IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bbr/workpa/5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Strategic Tax Competition: An Experimental Study

Author

Abstract

We study the effect of a payoff advantage, symmetric payoff change and policymakers interaction on choices in tax competition games. To examine the first two effects a standard symmetric game is respectively compared to an asymmetric game where one player has a payoff advantage and to another symmetric game where both players have symmetrically higher payoffs. When payoffs are asymmetric, we find that if policymakers have a payoff disadvantage they are more likely to compete. Instead policymakers with a payoff advantage are keener to tax above equilibrium. Our results also show there is a payoff size effect where choices are brought closer to equilibrium when payoffs are symmetrically higher. These two effects are further studied when players interact repeatedly. With repeated interaction cooperation is sustained only in the symmetric games but fail to materialise in the asymmetric game. A regression analysis of our results reveals further differences between these games.

Suggested Citation

  • Sailesh Gunessee, 2009. "Strategic Tax Competition: An Experimental Study," ICBBR Working Papers 5, International Centre for Behavioural Business Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:bbr:workpa:5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~lizecon/RePEc/bbr/pdf/5.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Why free ride? : Strategies and learning in public goods experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 291-304, December.
    2. Cooper, Russell & DeJong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Ross, Thomas W., 1996. "Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 187-218, February.
    3. Riedl, Arno & van Winden, Frans, 2007. "An experimental investigation of wage taxation and unemployment in closed and open economies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 871-900, May.
    4. Signorino, Curtis S., 1999. "Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(2), pages 279-297, June.
    5. Martin Beckenkamp & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Frank P. Maier-Rigaud, 2007. "Cooperation in Symmetric and Asymmetric Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2006_25, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    6. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    7. Bucovetsky, S., 1991. "Asymmetric tax competition," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 167-181, September.
    8. Roberto Cardarelli & Emmanuelle Taugourdeau & Jean‐Pierre Vidal, 2002. "A Repeated Interactions Model of Tax Competition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 4(1), pages 19-38, January.
    9. Michael Devereux, 2004. "Debating Proposed Reforms of the Taxation of Corporate Income in the European Union," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 11(1), pages 71-89, January.
    10. Vernon L. Smith, 1962. "An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 322-322.
    11. Klaus Abbink & Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2006. "Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 103-121, June.
    12. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    13. Wildasin, David E., 1988. "Nash equilibria in models of fiscal competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 229-240, March.
    14. McCaffery, Edward J. & Baron, Jonathan, 2004. "Framing and taxation: Evaluation of tax policies involving household composition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 679-705, December.
    15. Alm, James & McClelland, Gary H. & Schulze, William D., 1992. "Why do people pay taxes?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 21-38, June.
    16. Slemrod, Joel, 2004. "Are corporate tax rates, or countries, converging?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 1169-1186, June.
    17. Devereux, Michael P. & Lockwood, Ben & Redoano, Michela, 2008. "Do countries compete over corporate tax rates?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1210-1235, June.
    18. Bretschger, Lucas & Hettich, Frank, 2002. "Globalisation, capital mobility and tax competition: theory and evidence for OECD countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 695-716, November.
    19. Hoyt, William H., 1991. "Property taxation, Nash equilibrium, and market power," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 123-131, July.
    20. Engelmann, Dirk & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2007. "An experimental test of strategic trade policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 144-156, September.
    21. Riedl, Arno & van Winden, Frans, 2001. "Does the Wage Tax System Cause Budget Deficits? A Macro-economic Experiment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 109(3-4), pages 371-394, December.
    22. George R. Zodrow & Peter Mieszkowski, 2019. "Pigou, Tiebout, Property Taxation, and the Underprovision of Local Public Goods," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: George R Zodrow (ed.), TAXATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Selected Essays of George R. Zodrow, chapter 17, pages 525-542, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    23. Mendoza, Enrique G. & Tesar, Linda L., 2005. "Why hasn't tax competition triggered a race to the bottom? Some quantitative lessons from the EU," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 163-204, January.
    24. Zodrow, George R, 2003. "Tax Competition and Tax Coordination in the European Union," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 10(6), pages 651-671, November.
    25. Kanbur, Ravi & Keen, Michael, 1993. "Jeux Sans Frontieres: Tax Competition and Tax Coordination When Countries Differ in Size," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(4), pages 877-892, September.
    26. Crawford, Vincent P., 2002. "Introduction to Experimental Game Theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 1-15, May.
    27. Mr. Ben Lockwood & Michael B. Devereux & Michela Redoano, 2003. "Capital Account Liberalization and Corporate Taxes," IMF Working Papers 2003/180, International Monetary Fund.
    28. Wilson, John Douglas & Wildasin, David E., 2004. "Capital tax competition: bane or boon," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 1065-1091, June.
    29. Friedman, James W. & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2005. "Random belief equilibrium in normal form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-323, May.
    30. Andereoni, J., 1988. "Why Free Ride? Strategies And Learning In Public Goods Experiments," Working papers 375, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
    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. Gaëtan Nicodème, 2006. "Corporate tax competition and coordination in the European Union: What do we know? Where do we stand?," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 250, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    2. Miniaci Raffaele & Panteghini Paolo M. & Rivolta Giulia, 2022. "The estimation of reaction functions under tax competition," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 23(2), pages 301-339, May.
    3. Krishanu Karmakar & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2014. "Fiscal Competition versus Fiscal Harmonization: A Review of the Arguments," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1431, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    4. Joel HELLIER, 2021. "Globalization and Inequality in Advanced Economies: A Provisional Assessment," Working Papers 575, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    5. Olena V. Sokolovska, 2016. "Race to the bottom in international tax competition: some conceptual issues," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 2(2), pages 98-110.
    6. Michael P. Devereux & Simon Loretz, 2013. "What Do We Know About Corporate Tax Competition?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 66(3), pages 745-774, September.
    7. Hannes Winner, 2005. "Has Tax Competition Emerged in OECD Countries? Evidence from Panel Data," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(5), pages 667-687, September.
    8. Gregor Schwerhoff & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2013. "Is Capital Mobility Good for Public Good Provision?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4420, CESifo.
    9. Kempf, Hubert & Rota-Graziosi, Grégoire, 2010. "Endogenizing leadership in tax competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 768-776, October.
    10. Hubert Kempf & Grégoire Rota-Graziosi, 2010. "Endogenizing leadership in the tax competition race," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00492105, HAL.
    11. Osterloh, Steffen & Heinemann, Friedrich, 2013. "The political economy of corporate tax harmonization — Why do European politicians (dis)like minimum tax rates?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 18-37.
    12. Rosella Levaggi & Paolo M. Panteghini, 2021. "Public expenditure spillovers: an explanation for heterogeneous tax reaction functions," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(3), pages 497-514, June.
    13. Timothy P. Hubbard & Justin Svec, 2015. "A Model of Tradeable Capital Tax Permits," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(6), pages 916-942, December.
    14. Keuschnigg, Christian & Loretz, Simon & Winner, Hannes, 2014. "Tax Competition and Tax Coordination in the European Union: A Survey," Working Papers in Economics 2014-4, University of Salzburg.
    15. Leon Bettendorf & Joeri Gorter & Albert van der Horst, 2006. "Who benefits from tax competition in the European Union?," CPB Document 125, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    16. OGAWA Hikaru & OSHIRO Jun & SATO Yasuhiro, 2012. "Capital Mobility—a resource curse or blessing? How, when, and for whom?," Discussion papers 12063, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    17. Hans Pitlik, 2005. "Folgt die Steuerpolitik in der EU der Logik des Steuerwettbewerbs," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 256/2005, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    18. Simon Naitram, 2022. "How big are strategic spillovers from corporate tax competition?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(2), pages 847-869, April.
    19. Chirinko, Robert S. & Wilson, Daniel J., 2017. "Tax competition among U.S. states: Racing to the bottom or riding on a seesaw?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 147-163.
    20. Heimberger, Philipp, 2021. "Corporate tax competition: A meta-analysis," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tax Competition; Experimental Economics; Asymmetry.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H73 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:bbr:workpa:5. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/smnotuk.html .

    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: Laure Cabantous The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Laure Cabantous to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/smnotuk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.