IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v55y2022i2p1166-1192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal taxation in a free‐entry Cournot oligopoly: The average cost function approach

Author

Listed:
  • Kojun Hamada
  • Takao Ohkawa
  • Makoto Okamura

Abstract

This study examines the optimal taxation in a free‐entry Cournot oligopoly using the average cost function and aggregative games approach when either a specific tax, an ad valorem tax, or both, is imposed. When either a specific or an ad valorem tax is imposed, we obtain the following results. First, the business‐stealing (business‐augmenting) effect in the free‐entry equilibrium makes the optimal tax rate positive (negative). Second, social welfare under the optimal specific tax is lower than that under the optimal ad valorem tax. Third, when both taxes are imposed, marginally increasing a positive ad valorem tax (negative specific tax) improves social welfare when the optimal specific (ad valorem) tax is initially imposed. Finally, the optimal combination of a specific subsidy and ad valorem tax depends on the shape of the average cost function. Taxation optimale dans un oligopole de Cournot à libre entrée : l'approche de la fonction du coût moyen. Cette étude examine la taxation optimale dans un oligopole de Cournot à libre entrée en se servant de l'approche de la fonction du coût moyen et des jeux agrégatifs lorsqu'une taxe spécifique, une taxe ad valorem ou les deux sont imposées. Lorsqu'une taxe spécifique ou ad valorem est imposée, nous obtenons les résultats suivants. Premièrement, l'effet de vol de commerce (augmentation de commerce) dans l'équilibre de libre entrée rend positif (négatif) le taux d'imposition optimal. Deuxièmement, le bien‐être social est plus faible avec la taxe spécifique optimale qu'avec la taxe ad valorem optimale. Troisièmement, lorsque les deux taxes sont imposées, la mise en place d'une taxe marginale ad valorem positive (taxe spécifique négative) améliore le bien‐être social lorsque la taxe spécifique (ad valorem) optimale est imposée au départ. Enfin, la combinaison optimale d'une subvention spécifique et d'une taxe ad valorem dépend de la forme de la fonction du coût moyen.

Suggested Citation

  • Kojun Hamada & Takao Ohkawa & Makoto Okamura, 2022. "Optimal taxation in a free‐entry Cournot oligopoly: The average cost function approach," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 1166-1192, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:55:y:2022:i:2:p:1166-1192
    DOI: 10.1111/caje.12598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12598
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/caje.12598?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
    ---><---

    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. Charles Blackorby & Sushama Murty, 2013. "Unit Versus Ad Valorem Taxes: The Private Ownership of Monopoly in General Equilibrium," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 15(4), pages 547-579, August.
    3. Kotaro Suzumura & Kazuharu Kiyono, 1987. "Entry Barriers and Economic Welfare," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 54(1), pages 157-167.
    4. Hamilton, Stephen F., 1999. "Tax incidence under oligopoly: a comparison of policy approaches," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 233-245, February.
    5. Szidarovszky, F & Yakowitz, S, 1977. "A New Proof of the Existence and Uniqueness of the Cournot Equilibrium," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 18(3), pages 787-789, October.
    6. Michael Keen, 1998. "The balance between specific and ad valorem taxation," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 19(1), pages 1-37, February.
    7. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre & Kreider, Brent, 2001. "Tax incidence in differentiated product oligopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 173-192, August.
    8. Blackorby, Charles & Murty, Sushama, 2007. "Unit versus ad valorem taxes: Monopoly in general equilibrium," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 817-822, April.
    9. Volker Nocke & Nicolas Schutz, 2018. "Multiproduct‐Firm Oligopoly: An Aggregative Games Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 523-557, March.
    10. Basak, Debasmita & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2016. "Social efficiency of entry in a vertically related industry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 8-10.
    11. Seade, Jesus, 1980. "The stability of cournot revisited," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 15-27, August.
    12. Feldstein, Martin, 1976. "On the theory of tax reform," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1-2), pages 77-104.
    13. Simon P. Anderson & Nisvan Erkal & Daniel Piccinin, 2020. "Aggregative games and oligopoly theory: short‐run and long‐run analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(2), pages 470-495, June.
    14. de Meza, David, 1982. "Generalized Oligopoly Derived Demand with an Application to Tax Induced Entry," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 1-16, May.
    15. 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.
    16. Hindriks, Jean & Myles, Gareth D., 2013. "Intermediate Public Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262018691, December.
    17. N. Gregory Mankiw & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Free Entry and Social Inefficiency," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 48-58, Spring.
    18. Besley, Timothy, 1989. "Commodity taxation and imperfect competition : A note on the effects of entry," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 359-367, December.
    19. Wen-Jung Liang & Kuang Cheng Andy Wang & Ping-Yao Chou, 2018. "The superiority among specific, demand ad valorem and cost ad valorem subsidy regimes," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 1-21, January.
    20. Gareth Myles, 1996. "Imperfect competition and the optimal combination of ad valorem and specific taxation," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 3(1), pages 29-44, January.
    21. 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.
    22. 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. Zrinka Lukač, 2023. "Optimal tax policy for single homogeneous commodity on n markets with export costs as a Stackelberg game," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 31(3), pages 873-890, September.

    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. Kojun Hamada & Takao Ohkawa & Makoto Okamura, 2024. "The optimal specific or ad valorem tax when the other tax is exogenously imposed in a free‐entry Cournot oligopoly market," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(1), pages 251-266, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Hiroshi Aiura & Hikaru Ogawa, 2019. "Indirect taxes in a cross-border shopping model: a monopolistic competition approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 128(2), pages 147-175, October.
    4. Adachi, Takanori & Fabinger, Michal, 2022. "Pass-through, welfare, and incidence under imperfect competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    5. Wang, Vey & Lai, Chung-Hui, 2010. "Franchise Fee, Tax/Subsidy Policies and Economic Growth," MPRA Paper 27745, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. 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.
    7. Martin Peitz & Markus Reisinger, 2014. "Indirect Taxation in Vertical Oligopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 709-755, December.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. Amarjyoti Mahanta, 2023. "Ad valorem tax versus tax per unit of output in a Bertrand competition with strictly increasing marginal cost," Indian Economic Review, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 105-117, June.
    11. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre & Kreider, Brent, 2001. "Tax incidence in differentiated product oligopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 173-192, August.
    12. Laszlo Goerke, 2011. "Commodity tax structure under uncertainty in a perfectly competitive market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 203-219, July.
    13. Auerbach, Alan J. & Hines, James Jr., 2002. "Taxation and economic efficiency," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 21, pages 1347-1421, Elsevier.
    14. Charles Blackorby & Sushama Murty, 2013. "Unit Versus Ad Valorem Taxes: The Private Ownership of Monopoly in General Equilibrium," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 15(4), pages 547-579, August.
    15. McCalman, Phillip, 2023. "Robust trade policy to offset foreign market power," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    16. 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.
    17. Jörg Plewka, 2007. "Fiscal Discrimination Between Consumer Groups: Tax Burden Distribution Under Price Discrimination," Ruhr Economic Papers 0019, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    18. Henrik Vetter, 2016. "Tax Reform in Monopolistic Competition with Increasing Preferences for Variety," Public Finance Review, , vol. 44(2), pages 245-262, March.
    19. Clément Carbonnier, 2011. "Shifting on prices of per unit and ad valorem consumption taxes, estimation on prices of alcoholic beverages in France," THEMA Working Papers 2011-20, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    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:wly:canjec:v:55:y:2022:i:2:p:1166-1192. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    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.