IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_4878.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Globalization Paradox Revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Gregor Schwerhoff
  • Ottmar Edenhofer

Abstract

According to the Globalization Paradox, globalization limits the freedom of choice for national governments. Capital mobility in particular induces tax competition, thus putting downward pressure on capital taxes. However, while capital mobility introduces the inefficiency of tax competition, it makes the allocation of capital more efficient. Whether national welfare and tax-financed public good provision increase or decrease through capital mobility depends on country characteristics. These characteristics include the relative capital endowment, the availability of taxes on fixed factors such as land and the preference for the public good. We compare the two second best settings of a closed economy and an economy with capital mobility to show that the relative capital endowment determines whether the net effect of capital mobility is positive. Fixed factor taxes have the potential to improve welfare by defusing the globalization trilemma through a reduction in the need for capital taxation.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregor Schwerhoff & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2014. "The Globalization Paradox Revisited," CESifo Working Paper Series 4878, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_4878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp4878.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Wilson, John Douglas, 1991. "Tax competition with interregional differences in factor endowments," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 423-451, November.
    3. Thomas Eichner & Marco Runkel, 2012. "Interjurisdictional Spillovers, Decentralized Policymaking, and the Elasticity of Capital Supply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2349-2357, August.
    4. Bucovetsky, S., 1991. "Asymmetric tax competition," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 167-181, September.
    5. Kjetil Bjorvatn & Guttorm Schjelderup, 2002. "Tax Competition and International Public Goods," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 9(2), pages 111-120, March.
    6. Hikaru Ogawa & David E. Wildasin, 2009. "Think Locally, Act Locally: Spillovers, Spillbacks, and Efficient Decentralized Policymaking," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1206-1217, September.
    7. Michael Overesch & Johannes Rincke, 2011. "What Drives Corporate Tax Rates Down? A Reassessment of Globalization, Tax Competition, and Dynamic Adjustment to Shocks," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 113(3), pages 579-602, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Rodrik, Dani, 2012. "The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States, and Democracy Can't Coexist," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199652525.
    10. Judd, Kenneth L., 1985. "Redistributive taxation in a simple perfect foresight model," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 59-83, October.
    11. Edward C. Prescott & Stephen L. Parente, 1999. "Monopoly Rights: A Barrier to Riches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1216-1233, December.
    12. Atkinson, A. B. & Stiglitz, J. E., 1976. "The design of tax structure: Direct versus indirect taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1-2), pages 55-75.
    13. Bucovetsky, Sam & Wilson, John Douglas, 1991. "Tax competition with two tax instruments," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 333-350, November.
    14. Chamley, Christophe, 1986. "Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in General Equilibrium with Infinite Lives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(3), pages 607-622, May.
    15. Oliver Lorz & Frank Stähler, 2001. "Who is afraid of capital mobility? on taxation of labor income and the level of public services in an open economy," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 79-101, February.
    16. Hoyt, William H., 1991. "Property taxation, Nash equilibrium, and market power," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 123-131, July.
    17. Liberati, Paolo, 2007. "Trade Openness, Capital Openness and Government Size," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 215-247, August.
    18. Bretschger, Lucas, 2010. "Taxes, mobile capital, and economic dynamics in a globalizing world," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 594-605, June.
    19. Wilson, John D., 1986. "A theory of interregional tax competition," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 296-315, May.
    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. Gregor Schwerhoff & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2013. "Is Capital Mobility Good for Public Good Provision?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4420, CESifo.
    2. 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.
    3. Troeger, Vera, 2012. "De Facto Capital Mobility, Equality, and Tax Policy in Open Economies," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 84, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Stephanie Armbruster & Beat Hintermann, 2020. "Decentralization with porous borders: public production in a federation with tax competition and spillovers," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 27(3), pages 606-642, June.
    7. European Commission, 2011. "Tax Reforms in EU Member States 2011: tax policy challenges for economic growth and fiscal sustainability," Taxation Papers 28, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Guillaume Claveres, 2022. "Tax competition and club goods," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 29(1), pages 110-146, February.
    12. Thierry Madiès & Ornella Tarola & Emmanuelle Taugourdeau, 2022. "Do International Environmental Agreements Affect Tax and Environmental Competition among Asymmetric Countries?," Working Papers 2022-21, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    13. Braid, Ralph M., 2005. "Tax competition, tax exporting and higher-government choice of tax instruments for local governments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(9-10), pages 1789-1821, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Simon Loretz, 2008. "Corporate taxation in the OECD in a wider context," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(4), pages 639-660, winter.
    16. Yang, Hongyan, 2018. "Income redistribution and public goods provision under tax competition," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 94-103.
    17. 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.
    18. Wooton, Ian & Desbordes, Rodolphe & Azémar, Céline, 2015. "Country Size and Corporate Tax Rate: Rationale and Empirics," CEPR Discussion Papers 10800, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. 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.
    20. Sanz-Córdoba, Patricia, 2020. "The role of infrastructure investment and factor productivity in international tax competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 30-38.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    capital mobility; globalization; interjurisdictional competition; public good provision;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H50 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - General
    • H73 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects
    • H87 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - International Fiscal Issues; International Public Goods

    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:ces:ceswps:_4878. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.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.