Trade Liberalization and the Profitability of Domestic Mergers.

It is often thought that a tariff reduction, by opening up the domestic market to foreign firms, should lessen the need for a policy aimed at discouraging domestic mergers. This implicitly assumes that the tariff in question is sufficiently high to prevent foreign firms from selling in the domestic market. However, not all tariffs are prohibitive, so that foreign firms may be present in the domestic market before it is abolished. Furthermore, even if the tariff is prohibitive, a merger of domestic firms may render it nonprohibitive, thus inviting foreign firms to penetrate the domestic market. In this paper, we show, using a simple example, that in the latter two cases, abolishing the tariff may in fact make the domestic merger more profitable. Hence, trade liberalization will not necessarily reduce the profitability of domestic mergers.

Bundling under the Threat of Parallel Trade

This paper examines the use of bundling by a firm that sells in two national markets and faces entry by parallel traders. The firm can bundle its main product, - a tradable good- with a non-traded service. It chooses between the strategies of pure bundling, mixed bundling and no bundling. The paper shows that in the low-price country the threat of grey trade elicits a move from mixed bundling, or no bundling, towards pure bundling. It encourages a move from pure bundling towards mixes bundling or no bundling in the high-price country. The set of parameter values for which the profit maximizing strategy is not to supply the low price country is smaller than in the absence of bundling. The welfare effects of deterrence of grey trade are not those found in conventional models of price arbitrage. Some consumers in the low-price country may gain from the threat of entry by parallel traders although they pay a higher price. This is due to the fact that the firm responds to the threat of arbitrageurs by increasing the amount of services it puts in the bundle targeted at consumers in that country. Similarly, the threat of parallel trade may affect some consumers in the hight-price country adversely.

A theoretical and experimental dissociation of two models of decision‐making

La prise de décision est un processus computationnel fondamental dans de nombreux aspects du comportement animal. Le modèle le plus souvent rencontré dans les études portant sur la prise de décision est appelé modèle de diffusion. Depuis longtemps, il explique une grande variété de données comportementales et neurophysiologiques dans ce domaine. Cependant, un autre modèle, le modèle d’urgence, explique tout aussi bien ces mêmes données et ce de façon parcimonieuse et davantage encrée sur la théorie. Dans ce travail, nous aborderons tout d’abord les origines et le développement du modèle de diffusion et nous verrons comment il a été établi en tant que cadre de travail pour l’interprétation de la plupart des données expérimentales liées à la prise de décision. Ce faisant, nous relèveront ses points forts afin de le comparer ensuite de manière objective et rigoureuse à des modèles alternatifs. Nous réexaminerons un nombre d’assomptions implicites et explicites faites par ce modèle et nous mettrons alors l’accent sur certains de ses défauts. Cette analyse servira de cadre à notre introduction et notre discussion du modèle d’urgence. Enfin, nous présenterons une expérience dont la méthodologie permet de dissocier les deux modèles, et dont les résultats illustrent les limites empiriques et théoriques du modèle de diffusion et démontrent en revanche clairement la validité du modèle d'urgence. Nous terminerons en discutant l'apport potentiel du modèle d'urgence pour l'étude de certaines pathologies cérébrales, en mettant l'accent sur de nouvelles perspectives de recherche.

Alternative Models of Court Administration

Canadian Judicial Council

Two models of constitutionalism and the legitimacy of law : Dicey or Marshall ?

The article was first published in the Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal.

The invisibility of privilege: a critique of intersectional models of identity

In this paper, I argue that intersectionality, the prevailing way of conceptualizing the relation between axes or systems of oppression (race, class, gender), illicitly imports the very model it purports to overcome: that is, the unitary model of identity. I first define “intersectionality” and distinguish between three senses that are frequently conflated. Then I subject the model to an analytic critique, revealing its hidden presuppositions about identity. Finally, I suggest that solidarity serves as a better norm for feminist practice than inclusion of “difference,” which seems to be the norm underlying many intersectional accounts.