IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jeczfn/v125y2018i2d10.1007_s00712-017-0584-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taxation and the sustainability of collusion: ad valorem versus specific taxes

Author

Listed:
  • Helmuts Azacis

    (Cardiff University)

  • David R Collie

    (Cardiff University)

Abstract

Assuming constant marginal cost, it is shown that a switch from specific to ad valorem taxation that results in the same collusive price has no effect on the critical discount factor required to sustain collusion. This result is shown to hold for Cournot oligopoly when collusion is sustained with Nash-reversion strategies or optimal-punishment strategies. In a Cournot duopoly model with linear demand and quadratic costs, it is shown that the critical discount factor is lower with an ad valorem tax than with a specific tax that results in the same collusive price. However, in contrast to Colombo and Labrecciosa (J Public Econ 97:196–205, 2013) it is shown that the revenue is always higher with an ad valorem tax than with a specific tax.

Suggested Citation

  • Helmuts Azacis & David R Collie, 2018. "Taxation and the sustainability of collusion: ad valorem versus specific taxes," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 173-188, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jeczfn:v:125:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s00712-017-0584-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s00712-017-0584-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00712-017-0584-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00712-017-0584-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Delipalla, Sofia & Keen, Michael, 1992. "The comparison between ad valorem and specific taxation under imperfect competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 351-367, December.
    2. Lambertini, Luca, 1996. "Cartel Stability and the Curvature of Market Demand," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 329-334, October.
    3. Anderson, Simon P. & Engers, Maxim, 1992. "Stackelberg versus Cournot oligopoly equilibrium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 127-135, March.
    4. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre & Kreider, Brent, 2001. "The efficiency of indirect taxes under imperfect competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 231-251, August.
    5. Kowalczyk, Carsten & Skeath, Susan E., 1994. "Pareto ranking optimal tariffs under foreign monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 355-359.
    6. James W. Friedman, 1971. "A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(1), pages 1-12.
    7. Michael Keen, 1998. "The balance between specific and ad valorem taxation," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 19(1), pages 1-37, February.
    8. Charles D. Kolstad & Lars Mathiesen, 1987. "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Uniqueness of a Cournot Equilibrium," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 54(4), pages 681-690.
    9. Luca Lambertini & Dan Sasaki, 1999. "Optimal punishments in linear duopoly supergames with product differentiation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 173-188, June.
    10. Lisa Grazzini, 2006. "A Note on Ad Valorem and Per Unit Taxation in an Oligopoly Model," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 59-74, October.
    11. Seade, Jesus K, 1980. "On the Effects of Entry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(2), pages 479-489, March.
    12. Henrik Vetter, 2013. "Consumption taxes in monopolistic competition: a comment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 287-295, November.
    13. Dierickx, I. & Matutes, C. & Neven, D., 1988. "Indirect taxation and cournot equilibrium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 385-399.
    14. Henrik Vetter, 2017. "Commodity taxes and welfare under endogenous market conduct," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 122(2), pages 137-154, October.
    15. Rothschild, R., 1999. "Cartel stability when costs are heterogeneous," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 717-734, July.
    16. Helmuts Azacis & David R Collie, 2018. "Taxation and the sustainability of collusion: ad valorem versus specific taxes," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 173-188, October.
    17. X. Wang & Jingang Zhao, 2009. "On the efficiency of indirect taxes in differentiated oligopolies with asymmetric costs," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 223-239, April.
    18. Abreu, Dilip, 1986. "Extremal equilibria of oligopolistic supergames," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 191-225, June.
    19. Colombo, Luca & Labrecciosa, Paola, 2013. "How should commodities be taxed? A supergame-theoretic analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-205.
    20. D. B. Suits & R. A. Musgrave, 1953. "Ad Valorem and Unit Taxes Compared," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 67(4), pages 598-604.
    21. Skeath, Susan E. & Trandel, Gregory A., 1994. "A Pareto comparison of ad valorem and unit taxes in noncompetitive environments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 53-71, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qidi Zhang & Leonard F.S. Wang & Yapo Yang, 2020. "Indirect taxation with shadow cost of public funds in mixed oligopoly," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 415-425, April.
    2. Ya‐Po Yang & Qidi Zhang & Leonard F. S. Wang, 2022. "Tariff simplification, privatization, and welfare superiority," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(2), pages 683-707, May.
    3. Honglin Li & Xiaolu Liu, 2021. "Ad valorem versus per unit taxation: a perspective from price signaling," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 27-47, September.
    4. Kuang-Cheng Andy Wang & Ping-Yao Chou & Wen-Jung Liang, 2022. "Commodity taxes and rent extraction," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 285-297, April.
    5. Helmuts Azacis & David R Collie, 2018. "Taxation and the sustainability of collusion: ad valorem versus specific taxes," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 173-188, October.
    6. Douglas C. Turner, 2022. "Taxation and the sustainability of collusion with asymmetric costs," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 135(1), pages 1-48, January.
    7. Todorova, Tamara & Vatoci, Besar, 2020. "Taxation and strategic reaction: A comparison of Cournot, Stackelberg and collusion," MPRA Paper 106487, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2019. "A strategic tax mechanism," MPRA Paper 93602, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laszlo Goerke, 2011. "Commodity tax structure under uncertainty in a perfectly competitive market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 203-219, July.
    2. Todorova, Tamara & Vatoci, Besar, 2020. "Taxation and strategic reaction: A comparison of Cournot, Stackelberg and collusion," MPRA Paper 106487, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Qidi Zhang & Leonard F.S. Wang & Yapo Yang, 2020. "Indirect taxation with shadow cost of public funds in mixed oligopoly," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 415-425, April.
    4. Kuang-Cheng Andy Wang & Ping-Yao Chou & Wen-Jung Liang, 2022. "Commodity taxes and rent extraction," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 285-297, April.
    5. Christos Kotsogiannis & Konstantinos Serfes, 2014. "The Comparison of ad Valorem and Specific Taxation under Uncertainty," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(1), pages 48-68, February.
    6. Kuang-Cheng Andy Wang & Ping-Yao Chou & Wen-Jung Liang, 2018. "Specific versus ad valorem taxes in the presence of cost and quality differences," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(5), pages 1197-1214, October.
    7. Valido, Jorge & Pilar Socorro, M. & Hernández, Aday & Betancor, Ofelia, 2014. "Air transport subsidies for resident passengers when carriers have market power," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 388-399.
    8. de Rus, Ginés & Socorro, M. Pilar, 2022. "Subsidies in air transport markets: The economic consequences of choosing the wrong mechanism," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    9. Colombo, Luca & Labrecciosa, Paola, 2013. "How should commodities be taxed? A supergame-theoretic analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 196-205.
    10. Judy Hsu & X. Henry Wang, 2011. "A Note on the Efficiency of Indirect Taxes in an Asymmetric Cournot Oligopoly," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 1, pages 53-59, February.
    11. David R. Collie, 2019. "Taxation under oligopoly in a general equilibrium setting," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 21(4), pages 738-753, August.
    12. Stamatopoulos, Giorgos, 2019. "A strategic tax mechanism," MPRA Paper 93602, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. X. Wang & Jingang Zhao, 2009. "On the efficiency of indirect taxes in differentiated oligopolies with asymmetric costs," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 223-239, April.
    14. Henrik Vetter, 2016. "Tax Reform in Monopolistic Competition with Increasing Preferences for Variety," Public Finance Review, , vol. 44(2), pages 245-262, March.
    15. Francisco Galera & Isabel Rodríguez-Tejedo & Juan C. Molero, 2012. "Technology Choice and Unit vs Ad Valorem Tax," Faculty Working Papers 18/12, School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Navarra.
    16. Neelanjan Sen & Rajit Biswas, 2017. "Indirect Taxes in Oligopoly in Presence of Licensing Opportunities," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 61-82, March.
    17. Liqun Liu & Thomas R. Saving, 2005. "Market Substitution and the Pareto Dominance of Ad Valorem Taxation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 463-481, October.
    18. François Boldron, 2003. "Le choix entre taxe unitaire et taxe ad valorem," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 17(3), pages 109-128.
    19. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:8:y:2002:i:3:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Ellalee, Haider & Alali, Walid Y., 2022. "A Welfare and Pass-Through Effects of Regulations within Imperfect Competition," MPRA Paper 116512, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Philipp Schröder & Allan Sørensen, 2010. "Ad valorem versus unit taxes: monopolistic competition, heterogeneous firms, and intra-industry reallocations," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 101(3), pages 247-265, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Taxes; Imperfect competition; Oligopoly; Cartel; Supergame;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H22 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Incidence
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jeczfn:v:125:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s00712-017-0584-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.