i knows at the beginning of the third stage that its profits will be

π iJ ( p ) = (A – piJ + d E ci [p Jk ] )( piJ − (ci,N + ci,F)) = [q iJ (p)]2 .
We can now proceed to the first stage and the firm’s access mode decision.
4.B The access mode decision

16
As with quantity competition, in the first stage the expected output is the same across accessmodes. That is, from the definitions above, outputs in expectation are equal: E[ q iX (p) ] = E[ q iFDI
1 ( p) ]= E[ q iJ (p) ] ≡qi(p). Given the definitions for profits it follows that the profits evaluated at the
expected cost are also equal across access modes and firms. Letπ denote this common profit.
If the firm 1 exports, then firm i’s expected profits are

E[π iX ( p )] = π + σ2/4 + σ2/4.

(8)This is the same as (3) from the previous section. With FDI, taking the expectation yields

E[π iFDI ( p)] =π + σ2/4 + σ2(1−d)2/(2−d)2.

(9)This again is analogous to (4), its quantity competition counterpart. Although the common-shock
effect manifests itself differently in (4) and (9), the condition remains the same as with quantity
competition; the common-shock effect does not depend on the type of competition. That is, acomparison of (8) with (9) shows that the results with quantity competition (lemma 1Q) hold withprice competition as well. We denote results that hold in both quantity and price competition with astar, and soLemma 1*: With quantity or price competition the common-shock effect is negative.
Turning to a joint investment, the first-stage profits areE[ π iJ ( p ) ] =π + σ2(d2−2)2/(4 − d2)2 + σ2(1−d)2/(2−d)2 + σ2d2/(4 − d2)2.

(10)

As in quantity competition, the information-sharing effect represents a change in profits between ajoint venture and FDI. However, in this case a comparison between (9) and (10) shows that incontrast to the result with quantity competition
Lemma 2P: With price competition the information-sharing effect is negative.

17
To understand the intuition behind this result, consider a change in the firm’s idiosyncratic cost, thefirst variance term. If firm 1 draws a low cost, and lowers the price, firm 2 would also lower its price
if it knew firm 1’s cost is low, which reduces profits to firm 1. Although by the same logic profit tofirm 1 is greater if it draws a high cost and firm 2 also raises its price, the inability to expand when
the price is low harms firm 1; that is, learning under a joint venture reduces the size of variance inidiosyncratic cost, and makes expected profit less convex. Further, although the third variance term,
which reflects variance of firm 2’s idiosyncratic cost and has a similar interpretation, adds toexpected profit, given symmetry, it is insufficient to reverse the outcome. As a result, with pricecompetition the information-sharing effect is negative, making FDI a more attractive choice than ajoint venture.
Both the common-shock effect and the information-sharing effect work in the same direction,
giving an unambiguous decrease in expected profit as the firm switches from exporting to FDI or a
joint venture, and from an FDI to a joint venture:
Proposition 1P. With price competition, exporting is more profitable than FDI, which is more
profitable than a joint venture.
Thus, while a joint venture is more attractive an option than FDI under quantity competition(proposition 2Q), it is reversed under price competition.
Finally, while the type of competition is critical to the optimal mode of access, in comparing
across propositions 1Q and 1P, we see that some results are independent of the type of competition.
In particular, because of the common-shock effect, exporting is always more profitable than FDI, andif the products are sufficiently weak substitutes, then exporting is the most profitable mode of access.
4. C Host country policy
The demand specified in the price competition setting implies that utility is represented by

18
the quadratic function U(q1,q2) = A(q1 + q2)/(1−d) – (1/2)(q12 + 2dq1q2 + q22)/(1−d2), A > 0, 1 > d > 0.
Otherwise, the derivations follow the previous section and so are omitted.
With firm 1 exporting, country 2’s expected consumer surplus is

E[CSX2 ( p )] = CS2 + σ2/8 + σ2/8 + σ2/8 + σ2/8

(14)which is identical to is quantity counterpart, (11). With FDI, it is2
2
2
2
E[CSFDI
2 ( p )] = CS2 + σ /8 + σ (1−d)/(2−d) + σ /8(15)where now the middle term is the variance arising from country 2’s noise, and with a joint venture it
is

E[CSJ2 ( p )] = CS2 + σ2(4−3d2)/2(4−d2)2+ σ2(1−d)/(2−d)2 + σ2(4−3d2)/2(4−d2)2(16)Note that the idiosyncratic variance and the country-specific variance terms once again look similar
to those with quantity competition. Algebraic manipulation of (8-10) and (14-16) reveals that while
the firms’ preferences depend critically on the type of competition, consumers’ preferences do not:Proposition 2*: With either quantity or price competition, country 2 consumers prefer exporting to
FDI, and FDI to a joint venture.
Turning to welfare we can also use (8-10) and (14-16) to obtain:
Proposition 3P: With price competition country 2 welfare is greatest with exporting and lowest
with a joint venture.
Finally, using propositions 3Q and 3P, we can compare across price and quantity competition
to obtain welfare results that are independent of the type of competition.
Proposition 4*: With either quantity or price competition, country 2 welfare is greatest with

19
exporting

5. Extensions
As we discussed in the introduction, the specific, symmetric structure we imposed on ourmodel helps make the effects transparent. A second benefit of this structure is that there arestraightforward extensions and applications that can be made. As the strategic effects of the accessmodel is driven by the uncertainty, in this section we focus on the effects of relaxing the symmetry
imposed on the cost distribution. To save space, we will not consider the entire set of possible cases,
but limit ourselves to quantity competition.
6.A Role of differing country-specific costs shocks
Suppose first that the country-specific costs no longer have the identical variance. Let
Var[c1,N] = σ1,N2 and Var[c2,N] = σ 2,N2. Since firm 2 always produces in country 2, this change inassumption does not change its expected profits, whether firm 1 chooses exporting or FDI. Thus,
proposition 1 holds for firm 2. Turning to firm 1, profit with exporting is

E[π 1X ] = π + σ2/4 + σ12/4(3′)

while profit with FDI is now

E[π 1FDI ] =π + σ2/4 + σ22/(δ+2)2.

(4′)

If σ 22 > σ12, then FDI increases the size of country-specific variance for firm 1, affecting thecommon-shock effect. This can reverse some of our early results. For example, with equal variance,
the common-shock effect is negative and so FDI is less profitable. Now, if σ22 is sufficiently greaterthan σ12 FDI becomes more profitable to firm 1 because the very act of locating a plant in country 2
makes expected profit more convex to firm 1; compare (3′) with (4′). Thus, we can generalize partsof proposition 1Q to20

Proposition 1Q′: With quantity competition firm 1 prefers FDI to exporting, if and only if δ <2(σ2,N2−σ1,N2)/σ1,N2 (σ2,N2 is the variance of country-2 specific uncertainty).

For example, if δ = 1; i.e., the goods are perfect substitutes, the inequality in proposition 1Q′ issatisfied if σ2,N > 3σ1,N/2. In such cases, firm 1 prefers FDI, but firm 2’s profits are still greater if
firm 1 chooses exporting. Interestingly, then, firm 2 would want to petition the government to block
FDI.
As the above example illustrates, asymmetries in variance of the country-specific costs canalter the common-shock effect. However, that is not the case with idiosyncratic costs variances,because they are independent of plant locations. Thus, an asymmetry in the size of variance of firmspecific costs would not change the firms’ preferences between exporting and FDI; see (3) and (4).
Similarly, the information-sharing effect is unaffected; therefore, a joint venture remains more
profitable to both firms than FDI; compare (4) and (5).12

6.B Role of differing distributions on the cost shocks
We now consider what results when all four variances could differ. Any new results wemight obtain however would depend primarily on the size of the country-specific cost variancerelative to that of the firm-specific cost variance. From the analysis of the previous subsection, thereis thus no loss of generality by holding the firm-specific cost variances equal.13

Further, byinspecting (3) and (4) we see that asymmetries in the size of variances between country-specific andfirm-specific costs do not affect the firms’ preference rankings between exporting and FDI, so we

12With price competition an asymmetry can affect the information-sharing effect, which was negative undersymmetry. If the rival’s variance is greater, the firm can increase convexity of profit if it sets up a joint venture. But
since the rival is harmed, it would not agree to a joint venture.
13
Recall from the previous subsection that asymmetries in variance of firm-specific costs have no effect on our
results.

21
focus on the preference orderings involving a joint venture.
First, comparing (3) and (5), we see that, if variances of the country-specific costs are
sufficiently small relative to those of the idiosyncratic costs, then a joint venture is preferred toexporting for all δ∈[-1,1], partially reversing the results in proposition 2Q. The underlying intuition
is straightforward: if country-specific variance is trivial, the decision is driven by the informationsharing effect, which is positive and so the firms prefer a joint venture to exporting.
In the reverse case; i.e., if the firm-specific variances are sufficiently small, then thecommon-shock effect dominates. Since the common-shock effect is negative, the firms would preferseparate countries of production. Thus, for all δ ∈[0,1] exporting is more profitable than a joint
venture, given that the country-specific variances are equal.

If the firm-specific variances are

sufficiently small but the country-specific variances differ, the common-shock effect is affected as
described in the previous section. For example, if σ22 is sufficiently larger than σ12, firm 1 would
choose a joint venture or FDI over exporting. But then firm 2 would be worse off and object to a
joint venture so firm 1 would choose FDI.
6. Conclusions
A remarkable rise in multinational activity has spawned a growing interest in explaining whysome firms choose foreign investment over exporting. Most of the literature explains the choice,exploiting asymmetries in firm and country characteristics. In this model, we focus on what we
believe to the best of our knowledge are two new effects that drive our results: the common-shockand the information-sharing effect.

While the propositions summarize our main findings, forcomparison purposes it is useful to apply them to the standard model of homogenous-good Cournot
duopoly.

In this archetypal case, we find that the common-shock effect is negative, making

exporting more profitable than FDI, but that the information-sharing effect dominates the commonshock effect, making a joint venture more profitable than exporting. Thus, firms choose a joint

22
venture over exporting, (proposition 2Q), while the host country consumers prefer exporting to a
joint venture or FDI and home country welfare is also greatest with exporting (proposition 4Q). Thisimplies that the home country government has incentives to ban joint ventures to ensure that firms
choose exporting.
These results are obtained using a symmetric model.

Introducing asymmetries in thevariance of the cost shocks can introduce new results. For example, if there is greater countryspecific uncertainty in the host country, then paradoxically, FDI may become more profitable thanexporting for the foreign firm (proposition 1Q′). As the last case demonstrates, introducing
asymmetries may produce other interesting results.

Due to the consideration of space, suchextensions are left for future research.
Finally, our model can be applied to other settings. For example, we could apply the results
to a North-South model in which two firms in a developed country choose between exporting andforeign investment in a less developed country that does not have a local firm.

23
References
Caves, R. E., 1996, Multinational enterprise and economic analysis, 2nd edition, London: Cambridge
University Press.
Creane, A., and Miyagiwa, K., 2005, Information and disclosure in strategic trade policy,
unpublished paper.
Creane, A., and Miyagiwa, K., 2007, Foreign direct investment and cost uncertainty: The correlation
effect, unpublished paper.
Cullison, A.E., 1989, Kobe Steel plans joint production with USX, Journal of Commerce, February
15, 1989, p. 1A.
DeTar, J., 2000, Toshiba, SanDisk: Thanks for the memories, Investor's Business Daily, May 10, p.
A6.
Eaton, J. and G.M. Grossman, 1986, Optimal trade and industrial policy under oligopoly, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 101(2), pp. 383-406.
Ethier, W. J., 1986, The multinational firm, Quarterly Journal of Economics. 101 (November) 805833.
Gal-Or, E. 1986, Information Transmission – Cournot and Bertrand Equilibrium, Review of
Economic Studies 53, 85-92.
Goldberg, L. S., and C. D. Kolstad, 1995, Foreign direct investment, exchange rate volatility anddemand uncertainty, International Economic Review 36, 855-873
Helpman, E.; Melitz, M. J.; and Yeaple, S. R., 2004, Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms.
American Economic Review 94, 300-316
Horn, H., and Persson, L., 2001, The equilibrium ownership of an international oligopoly, Journal ofInternational Economics 53, 307-333
Horstmann, I. J., and Markusen, J. R.; 1992, Endogenous market structures in international trade(natura facit saltum), Journal of International Economics, 32, vol. 1, 109-129

24
Kotseva, R, and N. Vettas, 2005, Foreign direct investment and export dynamics with demandlearning, CERP Discussion Paper 5262.
Markusen, J. R.; 1995, The boundaries of multinational enterprises and the theory of international
trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9, No. 2, Spring, 169-189
Markusen, J. R., 2003, Multinational firms and the theory of international trade; Cambridge, MIT
Press
Masaki, H., 2006, Sunset for Japanese chip makers?, Asia Times Online, January 27.
Morasch, K., 2000, Strategic alliances: a substitute for strategic trade policy?

Journal ofInternational Economics, 52 (1): 37-67 October 2000.
Motta, M., 1992, Multinational firms and the tariff-jumping argument: a game-theoretic analysis withsome unconventional conclusions, European Economic Review 36 (December), 1557-1571
Polish Press Agency, 2005, Fiat and Ford to launch joint production in Tychy, Business, November
7.
Qiu, L. D., 1994, Optimal strategic trade policy under asymmetric information, Journal of International
Economics 36, 333-354
Qiu L. D. and W. Zhou, 2006, International mergers: incentives and welfare, Journal of International
Economics 68, 38-58.
Teresko, J., 2006, Learning from Toyota – again, Industry Week, 1 February.
Sawyer, C.A., 2004, Ford is fully flexed in flat rock, Automotive Design & Production, Nov.
Smith, C., 2001, Kagome links with Heinz in Japan, Daily Deal, July 26,
Sung, H., and H. E. Lapan, 2000, Strategic foreign direct investment and exchange-rate uncertainty,International Economic Review 41, 411-423
Van Grinsven, L., 2000, French, Dutch in chip venture, Financial Times, April 14, p. 12.
Viaene, J-M., and I. Zilcha, 1998, The behavior of competitive exporting firms under multiple uncertainty,International Economic Review, 39(3):pp. 591-609.

25
Vives, X. 1990. Trade association disclosure rules, incentives to disclose information and welfare. Rand
Journal of Economics 21(3): 409-30.