Product Differentiation and Oligopoly in International Markets: The Case of the U.S. Automobile Industry

Econometrica ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg
1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Koujianou Goldberg

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (7) ◽  
pp. 1860-1877 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose A. Guajardo ◽  
Morris A. Cohen ◽  
Serguei Netessine

1996 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 61-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Bloodgood ◽  
Harry J. Sapienza ◽  
James G. Almeida

This study examined the antecedents and outcomes of the internationalization of 61 new high-potential ventures in the U.S. The results indicate that internationalization is directly related to the use of product differentiation as a source of competitive advantage, the international work experience of the board of directors, and size at the point of the IPO. The use of low cost, product differentiation, or innovation as a source of competitive advantage, and size at the point of the IPO were directly related to sales growth in the two-year period following the IPO. Finally, the level of Internationalization at the time of the IPO is positively related to earnings two years later.


1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willie E. Gist

This study is the second to provide a richer test of the association between auditor size and audit fees by using three audit firm size classes in the small-client segment of the U.S. audit market. The finding of a Big 8 (now Big 6) price premium is consistent with Francis and Simon [1]. However, this price premium exists only with respect to local/regional firms. Francis und Simon showed that the Big 8 price premium exists with respect to both second-tier and local/regional firms. The present study also provides evidence of a second-tier price premium over local/regional firms. The results imply product differentiation to both Big 8 and second-tier firms. Plausible reasons for differences in results between the two studies are given.


2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-138
Author(s):  
David A. Hounshell

First experimented with in the 1920s and 1930s in the production of automobile engines, transfer machines became dominant in U.S. engine plants in the 1940s and 1950s, as automakers invested heavily in this equipment to meet pent-up demand following the war. Transfer machines thus became identified with “Detroit automation”. But with the advent of a “horsepower race”, firms found that transfer machines could not accommodate even minor changes in design. Late in the 1950s the industry developed and applied “building-block automation” to transfer machines to attain greater flexibility. Examining these developments contributes to our understanding of both specific industries and the general history of mass production and its alternatives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document