This paper establishes a cross-industry pollution externality model. To explain a benevolent government, it may be possible to tax part of the welfare gains and use the revenue to compensate the affected polluted industry for the damage cost, thereby improving welfare. We show that the social welfare under emission tax with production subsidy is higher than the results of emission tax without production subsidy. The welfare of the polluted sector under emissions trading will be lower than the results of unbalanced budget environmental policy with subsidy. The welfare of the polluted labor union under lobby for compensation will be higher than the results of environmental policy with subsidy if the pollution damage and the weight on political contributions are sufficiently high.

In this paper, we explore the influence of union structure and wage pricing strategies on the welfare under a mixed oligopoly which has a public firm with budget constraint. We showed that, the total utilities of the decentralized unions are higher than the utility of the centralized union under mixed duopoly if the centralized union charges a uniform wage and the productivity difference is large. The government should restrict the centralized union formed by the public and the private firm to charge discriminatory wages, and to avoid the improper use of the monopoly power of the labour union.

In this paper, we first show that if the firm's production leads to environmental damage and the government does not implement any environmental policy by using a two-stage game model, the "excess-entry" theorem holds. We then show that entry can be socially insufficient in the presence of production externality and policy mix is needed for pollution control in oligopoly industry with endogenous market structure. Hence, the anti-competitive entry regulation policy suggested by the "excess-entry" theorem does not always hold.

Past research indicates that a licensor tends to adopt the fixed fee, in order to obtain higher profit rather than secure royalty when he participates in zero production in the market. This study instead finds that the patentee’s optimum strategy may vary. In addition to the fixed-fee strategy, royalty or mixed licensing, or fixed fee plus royalty may be potential choices for the patentee as well which is depend on the market scale, incidence of market scale, and magnitude of cost-saving. The patentee may choose to only authorize a type of high market size based on self-interested motives. The technology licensing market is not sustainable.

We adopt the notion of cost reduction that comes from better and good governance within the firm's organization, and explore the strategic interaction between corporate governance and market competition. The question we are asking is that does corporate governance matter for social efficiency of entry in oligopolistic competition. We find that if entry costs are relatively large, the entry into the society is insufficient. The number of low-efficiency firms under free entry equilibrium is less than the number of low-efficiency firms under welfare maximization. The important implication of our finding is that competition-promoting policy in oligopolistic industry needs the support from internal governance of the firms.