The Library

Relaxing tax competition through public good differentiation

Tools

Zissimos, Ben and Wooders, Myrna Holtz (2005) Relaxing tax competition through public good differentiation. Working Paper. Coventry: University of Warwick, Department of Economics. Warwick economic research papers (No.737).

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Zissimos_twerp_737.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (391Kb)

Official URL: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/resear...

Abstract

This paper argues that, because governments are able to relax tax competition through public good differentiation, traditionally high-tax countries have continued to set taxes at a relatively high rate even as markets have become more integrated. The key assumption is that firms vary in the extent to which public good provision reduces costs. We show that Leviathan governments are able to use this fact to relax the forces of tax competition, reducing efficiency. When firms can ‘vote with their feet’ tax competition leads firms to locate in ‘too many’ jurisdictions. A ‘minimum tax’ further relaxes tax competition, further reducing efficiency.

Item Type:

Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)

Subjects:

H Social Sciences > HB Economic Theory

Divisions:

Faculty of Social Sciences > Economics

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Noncooperative games (Mathematics), Taxation -- Econometric models, Equilibrium (Economics), Information asymmetry, Dependency

Series Name:

Warwick economic research papers

Publisher:

University of Warwick, Department of Economics

Place of Publication:

Coventry

Official Date:

October 2005

Dates:

Date	Event
October 2005	Published

Number:

No.737

Number of Pages:

Status:

Not Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

References:

[1] Alesina, A. and E. Spolaore (1997); “On the Number and Size of Countries.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4): 1027-1056.
[2] Arnott, R. and R.E. Grieson (1981); “Optimal Fiscal Policy for a State or Local Government.” Journal of Urban Economics, 9: 23-48 (January).
[3] Baldwin, R. and P. Krugman (2004); “Agglomeration, Integration and Tax Harmonization.” European Economic Review 48(1): 1-23.
[4] Black, D. and W.H. Hoyt (1989): “Bidding for Firms.” American Economic Review, 79(5): 1249-1256.
[5] Boadway, R. P. Pestieau and D.E. Wildasin (1989); “Non-cooperative Behavior and Efficient Provision of Public Goods,” Public Finance, 44(1): 1-7.
[6] Boadway, R., K. Cuff and N. Marceau (2002); “Inter-jurisdictional Competition for Firms,” International Economic Review, 43(5): 761-782.
[7] Brennan, G. and J.M. Buchanan, (1980); The Power To Tax: Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[8] Casella, A. (2001); “The Role of Market Size in the Formation of Jurisdictions.” Review of Economic Studies, 68: 83-108.
[9] Casella, A. and J.S. Feinstein (2002); “Public Goods in Trade: On the Formation of Markets and Jurisdictions.” International Economic Review 43: 437-462.
[10] d’Aspremont, C., J. Gabszewicz, and J. Thisse (1979); “On Hotelling’s Stability in Competition,” Econometrica, 17: 1145-1151.
[11] Devereux, M. and R. Griffith (2003); “Evaluating Tax Policy for Location Decisions.” International Tax and Public Finance, 10: 107-126.
[12] Edwards, J. and M. Keen (1996); “Tax Competition and Leviathan.” European Economic Review 40(1): 113-134.
[13] EUbusiness (2004) “Irish PM rejects calls for EU corporate tax harmonization.” Available online at http://www.EUbusiness.com, published on 14 May 2004.
[14] Gordon, R.H. (1983); “An Optimal Taxation Approach to Fiscal Federalism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98: 567-86 (November)
[15] Gordon, R. and J.D. Wilson (1986); “An Examination of Mulitjurisdictional Corporate Income Taxation under Formula Apportionment,” Econometrica, 54(6): 1357-1373.
[16] Gordon, R. and J.D. Wilson (1999); “Tax Structure and Government Behavior: Implications for Tax Policy,” NBER Working Paper 7244.
[17] Gordon, R. and J.D. Wilson (2002); “Expenditure Competition.” Journal of Public Economic Theory forthcoming.
[18] Goyal, S. and H. Staal (2004); “The Political Economy of Regionalism.” European Economic Review, 48: 563-593.
[19] Hohaus, B, K.A. Konrad and M. Thum (1994); “Too Much Conformity? A Hotelling Model of Local Public Good Supply.” Economics Letters, 44: 295-299.
[20] Hoyt, W.H. (1995); “Leviathan and Local Tax Policies: Do Local Governments Maximize Revenue?” Working Paper E-185-95, Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Kentucky.
[21] Hoyt, W.H. (1999); “Leviathan, Local Government Expenditures and Capitalization.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 29: 155-171.
[22] Hoyt, W.H. and R.A. Jensen (2001); “Product Differentiation and Public Education.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 3(1): 69-93.
[23] Justman, M., J-F. Thisse and T. Van Ypersele (2001); “Fiscal competition and regional differentiation,” CORE Discussion Paper No. 01/24.
[24] Kanbur, R. and M. Keen (1993); “Jeux Sans Frontieres: Tax Competition and Tax Coordination When Countries Differ in Size.” American Economic Review, 83(4): 877-892.
[25] Keen, M. and C. Kotsogiannis (2003); “Leviathan and Capital Tax Competition in Federations,” Journal of Public Economic Theory, 5(2): 177-199.
[26] Kind, H.J., K. Knarvik and G. Schelderup (2000); “Competing for Capital in a ‘Lumpy’ World” Journal of Public Economics, 78: 253-274.
[27] Kreps, D. and J.A. Scheinkman (1983); “Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes,” The Bell Journal of Economics, 14(2): 326-337.
[28] Ludema, R.D. and I. Wooton (2000); “Economic Geography and the Fiscal Effects of Regional Integration,” Journal of International Economics, 52: 331-357.
[29] Mintz, J. and M. Smart (2001): “Income Shifting, Investment and Tax Competition: Theory and Evidence from Provincial Taxation in Canada.” CESifo Working paper 554, 17 pages.
[30] Mintz, J. and H. Tulkens (1986); “Commodity Tax Competition Between Member States of a Federation: Equilibrium and Efficiency.” Journal of Public Economics, 29: 133-72 (March).
[31] Oates, W.E. (1985); “Searching for Leviathan: An Empirical Study,” American Economic Review, 75: 748-757.
[32] Oates, W.E. and R.M. Schwab (1988); “Economic Competition Among Jurisdictions: Efficiency Enhancing or Distortion Inducing?” Journal of Public Economics, 35: 333-354
[33] Rothstein, P. (2004); “Discontinuous Payoffs, Shared Resources, and Games of Fiscal Competition: Existence of Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium.” Washington University typescript.
[34] Shaked, A. and J. Sutton (1982); “Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation,” The Review of Economic Studies, 49(1): 3-13.
[35] Sutton, J. (1991); Sunk Costs and Market Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge.
[36] Tiebout, C.M. (1956); “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy, 64: 416-24.
[37] Wildasin, D.E. (1988); “Nash Equilibria in Models of Fiscal Competition.” Journal of Public Economics, (March) 35(2): 229-240.
[38] Wildasin, D.E. (1989); “Interjurisdictional Capital Mobility: Fiscal Externality and a Corrective Subsidy.” Journal of Urban Economics, 25: 193-212.
[39] Wildasin, D.E. and J.D. Wilson (2001) “Tax Competition: Bane or Boon?” Typescript.
[40] Wilson, J.D. (1986); “A Theory of Interregional Tax Competition.” Journal of Urban Economics, 19: 296-315.
[41] Wilson, J.D. (1999); “Theories of Tax Competition.” National Tax Journal, 52(2): 269-305.
[42] Wooders, M. (1989); “A Tiebout Theorem,” Mathematical Social Sciences, 18: 33-55.
[43] Wooders, M. (1999); “Multijurisdictional Economies, The Tiebout Hypothesis and Sorting.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 96(19): 10585-10587.
[44] Wooders, M., B. Zissimos, and A. Dhillon (2001) “Tax Competition Reconsidered.” Warwick Economic Research Papers no. 622, (December) 52 pages. Available on-line at http://www.warwick.ac.uk/economics/research/twerps.html.
[45] Zodrow, G.R. and P. Mieszkowski (1986) “Pigou, Tiebout, Property Taxation and the Underprovision of Local Public Goods.” Journal of Urban Economics, 19: 356-370.