Peter C Dawson's Economic Research and Publications:

        
            
  "Intangibles exhibit zero marginal licensing cost, including cross-border intra-firm licensing of intangibles
            
   within a multinational corporation (MNC). An MNC may not realise the full profit potential of licensing
            
   intangibles intra-firm, however, under suboptimal negotiated transfer pricing schemes. Our negotiated
           
    transfer pricing bargaining structure unlocks this potential by producing an optimal transfer price and
           
    larger optimal intra-firm licensed quantity. Increased licensing of intangibles intra-firm across borders
           
    produces a greater potential tax savings/consolidated after-tax profit gain per unit of transfer price
           
    adjustment, creating a context where MNCs feel a greater imperative or incentive to move beyond legal
           
    tax avoidance toward evasion" (Abstract).

  • Dawson, Peter C. 2011. "The Fair Market Value Standard Precludes
    Valuation Adjustments for Non-Systematic Risk", Working Paper. Download
    here.  Reviews.

              This paper is based on portions of Chapters 3, 4 and 13 of Peter C. Dawson’s book The Economics of
        
      Business Valuation Discounts and the Competitive Risk-Return Paradigm (2010, Peter C Dawson
        
      Publishing, Ridgefield, Connecticut, ISBN 978-0-9844919-0-2).

  • Dawson, Peter C. and Stephen M. Miller.  December 2010.  "Optimal Negotiated
    Transfer Pricing in Theory and Practice: Tangible and Intangible Intra-
    Firm Transfers", Working Paper 2009-06R.
               Available for download: http://www.econ.uconn.edu/working/2009-06r.pdf

  • Dawson, Peter C. 2010. The Economics of Business Valuation Discounts and
    the Competitive Risk-Return Paradigm. Ridgefield, Connecticut: Peter C
    Dawson Publishing.


  • Dawson, Peter C.  2008.  "Errata in Journal of Legal Economics 14(2)",
    Journal of Legal Economics 15(1):  pp. 105-113.

  • Dawson, Peter C.  2007.  "The Economics of Valuing Covenants Not to
    Compete Under the Fair Market Value Standard",  Journal of Legal
    Economics 14(2):  pp. 25 – 60. (LexisNexis info, click here) (Download from the JLE
    for a small fee)

              "Inaccurate damage awards for contract breach, due to inaccurate valuations, create incentives for
            
   inefficient contracting going forward, which inhibits trade and economic welfare.  This paper’s purpose is
            
   to help the Court evaluate the merits of covenant not to compete (CNC) appraisals under the Fair
           
    Market Value Standard (FMVS) by understanding the underlying economics.  The economic implications
           
    of the FMVS’s required assumptions form a basis for several well-founded challenges to generally-
           
    accepted business valuation practice.  Substantive details, in addition to overview, make this paper an
           
    important reference for the practicing appraiser.  A general mathematical CNC valuation model, including
           
    baseline assumptions for the typical CNC, is provided.  A substantive, complete, and compelling analysis
           
    should accompany each departure from the baseline assumptions.  While some view mathematical
           
    precision in a subjective analysis as conveying a false appearance of accuracy, disclosed input values
           
    guard against undue reliance on appraiser judgment, facilitates effective peer scrutiny, and promotes
           
    consistent value conclusions across appraisals" (Abstract).


  • Dawson, Peter C.  1999.  "Transfer price determination in a multinational
    corporation: Decentralized decision-making, agency costs, and strategic
    interaction."  Ph.D. Dissertation.  The University of Connecticut.

  • Dawson, Peter C.  January 26, 1994.  "An Analysis and Literature Review on
    the Persistence of the U.S. Trade Deficit."  Unpublished Working Paper.

    I researched and wrote this paper under the guidance of Professor Polly Reynolds Allen, Ph.D. (now
    retired) for an Independent Study course I took while working on my Ph.D. in Economics at the
    University of Connecticut. The topic of the paper is the potential microeconomic and macroeconomic
    causes of the persistence of the U.S. trade deficit. The original context is the U.S. trade deficit
    during the mid-to-late 1980s, which continued even after a large and steady depreciation of the U.S.
    Dollar in foreign exchange markets that began in February 1985. Its analysis and message continue to
    be relevant to trade deficit discussions today, since many of the underlying causes of its persistence
    in the 1980’s continue to be fundamental to its persistence today. Indeed, economic history can
    provide insight into today’s economic issues. A major contribution of this paper is the synthesis of the
    analysis of several potential microeconomic and macroeconomic causes of the persistent U.S. trade
    deficit into one general open-economy macroeconomic model, which is a modified Mundell-Fleming
    model. The literature review and economic analysis should be of interest to students and researchers
    in the areas of International Trade and International Finance (in Economics, International Finance is
    Open-Economy Macroeconomics). The paper ends by recommending further research into the area
    of a strategically-designed and well-implemented foreign trade policy on a national level, which
    apparently hasn’t really caught on in the U.S. (as witnessed by the continued U.S. Laissez-fair trade
    policy approach and adherence to the underlying notion of the preeminence of an unchecked
    competitive international market) with the exception of a relaxation of U.S. Antitrust policy since the
    early 1990’s, which arguably has occurred not as part of a coherent or formal trade policy. Perhaps an
    unspoken  but prevailing view among U.S. observers is the recognition that various means of trade
    promotion on the part of our trading partners, but in the absence of similar or counterbalancing trade
    promotion on the part of the U.S., has some real influence on, and plays its part in, the continued
    persistence of the U.S. trade deficit. This paper suggests the relative absence of a formal, strategic U.
    S. trade policy may have led to a fundamental shift in the U.S.’s relative competitive position in world
    markets. It also points out that a strategic trade policy need not be protectionist in nature, but
    rather can be a means for U.S. trade promotion (related to this point is my March 2006 article titled
    “By American,” which discusses one potential element of a successful comprehensive strategic trade
    policy).


                                                                                                                 [updated
April 22, 2012]