¬ã°Q¤é´Á

2012¦~09¤ë15¤é  10:20 ~ 13:00

¬ã°Q¦aÂI

¥xÆW¤j¾ÇªÀ·|¬ì¾Ç°|   ²Ä26±Ð«Ç

°Q½×ÃD¥Ø

ÃD¥Ø

§@ªÌ

¤åÄm¥X³B

Market structure and strategic bi-sourcing

Hamid Beladi and Arijit Mukherjee

Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 82 (2012) 210-219

³ø§i¤H

Áé暳³®

°Ñ¥[¤H­û

¶ÀÂE¡BªL¿P²Q¡B¤ý¥ú¥¿¡B´^¥¿¯E¡B°ª°ê峯¡B³¯ª÷²±¡BªL®Ë¦p¡B´¿ÀRªK¡B¤ý¬ý³Ç¡B¤B­i¤¯¡B¤ý¨ÎµX¡BÁé暳³®¡B©P¦Bº½¡B§d©yÁ¾¡B¶À«~¿þ¡B³\¦Ü¤A¡B¬IÎr¥þ

°Q½×´£­n

International trade in inputs, often referred to as international outsourcing, is not a new phenomenon. In recent years, the literature on international outsourcing started focusing on its strategic and organizational aspects (see Kierzkowski, 2005 and Spencer, 2005, for surveys). While the emphasis of this literature lies on the make-or-buy decisions of the firms, an important organizational arrangement, where a firm acquires the same set of inputs both by purchasing from external suppliers and carrying out in-house production, did not get much attention. However, there are ample evidences showing the make-and-buy strategies of the firms, which we refer to as bi-sourcing.

°Q½×µ²ªG»P«ØÄ³

In-house input production reduces the price charged by the outside input supplier, and may make bi-sourcing as a profitable strategy. Under bi-sourcing, the final goods producers may be better off by outsourcing to a common input supplier than by outsourcing to different input suppliers. In the presence of bi-sourcing, the final goods producers may not have the incentive for cooperation in the product market. Our results show that even if the final goods producer¡¦s marginal cost of in-house input production is higher than the outside supplier¡¦s marginal cost of input production, bi-sourcing makes the consumers better off compared to complete outsourcing.

³Æµù