IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ses/arsjes/2016-iii-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Social Marginal Cost Curve and a Corner Solution of the Second-best Level of Public Good Provision: A Review and an Extension

Author

Listed:
  • Ming Chung Chang
  • Hsiao-Ping Peng
  • Yan-Ching Ho

Abstract

Assume that the private goods and the public good are weakly separable, the private goods are gross complements, and the private utility function is a homogeneous of degree one function with constant elasticity of substitution. We demonstrate that, under commodity taxation, the social marginal cost curve of public good provision is initially upward sloping and eventually becomes downward sloping. Moreover, the social marginal cost eventually falls below the private marginal cost. These unusual properties arise from a demand-shift effect: An increase in the tax rate raises the marginal willingness to pay for the public good since it pushes up the unit cost of private utility, hence making the public good more attractive than private goods. In other words, the supply of the public good creates its own demand when the funding to cover production costs is raised through distortionary commodity taxes. It follows that there may exist three solutions to the first-order condition for the second-best problem: two of them are interior solutions and one is a corner solution.

Suggested Citation

  • Ming Chung Chang & Hsiao-Ping Peng & Yan-Ching Ho, 2016. "The Social Marginal Cost Curve and a Corner Solution of the Second-best Level of Public Good Provision: A Review and an Extension," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 152(III), pages 209-241, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ses:arsjes:2016-iii-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sjes.ch/papers/2016-III-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Slemrod, Joel & Yitzhaki, Shlomo, 2001. "Integrating Expenditure and Tax Decisions: The Marginal Cost of Funds and the Marginal Benefit of Projects," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 54(2), pages 189-202, June.
    2. Gronberg, Timothy & Liu, Liqun, 2001. "The Second-Best Level of a Public Good: An Approach Based on the Marginal Excess Burden," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 3(4), pages 431-453.
    3. Diamond, P. A., 1975. "A many-person Ramsey tax rule," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 335-342, November.
    4. Diamond, Peter A & Mirrlees, James A, 1971. "Optimal Taxation and Public Production: I--Production Efficiency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 8-27, March.
    5. Bev Dahlby, 2008. "The Marginal Cost of Public Funds: Theory and Applications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262042509, December.
    6. Triest, Robert K, 1990. "The Relationship between the Marginal Cost of Public Funds and Marginal Excess Burden," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 557-566, June.
    7. Douglas Wilson, John, 1991. "Optimal public good provision in the Ramsey tax model : A generalization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-61, January.
    8. Timothy Gronberg & Liqun Liu, 2001. "The Second‐Best Level of a Public Good: An Approach Based on the Marginal Excess Burden," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 3(4), pages 431-453, October.
    9. Diamond, Peter A & Mirrlees, James A, 1971. "Optimal Taxation and Public Production II: Tax Rules," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(3), pages 261-278, June.
    10. Gaube, Thomas, 2000. "When do distortionary taxes reduce the optimal supply of public goods?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 151-180, May.
    11. Charles L. Ballard & Don Fullerton, 1992. "Distortionary Taxes and the Provision of Public Goods," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 117-131, Summer.
    12. Batina, Raymond G., 1990. "On the interpretation of the modified samuelson rule for public goods in static models with heterogeneity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 125-133, June.
    13. Wilson, John Douglas, 1991. "Optimal Public Good Provision with Limited Lump-Sum Taxation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 153-166, March.
    14. King, Mervyn A., 1986. "A pigovian rule for the optimum provision of public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 273-291, August.
    15. Christiansen, Vidar, 2007. "Two Approaches to Determine Public Good Provision Under Distortionary Taxation," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 60(1), pages 25-43, March.
    16. Nicholas Stern, 1986. "A Note on Commodity Taxation: The Choice of Variable and the Slutsky, Hessian and Antonelli Matrices (SHAM)," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(2), pages 293-299.
    17. de Bartolome, Charles A. M., 1997. "Slow Adjustment and the Level of Government Spending," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 285-311, September.
    18. Ng, Yew-Kwang, 2000. "The Optimal Size of Public Spending and the Distortionary Cost of Taxation," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 53(2), pages 253-272, June.
    19. Thomas Aronsson, 2008. "Social Accounting And The Public Sector," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 49(1), pages 349-375, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ming Chung Chang & Hsiao-Ping Peng & Yan-Ching Ho, 2016. "The Social Marginal Cost Curve and a Corner Solution of the Second-Best Level of Public Good Provision: A Review and an Extension," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 152(3), pages 209-241, July.
    2. Liqun Liu, 2006. "Combining Distributional Weights and the Marginal Cost of Funds," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(1), pages 60-79, January.
    3. Ming Chung Chang & Shufen Wu, 2011. "Should Marginal Cost of Public Funds include the Revenue Effect?," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 147(I), pages 1-16, March.
    4. Wendner, Ronald & Goulder, Lawrence H., 2008. "Status effects, public goods provision, and excess burden," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(10-11), pages 1968-1985, October.
    5. Liqun Liu & Andrew J. Rettenmaier & Thomas R. Saving, 2004. "A Generalized Approach to Multigeneration Project Evaluation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(2), pages 377-396, October.
    6. Bas Jacobs, 2018. "The marginal cost of public funds is one at the optimal tax system," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(4), pages 883-912, August.
    7. Ming Chang & Hsiao-Ping Peng, 2012. "Laffer effect, gross substitution, marginal cost of public funds and the level property of public good provision," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(5), pages 650-659, October.
    8. Bas Jacobs, 2010. "The Marginal Cost of Public Funds is One," CESifo Working Paper Series 3250, CESifo.
    9. James E. Anderson & Will Martin, 2011. "Costs of Taxation and Benefits of Public Goods with Multiple Taxes and Goods," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(2), pages 289-309, April.
    10. Will Martin & James E. Anderson, 2005. "Costs of Taxation and the Benefits of Public Goods: The Role of Income Effects," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 617, Boston College Department of Economics.
    11. Ronald Wendner, 2014. "Ramsey, Pigou, Heterogeneous Agents, and Nonatmospheric Consumption Externalities," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(3), pages 491-521, June.
    12. Diego Martinez-Lopez, 2004. "The optimal provision of public inputs in a second best scenario," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 8(3), pages 1-9.
    13. José Manuel González-Páramo, "undated". "Midiendo El Coste Marginal En Bienestar De Una Reforma Impositiva," Working Papers 32-02 Classification-JEL , Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.
    14. Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2005. "Distributional Weights in Cost-Benefit Analysis—Should We Forget about Them?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(3).
    15. Dan Usher, 2006. "The Marginal Cost of Public Funds Is the Ratio of Mean Income to Median Income," Public Finance Review, , vol. 34(6), pages 687-711, November.
    16. Kaplow, Louis, 2006. "Public goods and the distribution of income," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1627-1660, October.
    17. Louis Kaplow, 2004. "On the (Ir)Relevence of Distribution and Labor Supply Distortion of Government Policy," NBER Working Papers 10490, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Atsushi Tsuneki, 2002. "Shadow-Pricing Interpretation of the Pigovian Rule for the Optimal Provision of Public Goods: A Note," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 9(1), pages 93-104, January.
    19. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:8:y:2007:i:9:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Ming Chang, 2000. "Rules and Levels in the Provision of Public Goods: The Role of Complementarities between the public Good and Taxed Commodities," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 7(1), pages 83-91, February.
    21. Bjart Holtsmark, 2019. "Is the marginal cost of public funds equal to one?," Discussion Papers 893, Statistics Norway, Research Department.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    second-best public good provision; social marginal cost; demand-shift effect; weak Laffer effect;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:ses:arsjes:2016-iii-2. 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: Kurt Schmidheiny (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sgvssea.html .

    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.