On the determinants of optimal border enforcement

We extend the current immigration-enforcement literature by incorporating both the practice of people smuggling and a role for non-wage income into a two-country, dynamic general equilibrium model. We use the model economy to examine three questions. First, how does technological progress in the smuggling industry affect the level of migration and capital accumulation for a given level of enforcement? Second, do changes in border enforcement affect the level of migration, capital accumulation, and smuggling activity? Third, is the optimal level of enforcement sensitive to technological progress in the smuggling industry? We show that the government chooses to devote resources to border enforcement only if the deterrent effect on smugglers is large enough. Otherwise, it is not worth taxing host-country natives as the taxes paid will more than offset any income gain resulting from fewer migrants.

Ownership Advantages in Cross-border Real Estate Development: Some Evidence from European Markets

Drawing upon European industry and country case studies, this paper investigates the scope and drivers of cross-border real estate development. It is argued that the real estate development process encompasses a diverse range of activities and actors. It is inherently localised, the production process is complex and emphermal, and the outputs are heterogeneous. It analyses a transactions database of European real estate markets to provide insights into the extent of, and variations in, market penetration by non-domestic real estate developers. The data were consistent with the expectation that non-domestic real estate developers from mature markets would have a high level of market penetration in immature markets. Compared to western European markets, the CEE real estate office sales by developers were dominated by US, Israeli and other EU developers. This pattern is consistent with the argument that non-domestic developers have substantial Dunning-type ownership advantages when entering immature real estate markets. However, the data also suggested some unexpected patterns. Relative to their GDP, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands and Israel accounted for large proportions of sales by developers. All are EU countries (except Israel) with small, open, affluent, highly traded economies. Further, the data also indicate that there may be a threshold where locational disadvantages outweigh ownership advantages and deter cross-border real estate development.

An analysis of the determinants of cross-border real estate development flows

This paper investigates the scale and drivers of cross-border real estate development in western and central and eastern Europe (CEE). Drawing upon existing literature on the integration of international real estate markets, we make some inferences on expected patterns of cross-border real estate development from this literature review. The paper draws upon a transactions database in order to assess the penetration of national markets by international real estate developers. The determinants of cross-border transaction flows are modeled as a function the range of economic and real estate variables. Whilst western European markets tend to be dominated by local developers, much higher levels of market penetration by international real estate developers are found in the less mature markets of central and eastern Europe. Empirical modelling based on gravity model specifications reveal the importance of size of the economies, distance between countries, extent of globalization and EU membership as significant determinants of cross-border real estate development flow.

When do export subsidies have a redistributional role? Reply

Our differences are three. The first arises from the belief that "... a nonzero value for the optimally chosen policy instrument implies that the instrument is efficient for redistribution" (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 3). Consider the two equations: (1) o* = f(P3) and (2) = -f(3) ++r h* (a, P3) representing the solution to the problem of maximizing weighted, Marshallian surplus using, simultaneously, a per-unit border intervention, 9, and a per-unit domestic intervention, wr. In the solution, parameter ot denotes the weight applied to producer surplus; parameter p denotes the weight applied to government revenues; consumer surplus is implicitly weighted one; and the country in question is small in the sense that it is unable to affect world price by any of its domestic adjustments (see the Appendix). Details of the forms of the functions f((P) and h(ot, p) are easily derived, but what matters in the context of Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's Comment is: Redistributivep referencest hatf avorp roducers are consistent with higher values "alpha," and whereas the optimal domestic intervention, 7r*, has both "alpha and beta effects," the optimal border intervention, r*, has only a "beta effect,"-it does not have a redistributional role. Garth Holloway is reader in agricultural economics and statistics, Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy, and Development, University of Reading. The author is very grateful to Xavier Irz, Bhavani Shankar, Chittur Srinivasan, Colin Thirtle, and Richard Tiffin for their comments and their wisdom; and to Mario Mazzochi, Marinos Tsigas, and Cal Turvey for their scholarship, including help in tracking down a fairly complete collection of the papers that cite Alston and Hurd. They are not responsible for any errors or omissions. Note, in equation (1), that the border intervention is positive whenever a distortion exists because 8 > 0 implies 3 - 1 + 8 > 1 and, thus, f((P) > 0 (see Appendix). Using Alston, Smith, and Vercammen's definition, the instrument is now "efficient," and therefore has a redistributive role. But now, suppose that the distortion is removed so that 3 - 1 + 8 = 1, 8 = 0, and consequently the border intervention is zero. According to Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, the instrument is now "inefficient" and has no redistributive role. The reader will note that this thought experiment has said nothing about supporting farm incomes, and so has nothing whatsoever to do with efficient redistribution. Of course, the definition is false. It follows that a domestic distortion arising from the "excess-burden argument" 3 = 1 + 8, 8 > 0 does not make an export subsidy "efficient." The export subsidy, having only a "beta effect," does not have a redistributional role. The second disagreement emerges from the comment that Holloway "... uses an idiosyncratic definition of the relevant objective function of the government (Alston, Smith, and Vercammen, p. 543, paragraph 2)." The objective function that generates equations (1) and (2) (see the Appendix) is the same as the objective function used by Gardner (1995) when he first questioned Alston, Carter, and Smith's claim that a "domestic distortion can make a border intervention efficient in transferring surplus from consumers and taxpayers to farmers." The objective function used by Gardner (1995) is the same objective function used in the contributions that precede it and thus defines the literature on the debate about borderversus- domestic intervention (Streeten; Yeh; Paarlberg 1984, 1985; Orden; Gardner 1985). The objective function in the latter literature is the same as the one implied in another literature that originates from Wallace and includes most notably Gardner (1983), but also Alston and Hurd. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 86(2) (May 2004): 549-552 Copyright 2004 American Agricultural Economics Association This content downloaded on Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:58:41 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 550 May 2004 Amer. J. Agr. Econ. The objective function in Holloway is this same objective function-it is, of course, Marshallian surplus.1 The third disagreement concerns scholarship. The Comment does not seem to be cognizant of several important papers, especially Bhagwati and Ramaswami, and Bhagwati, both of which precede Corden (1974, 1997); but also Lipsey and Lancaster, and Moschini and Sckokai; one important aspect of Alston and Hurd; and one extremely important result in Holloway. This oversight has some unfortunate repercussions. First, it misdirects to the wrong origins of intellectual property. Second, it misleads about the appropriateness of some welfare calculations. Third, it prevents Alston, Smith, and Vercammen from linking a finding in Holloway (pp. 242-43) with an old theorem (Lipsey and Lancaster) that settles the controversy (Alston, Carter, and Smith 1993, 1995; Gardner 1995; and, presently, Alston, Smith, and Vercammen) about the efficiency of border intervention in the presence of domestic distortions.

The effects of cross-border and cross-industry mergers and acquisitions on home-region and global multinational enterprises

We examine the effects of international and product diversification through mergers and acquisitions (M&As) on the firm's risk–return profile. We identify the rewards from different types of M&As and investigate whether becoming a global firm is a value-enhancing strategy. Drawing on the theoretical work of Vachani (Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1991), pp. 307−222) and on Rugman and Verbeke's (Journal of International Business Studies, 35 (2004), pp. 3−18) metrics, we classify firms according to their degree of international and product diversification. To account for the endogeneity of M&As, we develop a panel vector autoregression. We find that global and host-region multinational enterprises benefit from cross-border M&As that reinforce their geographical footprint. Cross-industry M&As enhance the risk–return profile of home-region firms. This effect depends on the degree of product diversification. Hence there is no value-enhancing M&A strategy for home-region and bi-regional firms to become ‘truly global’.

Cross-border capital flows into real estate

This study investigates the determinants of cross-border capital flows into direct real estate markets. In particular, it investigates how existing institutional, regulatory and real estate specific barriers affect cross-border real estate inflows and outflows in a sample of 24 developed and emerging countries, and whether investors seek out targets with lower barriers and regulatory arbitrage. We do not find evidence of significant cross-border institutional or regulatory arbitrage in the real estate market. However, real estate market liquidity is found to be the most important driver of cross-border flows. While many of the institutional barriers included in this analysis do not appear to impact the level of real estate inflows significantly, their presence tends to suppress real estate capital outflows to other countries. Overall, easy access to financial markets, a good economic environment and transparent real estate markets may enhance real estate outflows, while returns and the macroeconomy are found to enhance domestic real estate investment.

Adjustments in the forcing-feedback framework for understanding climate change

The traditional forcing-feedback framework has provided an indispensable basis for discussing global climate changes. However, as analysis of model behavior has become more detailed, shortcomings and ambiguities in the framework have become more evident and physical effects unaccounted for by the traditional framework have become interesting. In particular, the new concept of adjustments, which are responses to forcings that are not mediated by the global mean temperature, has emerged. This concept, related to the older ones of climate efficacy and stratospheric adjustment, is a more physical way of capturing unique responses to specific forcings. We present a pedagogical review of the adjustment concept, why it is important, and how it can be used. The concept is particularly useful for aerosols, where it helps to organize what has become a complex array of forcing mechanisms. It also helps clarify issues around cloud and hydrological response, transient vs. equilibrium climate change, and geoengineering.

Contributions of different cloud types to feedbacks and rapid adjustments in CMIP5

Using five climate model simulations of the response to an abrupt quadrupling of CO2, the authors perform the first simultaneous model intercomparison of cloud feedbacks and rapid radiative adjustments with cloud masking effects removed, partitioned among changes in cloud types and gross cloud properties. Upon CO2 quadrupling, clouds exhibit a rapid reduction in fractional coverage, cloud-top pressure, and optical depth, with each contributing equally to a 1.1 W m−2 net cloud radiative adjustment, primarily from shortwave radiation. Rapid reductions in midlevel clouds and optically thick clouds are important in reducing planetary albedo in every model. As the planet warms, clouds become fewer, higher, and thicker, and global mean net cloud feedback is positive in all but one model and results primarily from increased trapping of longwave radiation. As was true for earlier models, high cloud changes are the largest contributor to intermodel spread in longwave and shortwave cloud feedbacks, but low cloud changes are the largest contributor to the mean and spread in net cloud feedback. The importance of the negative optical depth feedback relative to the amount feedback at high latitudes is even more marked than in earlier models. The authors show that the negative longwave cloud adjustment inferred in previous studies is primarily caused by a 1.3 W m−2 cloud masking of CO2 forcing. Properly accounting for cloud masking increases net cloud feedback by 0.3 W m−2 K−1, whereas accounting for rapid adjustments reduces by 0.14 W m−2 K−1 the ensemble mean net cloud feedback through a combination of smaller positive cloud amount and altitude feedbacks and larger negative optical depth feedbacks.

Privatisation and cross-border electricity trade: from internal market to European Supergrid?

he perspective European Supergrid would consist of an integrated power system network, where electricity demands from one country could be met by generation from another country. This paper makes use of a bi-linear fixed-effects model to analyse the determinants for trading electricity across borders among 34 countries connected by the European Supergrid. The key question that this paper aims to address is the extent to which the privatisation of European electricity markets has brought about higher cross-border trade of electricity. The analysis makes use of distance, price ratios, gate closure times, size of peaks and aggregate demand as standard determinants. Controlling for other standard determinants, it is concluded that privatisation in most cases led to higher power exchange and that the benefits are more significant where privatisation measures have been in place for a longer period.