Inter-region Competition for FDI
AbstractThis paper models inter-regional competition for FDI and optimal government policy intervention to protect the national interest. Two regional authorities bargain with a single multinational over where it will locate. This potentially leads to excessive competition between the regions, favouring the multinational. The federal government obviously wants to limit such competition but lacks information on comparative advantage. This paper examines its optimal policy. Among the main results we have the following two: First, the federal government would use tax policy to create asymmetries even when the underlying structure is symmetrical. Second, there are situations where, even though one MNC is more productive in one region, it is optimal for the country to make it go to the other one.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK in its series The Centre for Market and Public Organisation with number 04/100.
Length: 21 pages
Date of creation: May 2004
Date of revision:
Subsidy competition; FDI; bargaining;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- F23 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - Multinational Firms; International Business
- H25 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Business Taxes and Subsidies
- H71 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- King, I. & Welling, L., 1990.
"Commitment, Efficiency and Footloose Firms,"
126, Calgary - Department of Economics.
- Ian King & R. Preston McAfee & Linda Welling, 1993. "Industrial Blackmail: Dynamic Tax Competition and Public Investment," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 590-608, August.
- Doyle, Christopher & van Wijnbergen, Sweder, 1984.
"Taxation of Foreign Multinationals: A Sequential Bargaining Approach to Tax Holidays,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
25, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Chris Doyle & Sweder Wijnbergen, 1994. "Taxation of foreign multinationals: A sequential bargaining approach to tax holidays," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 211-225, October.
- Litwack, John M. & Qian, Yingyi, 1998. "Balanced or Unbalanced Development: Special Economic Zones as Catalysts for Transition," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 117-141, March.
- Bolton, Patrick & Whinston, Michael D, 1993. "Incomplete Contracts, Vertical Integration, and Supply Assurance," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 121-48, January.
- Bond, Eric W & Samuelson, Larry, 1986. "Tax Holidays as Signals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 820-26, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jacqui Barton).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.