Appendix A. Derivation of Equation (3).
This derivation follows very closely Borcherding, Silberberg (1978).
The consumer faces a price that includes an ad valorem and a per unit trade cost.

pijg
 tij p jg  fij ,
g  L, H .
(A.1)
where pij – price of the good from country j in country i
p jg – f.o.b. or factory gate price of the good in country j, p jH  p jL
tij – ad valorem tariff imposed by country i on the goods from country j, tij  1.
f ij – per unit transport cost between countries i and j.
j – index for exporter
i – index for importer
g – index for the quality level, grade. H denotes high quality, L denotes low
quality.
Consumers demand the two qualities from j and a Hicksian composite according to



qijg  h  pijH
, pijL
, piC
,
g  L, H .
(A.2)
where qijg – quantity demanded of the good from country j of quality g by consumers in
country i
piC – price of the Hicksian composite commodity in the market of country i,
which includes prices of all imported and domestically produced goods of all
qualities except the two qualities of the good from country j.
We are interested in the effect of per unit transportation charge on relative demand for
high quality good.
q

  ijH

q
ijL 

fij
(A.3)
Expanding the quotient in (A.3) we get
q

  ijH
 
q
qijH
qijL  1
ijL 

  qijL
 qijH
 2

fij

f

f
ij
ij

 qijL
(A.4)
Totally differentiating (A.2) gives us
qijg
fij


qijg pijH

fij
pijH


qijg pijL

fij
pijL
,
g  L, H .
(A.5)
The effect of transport cost on the delivered price can be found from (A.1)

pijH
fij


pijL
fij
1
(A.6)
Substituting from (A.6) into (A.5)
qijg
fij

qijg

ijH
p

qijg

pijL
,
g  L, H .
(A.7)
Including (A.7) for both grades into the expression in (A.4) and getting rid of the brackets
gives us
q

  ijH
qijL  
qijH
qijH
qijL
qijL

  qijL   qijL   qijH   qijH 

fij
pijH
pijL
pijH
pijL

 1
 2
 qijL
(A.8)
Our next goal is to express the terms in the brackets in terms of compensated demand
elasticities. First, multiply every term by the ratio of price and quantity demand
necessary to transfer the terms into elasticities
q

  ijH


 
q
 qijH pijH
 qijH
 qijH pijL
 qijH
ijL 

  qijL  

q


 
ijL



fij
 pijH qijH  pijH
 pijL qijH  pijL



 qijL pijH
 qijL
 qijL pijL
 qijL  1
qijH  
   qijH  
   2
 pijH qijL  pijH
 pijL qijL  pijL  qijL
(A.9)
The terms in square brackets are expressions for own and cross price elasticities of
compensated demands. Elasticity of demand for quality k with respect to the price of the
quality l is defined by
 kl 
qijk pijl
pijl qijk
,
k , l  L, H
(A.10)
Putting expressions for elasticities from (A.10) into (A.9) and taking qijL qijH outside the
brackets produces
q

  ijH
 
q
 HL  LH  LL  qijH
ijL 

  HH

    

 p

fij
 ijH pijL pijH pijL  qijL
(A.11)
From Hick’s third law

lH , L ,C
 kl  0,
k  H , L, C .
(A.12)
Expressing  HL and  LL in terms of other elasticities from (A.12)
 HL   HH   HC
 LL   LH   LC
(A.13)
Using (A.13) in (A.11) gives us
q

  ijH
 
q
ijL

  HH   HH   HC   LH   LH   LC
 



fij
pijL
pijH
pijL
 pijH
Combining terms in (A.14) results in
 qijH

 qijL
(A.14)
q

  ijH
 q 
q
 1
1 
1 
ijL 
ijH


  HH   LH          LC   HC   
fij
qijL 
pijL 
 pijH pijL 
This is equation (3).
(A.15)
Appendix B. Derivation of Equation (4).
Following Appendix A we find the effect of ad valorem tariffs on the relative demand for
high quality good in the presence of per unit transportation cost.
q

  ijH
 
q
qijH
qijL  1
ijL 

  qijL
 qijH
 2

tij
tij
tij  qijL

(B.1)
Totally differentiate (A.2)
qijg
tij


qijg pijH

tij
pijH


qijg pijL

tij
pijL
,
g  L, H .
(B.2)
The effect of ad valorem tariff on the prices faced by consumer

pijg
tij
 p jg ,
g  H , L.
(B.3)
Substituting (B.3) into (B.2) and then into (B.1) results in
q

  ijH
 
q
 1
qijH
qijH
qijL
qijL
ijL 

  qijL  p jH  qijL  p jL  qijH  p jH  qijH  p jL  2 (B.4)

q
tij
pijH
pijL
pijH
pijL

 ijL
Equation (B.4) can be expressed in terms of compensated price elasticities as
q

  ijH
 
q
p jH
p jL
p jH
p jL  qijH
ijL 

   HH    HL   LH    LL  

fij
pijH
pijL
pijH
pijL  qijL

(B.5)
From the third Hick’s law (A.12) substitute for  HL and  LL and simplify further to get
the desired expression.
q

  ijH
qijL  qijH


tij
qijL
This is equation (4)

 p jH p jL 
p jL 
  HH   LH          LC   HC   
pijL 

 pijH pijL 
(B.6)
Appendix C. Derivation of Equation (7).
Assume that the transport cost takes the following form
fij  p jg X ij ,
g  H , L.
(C.1)
where X ij – vector of non-price components of trade cost.
Consumer prices are derived by substituting for f ij from (C.1) into (A.1)

pijg
 tij p jg  p jg X ij ,
g  L, H .
(C.2)
With the more general form of transportation cost the Alchian-Allen hypothesis can be
restated as the effect of non-price elements of transportation cost, X ij , on the relative
demand for high quality good
q

  ijH
 
q
qijH
qijL  1
ijL 

  qijL
 qijH
 2

X ij
X ij
X ij  qijL

(C.3)
The effect of per unit part of transport cost on the delivered price is

pijg
X ij
 p jg ,
g  H , L.
(C.4)
Expanding (C.3) and applying effects on the price from (C.4)
q

  ijH
 
q
 1
qijH
qijH
qijL
qijL
ijL 

  qijL  p jH  qijL  p jL  qijH  p jH  qijH  p jL  2 (C.5)

q
X ij
pijH
pijL
pijH
pijL

 ijL
Expressing (C.5) in terms of elasticities and substituting for  HL and  LL from the third
Hick’s law (A.12)
q

  ijH
 q
q
ijL

  ijH
X ij
qijL

 p jH p jL 
p jL 
  HH   LH          LC   HC   
pijL 

 pijH pijL 
(C.6)
This is equation (7). The sign of the second part of the first term is of the most interest
for the discussion in the section
p jH

ijH
p

p jL

ijL
p

p jH

tij p jH  p jH X ij

p jL

tij p jL  p jL X ij

1
1 
jH
tij p
 X ij

1
1 
jL
tij p
 X ij
(C.7)
The sign of (C.7) is given by

 p jH
 
 pijH
 0, if p1jH   p1jL 
p jL  
    0, if p1jH   p1jL 
pijL  
1 
1 
>0, if p jH  p jL

(C.8)
Given that p jH  p jL (C.8) can be restated in terms of 
 0, if   1
 p jH p jL  
     =0, if   1
 pijH pijL  >0, if   1

(C.9)
Appendix D. Derivation of monopoly pricing conditions equations (13) – (20)
The derivations of the pass through elasticities presented in this appendix generally
follow Brander, Spencer (1984). In addition to their basic setup we extend the analysis
by considering a combination of two trade barriers an ad valorem and a per unit trade
barrier.
A monopolist produces a good using constant marginal cost technology and sells the
good into a perfectly segmented foreign market. The delivered or cif price consists of the
factory or fob price, ad valorem trade barrier, and a per unit trade barrier.
(D.1)
p  pt  f

Consumer preferences are characterized by the inverse demand function p  q  . The
monopolist chooses quantity to maximize variable profit
 p  q   f

max q   
cq
(D.2)
t


The first order condition is
p  q   f
1
 q   p  q 
c  0
(D.3)
t
t
This is equation (13)
In the case of constant elasticity of substitution    p /  p  q the first order condition
(D.3) can be rewritten in terms of optimal markup as
p

f 1


c   1 ct   1
(D.4)
We use this property in footnote 23.
The second order condition is
1


 qq    p  q  2  p     0
t

(D.5)
This is equation (14). The prime in the above equation stands for first partial with respect
p  q 
to the argument  p  
.
q
Using (D.3) we can determine the effect of both barriers on quantity
qt 
qf 
c
 p  q  2  p 
0

1
 p  q  2  p 

(D.6)
0
q
q
. Double
,qf 
t
f
primes denote second partial with respect to the argument of the function,
 2 p  q 
 
p

  qq .
This is equation (15). Subscripts denote first order derivatives qt 
The effect of t and f on the delivered price is determined by the change in price along the
inverse demand curve due to change in quantity
pt   p  qt
(D.7)

 
pf   p  qf
This is equation (16)
Substituting (D.6) into (D.7) gives

t
p 
pf 
pc
 p  q  2  p 
p

 p  q  2  p 
0
(D.8)
0
We are interested primarily in the elasticity of the factory price with respect to tariff and
transportation cost. Therefore, we will transform expressions in (D.8) into elasticities of
factory price with respect to t and f. The factory price is
p  f
p
(D.9)
t
Elasticities of the factory price can be expressed in terms of derivatives of the final price
as
t
p  f t pt
 pt  pt   2

p
t
p p
(D.10)
f
f pt  1
 pf  p f 
p p t
Use (D.9) to rearrange and simplify expressions in (D.10)
p
 pt  t  1
p
(D.11)
f

 pf   pt  1
pt
Plugging in expressions (D.8) into equations (D.11) results in the sought elasticities. The
standard pass through elasticity is given by


 p 

c
  
 
  p  q  2  p  
 pt  
1
(D.12)
p
The pricing to market counterpart of the Alchian-Allen elasticity can be expressed as

 
p 

f 
  1
(D.13)
 pf   
pt  p  q  2 p   
   
   
Note that the term in square brackets is common for both equations (D.12) and (D.13).
This term is greater than zero from the second order condition (D.5). The magnitude of
the term depends on the relative convexity of demand, R.
p   q

R
(D.14)
 
p 
Substituting the expression for R into (D.12) and (D.13) gives us equations (17) and (18).
If R  1 the expression in (D.13) is negative. That is, the per unit transportation cost
will have a negative effect on the fob price of the good.
For the case of constant elasticity of demand,    p / p  q , the term in square
 
brackets is the standard markup rule given by


 p 

   1
  
  1
 
  p  q  2  p  
This is equation (19).
(D.15)