IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lunewp/2006_016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Shackling the footloose firm? Factor interests and majority voting

Author

Listed:
  • Belfrage, Carl-Johan

    (Department of Economics, Lund University)

  • Gallo, Fredrik

    (Department of Economics, Lund University)

Abstract

Adding majority voting to a simple new economic geography model, we analyse under which circumstances politically determined barriers to international firm relocation exist. Two countries, differing in market size, consider abolishing restrictions on firm mobility. Eliminating these restrictions will fully or partially de-industrialize the small country as firms relocate to the larger market. We show that there is unanimous support for (resistance against) the removal of obstacles to firm relocation in the large (small) country if the country size difference is small, while a large difference in size gives rise to domestic conflicts of interest and international cross-factor alignments of interests. Furthermore, trade liberalisation may have facilitated the removal of barriers to firm relocation in large countries. Finally, political integration between trading countries is likely to contribute to the removal of barriers to firm relocation, and support for (resistance against) such a development comes primarily from the immobile factor in the large (small) country.

Suggested Citation

  • Belfrage, Carl-Johan & Gallo, Fredrik, 2006. "Shackling the footloose firm? Factor interests and majority voting," Working Papers 2006:16, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lunewp:2006_016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://project.nek.lu.se/publications/workpap/Papers/WP06_16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Baldwin & Rikard Forslid & Philippe Martin & Gianmarco Ottaviano & Frederic Robert-Nicoud, 2005. "Economic Geography and Public Policy," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 7524.
    2. Robert-Nicoud, Frederic & Sbergami, Federica, 2004. "Home-market vs. vote-market effect: Location equilibrium in a probabilistic voting model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 155-179, February.
    3. Fredrik Andersson & Rikard Forslid, 2003. "Tax Competition and Economic Geography," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(2), pages 279-303, April.
    4. Ludema, Rodney D. & Wooton, Ian, 2000. "Economic geography and the fiscal effects of regional integration," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 331-357, December.
    5. Kind, Hans Jarle & Knarvik, Karen Helene Midelfart & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2000. "Competing for capital in a 'lumpy' world," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 253-274, November.
    6. Mayer, Wolfgang, 1984. "Endogenous Tariff Formation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 970-985, December.
    7. Stephen S. Golub, 2003. "Measures of Restrictions on Inward Foreign Direct Investment for OECD Countries," OECD Economic Studies, OECD Publishing, vol. 2003(1), pages 85-116.
    8. Martin, Philippe & Rogers, Carol Ann, 1995. "Industrial location and public infrastructure," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 335-351, November.
    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. Gallo, Fredrik, 2010. "Resisting economic integration when industry location is uncertain," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 467-482, April.
    2. Gallo, Fredrik, 2005. "Determining the Level of Transportation Costs in the Core-Periphery Model: a Majority Voting Approach," Working Papers 2005:32, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    3. Fenge, Robert & von Ehrlich, Maximilian & Wrede, Matthias, 2009. "Public input competition and agglomeration," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 621-631, September.
    4. Fabien Candau, 2008. "Entrepreneurs' Location Choice And Public Policies: A Survey Of The New Economic Geography," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 909-952, December.
    5. Toulemonde, Eric, 2006. "Acquisition of skills, labor subsidies, and agglomeration of firms," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 420-439, May.
    6. Robert Fenge & Maximilian von Ehrlich & Matthias Wrede, 2007. "Fiscal Competition, Convergence and Agglomeration," CESifo Working Paper Series 2084, CESifo.
    7. Rainald Borck & Hyun‐Ju Koh & Michael Pflüger, 2012. "Inefficient Lock‐In And Subsidy Competition," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1179-1204, November.
    8. John Feddersen, 2012. "Why we can't confirm the pollution haven hypothesis: A model of carbon leakage with agglomeration," Economics Series Working Papers 613, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    9. Christian Volpe Martincus, 2010. "Spatial Effects Of Trade Policy: Evidence From Brazil," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 541-569, May.
    10. Sandy Fréret & Denis Maguain, 2017. "The effects of agglomeration on tax competition: evidence from a two-regime spatial panel model on French data," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(6), pages 1100-1140, December.
    11. Karen Crabbé & Karolien De Bruyne, 2013. "Taxes, Agglomeration Rents and Location Decisions of Firms," De Economist, Springer, vol. 161(4), pages 421-446, December.
    12. Baldwin, Richard E. & Krugman, Paul, 2004. "Agglomeration, integration and tax harmonisation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, February.
    13. Pasquale Commendatore & Ingrid Kubin, 2016. "Source versus residence: A comparison from a new economic geography perspective," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 95(2), pages 201-222, June.
    14. Eva Luthi & Kurt Schmidheiny, 2014. "The effect of agglomeration size on local taxes," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 265-287.
    15. Federico Trionfetti, 2015. "Public Debt and Economic Geography," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 38(1), pages 92-113, January.
    16. Andreas Haufler & Michael Pflüger, 2004. "International Commodity Taxation under Monopolistic Competition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 6(3), pages 445-470, August.
    17. Kato, Hayato, 2015. "The importance of government commitment in attracting firms: A dynamic analysis of tax competition in an agglomeration economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 57-78.
    18. Richard E. Baldwin & Toshihiro Okubo, 2005. "Tax reform, delocation and heterogeneous firms: Base widening and rate lowering rule," Discussion Paper Series 222, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, revised May 2008.
    19. Hayato Kato & Hirofumi Okoshi, 2022. "Economic Integration And Agglomeration Of Multinational Production With Transfer Pricing," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(3), pages 1325-1355, August.
    20. Ottaviano, Gianmarco & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 2004. "Agglomeration and economic geography," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 58, pages 2563-2608, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    barriers to firm relocation; new economic geography; majority voting; public policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:lunewp:2006_016. 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: Prakriti Thami (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/delunse.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.