IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Unit tax versus ad valorem tax: A tax competition model with cross-border shopping

  • Aiura, Hiroshi
  • Ogawa, Hikaru
Registered author(s):

    Within the framework of spatial tax competition with cross-border shopping, we examine the choice of tax method between ad valorem tax and unit (specific) tax. This study shows that governments endogenously choose the ad valorem tax method not because of a classic welfare reason, but because it is a good strategy to compete for mobile consumers. Another key finding is that while governments are committed to the ad valorem tax method, the choice leads to inferior outcome; tax-cutting competition becomes more serious when countries adopt ad valorem tax, and competition in ad valorem tax results in smaller tax revenue than competition in unit tax.

    If 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.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727271300128X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Public Economics.

    Volume (Year): 105 (2013)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 30-38

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:105:y:2013:i:c:p:30-38
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505578

    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Simon P. Anderson & Andre de Palma & Brent Kreider, 2000. "The Efficiency of Indirect Taxes under Imperfect Competition," Virginia Economics Online Papers 342, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
    2. Kind, Hans Jarle & Koethenbuerger, Marko & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2009. "On Revenue and Welfare Dominance of Ad Valorem Taxes in Two-Sided Markets," Discussion Papers 2009/9, Department of Business and Management Science, Norwegian School of Economics.
    3. Lockwood, B. & Wong, K.Y., 1996. "Specific and Ad Valorem Tariffs Are Not Equivalent in Trade Wars," Discussion Papers 9602, Exeter University, Department of Economics.
    4. Ravi Kanbur & Michael Keen, 1991. "Jeux Sans Frontieres: Tax Competition and Tax Coordination when Countries Differ in Size," Working Papers 819, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
    5. Asplund, Marcus & Friberg, Richard & Wilander, Fredrik, 2007. "Demand and distance: Evidence on cross-border shopping," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1-2), pages 141-157, February.
    6. de Crombrugghe, Alain & Tulkens, Henry, 1990. "On Pareto improving commodity tax changes under fiscal competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 335-350, April.
    7. Philipp J. H. Schröder, 2004. "The Comparison between Ad Valorem and Unit Taxes under Monopolistic Competition," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 281-292, December.
    8. Hoel, Michael, 1991. "Global environmental problems: The effects of unilateral actions taken by one country," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 55-70, January.
    9. Rodrik, Dani, 1995. "Political economy of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1457-1494 Elsevier.
    10. Sofia Delipalla & Michael Keen, 1991. "The Comparison Between Ad Valorem and Specific Taxation under Imperfect Competition," Working Papers 821, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
    11. Blackorby, Charles & Murty, Sushama, 2006. "Unit Versus Ad Valorem Taxes : Monopoly In General Equilibrium," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 761, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    12. Michael Keen, 1998. "The balance between specific and ad valorem taxation," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 19(1), pages 1-37, February.
    13. Lockwood, Ben, 1993. "Commodity tax competition under destination and origin principles," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 141-162, September.
    14. Moriconi, Simone & Sato, Yasuhiro, 2009. "International commodity taxation in the presence of unemployment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(7-8), pages 939-949, August.
    15. Rosendorff, B.P., 1995. "Voluntary Export Restraints, Anti-Dumping Procedure and Domestic Politics," Papers 9512, Southern California - Department of Economics.
    16. Philipp J.H. Schröder & Allan Sørensen, 2010. "Ad valorem versus unit taxes: Monopolistic competition, heterogeneous firms, and intra-industry reallocations," Economics Working Papers 2010-10, School of Economics and Management, University of Aarhus.
    17. Andrés Leal & Julio López-Laborda & Fernando Rodrigo, 2010. "Cross-Border Shopping: A Survey," International Advances in Economic Research, International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 16(2), pages 135-148, May.
    18. Kimberley Scharf, 1999. "Scale Economies in Cross-Border Shopping and Commodity Taxation," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 89-99, February.
    19. Vincenzo Denicolo & Massimo Matteuzzi, 2000. "Specific and Ad Valorem Taxation in Asymmetric Cournot Oligopolies," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 335-342, May.
    20. Konishi, Hideo & Saggi, Kamal & Weber, Shlomo, 1999. "Endogenous trade policy under foreign direct investment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 289-308, December.
    21. Gareth Myles, 1996. "Imperfect competition and the optimal combination of ad valorem and specific taxation," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 29-44, January.
    22. Ben Lockwood, 2004. "Competition in Unit vs. Ad Valorem Taxes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 11(6), pages 763-772, November.
    23. You-Qiang Wang, 1999. "Commodity Taxes under Fiscal Competition: Stackelberg Equilibrium and Optimality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 974-981, September.
    24. Braid, Ralph M., 2000. "A Spatial Model of Tax Competition with Multiple Tax Instruments," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 88-114, January.
    25. Mintz, J. & Tulkens, H., 1984. "Commodity tax competition between member states of a federation: equilibrium and efficiency," CORE Discussion Papers 1984027, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    26. Cremer, Helmuth & Gahvari, Firouz, 2000. "Tax evasion, fiscal competition and economic integration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1633-1657, October.
    27. Nielsen, Søren Bo, 1998. "A simple model of commodity taxation and cross-border shopping," Working Papers 13-1998, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    28. WILDASIN, David E., . "Interjurisdictional capital mobility: Fiscal externality and a corrective subsidy," CORE Discussion Papers RP 831, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    29. WILDASIN, David, . "Nash equilibria in models of fiscal competition," CORE Discussion Papers RP 804, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    30. Jan Jørgensen & Philipp Schröder, 2005. "Welfare-ranking ad valorem and specific tariffs under monopolistic competition," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 38(1), pages 228-241, February.
    31. Ohsawa, Yoshiaki, 2003. "A spatial tax harmonization model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 443-459, June.
    32. Haufler, Andreas, 1996. "Tax Coordination with Different Preferences for Public Goods: Conflict or Harmony of Interest?," Munich Reprints in Economics 20392, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    33. Mayer, Wolfgang & Riezman, Raymond G., 1987. "Endogenous choice of trade policy instruments," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3-4), pages 377-381, November.
    34. 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.
    35. Nielsen, Soren Bo, 2002. "Cross-border shopping from small to large countries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 309-313, November.
    36. Nobuo Akai & Hikaru Ogawa & Yoshitomo Ogawa, 2011. "Endogenous choice on tax instruments in a tax competition model: unit tax versus ad valorem tax," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 495-506, October.
    37. Hillman, Arye L & Ursprung, Heinrich W, 1993. "Multinational Firms, Political Competition, and International Trade Policy," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 34(2), pages 347-63, May.
    38. Susanne Dröge & Philipp Schröder, 2009. "The welfare comparison of corrective ad valorem and unit taxes under monopolistic competition," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 164-175, April.
    39. Vander Lucas, 2002. "Cross-border shopping in a federal economy," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 28(12), pages A0.
    40. Trandel, Gregory A., 1994. "Interstate commodity tax differentials and the distribution of residents," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 435-457, March.
    41. Stephen F. Hamilton, 2009. "Excise Taxes with Multiproduct Transactions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 458-71, March.
    42. Harvey E. Lapan & David A. Hennessy, 2011. "Unit versus Ad Valorem Taxes in Multiproduct Cournot Oligopoly," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(1), pages 125-138, 02.
    43. Yoshiaki Ohsawa & Takeshi Koshizuka, 2003. "Two-dimensional fiscal competition," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 275-287, July.
    44. Ohsawa, Yoshiaki, 1999. "Cross-border shopping and commodity tax competition among governments," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 33-51, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:pubeco:v:105:y:2013:i:c:p:30-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.