IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/epr/enepwp/004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Foreign Direct Investment and Company Taxation in Europe

Author

Listed:

Abstract

The growing globalisation of OECD economies, associated to the progresses in European integration, tends to increase the mobility of capital and to deepen the pressure on tax policies. On the one hand, tax policies are tied by the Stability Pact criteria: the limit imposed on budget deficits leaves little scope for tax rates to decrease. On the other hand, the growing mobility of capital tends to increase the elasticity of tax bases to tax rates, hence reducing the autonomy of governments in increasing taxes. In this particular context, tax interdependencies are rising between countries and regions. Two issues are of particular concern, and could have different outcomes depending on the way they are tackled. First, countries could engage in an action on tax levels; depending on whether this action is co-operative or not leads to tax harmonisation or tax competition. Second, countries could have to reconsider fiscal schemes, since the growing interdependence of countries tends to dissociate the notions of residence and source of revenue, and rises an incentive for tax evasion (namely, when exemption schemes are applied, profits taxes are paid in the country where the investment is located; investors are therefore incited to locate their affiliates in low tax countries. Conversely, when credit schemes are applied, foreign investors pay their home country taxes, and there is no particular incentive to evade the national tax system). The issue of fiscal harmonisation is all the more stringent that the scope for tax competition is enhanced with EMU (intra-European exchange rate risk disappears with the euro, which considerably reduces impediments to trade, FDI and labour mobility, and increases the mobility of the tax bases). In the area of corporate taxes however, the scope for competition will depend on the sensitiveness of firms to tax discrepancies across possible locations (for instance, if agglomerations economies are dominant, tax competition would have a negligible impact). Hence there is a need to assess the importance of taxes in the decision of firms to allocate their activities abroad. This paper provides an econometric analysis of the sensitivity of inward foreign direct investment (FDI), in some OECD countries, to tax rates and to tax regimes. It is shown that inward FDI is negatively affected by a rise in effective as well as nominal corporate tax rates. This result holds, be the fiscal regime (exemption/credit) controlled or not. These results are used to perform some simulations which allow to quantify the impact on inward FDI of a tax competition and of a change in tax schemes in Europe. It is shown that the generalisation of credit schemes in Europe would reduce inward FDI in our sample of countries, because it would remove the opportunity to evade high tax rates at home, whereas the generalisation of exemption schemes in the EU would increase inward investment. We also highlight some externalities produced by tax changes in Europe on extra-European countries. Turning to a comparison of tax harmonisation versus tax competition and dumping, the simulations highlight the potentially negative externality of tax competition in Europe for the foreign partners of the EU, namely the United States and Japan, who would lose from a non co-operative tax game in Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnès Bénassy-Quéré & Lionel Fontagné & Amina Lahrèche-Révil, 2001. "Foreign Direct Investment and Company Taxation in Europe," Economics Working Papers 004, European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes.
  • Handle: RePEc:epr:enepwp:004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.enepri.org/Publications/WP004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frankel, Jeffrey A & Rose, Andrew K, 1998. "The Endogeneity of the Optimum Currency Area Criteria," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(449), pages 1009-1025, July.
    2. Fatas, Antonio, 1997. "EMU: Countries or regions? Lessons from the EMS experience," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 743-751, April.
    3. Knetter, Michael M, 1989. "Price Discrimination by U.S. and German Exporters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(1), pages 198-210, March.
    4. N. Gregory Mankiw, 1985. "Small Menu Costs and Large Business Cycles: A Macroeconomic Model of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 529-538.
    5. Taylor, John B, 1980. "Aggregate Dynamics and Staggered Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 88(1), pages 1-23, February.
    6. George A. Akerlof & Janet L. Yellen, 1985. "A Near-Rational Model of the Business Cycle, with Wage and Price Inertia," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 100(Supplemen), pages 823-838.
    7. Cukierman, Alex & Lippi, Francesco, 2001. "Labour Markets and Monetary Union: A Strategic Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(473), pages 541-565, July.
    8. Jeffrey D. Sachs, 1979. "Wages, Profits, and Macroeconomic Adjustment: A Comparative Study," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 10(2), pages 269-332.
    9. Herman Daly & Michael Jacobs & Henryk Skolimowski, 1995. "Discussion," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 4(1), pages 49-70, February.
    10. John V. Duca, 1998. "How increased product market competition may be reshaping America's labor markets," Economic and Financial Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Q IV, pages 2-16.
    11. Danthine, Jean-Pierre & Hunt, Jennifer, 1994. "Wage Bargaining Structure, Employment and Economic Integration," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(424), pages 528-541, May.
    12. Buiter, Willem H., 1995. "Macroeconomic policy during a transition to monetary union," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20701, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Dohse, Dirk & Krieger-Boden, Christiane & Siebert, Horst, 1998. "Währungsunion und Arbeitsmarkt: Auftakt zu unabdingbaren Reformen," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 997, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    14. Streeck, Wolfgang, 1998. "The internationalization of industrial relations in Europe: Prospects and problems," MPIfG Discussion Paper 98/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    15. Jeffrey D. Sachs, 1983. "Real Wages and Unemployment in the OECD Countries," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 14(1), pages 255-304.
    16. Smith, Jennifer C, 2000. "Nominal Wage Rigidity in the United Kingdom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(462), pages 176-195, March.
    17. Berthold, Norbert & Fehn, Rainer, 1998. "Does EMU Promote Labor-Market Reforms?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 509-536.
    18. von Hagen, Jurgen & Neumann, Manfred J M, 1994. "Real Exchange Rates within and between Currency Areas: How Far Away Is EMU?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(2), pages 236-244, May.
    19. Bils, Mark J, 1985. "Real Wages over the Business Cycle: Evidence from Panel Data," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(4), pages 666-689, August.
    20. Kollmann, Robert, 2001. "Explaining international comovements of output and asset returns: The role of money and nominal rigidities," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(10), pages 1547-1583, October.
    21. Jeanne, Olivier, 1998. "Generating real persistent effects of monetary shocks: How much nominal rigidity do we really need?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1009-1032, June.
    22. Frankel, Jeffrey A. & Rose, Andrew K., 1997. "Is EMU more justifiable ex post than ex ante?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-5), pages 753-760, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Mold, 2003. "The Impact of the Single Market Programme on the Locational Determinants of US Manufacturing Affiliates: An Econometric Analysis," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 37-62, March.
    2. Isabel Faeth, 2005. "Determinants of FDI in Australia : Which Theory Can Explain it Best?," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 946, The University of Melbourne.
    3. Martin Finkenzeller & Christoph Spengel, 2004. "Measuring the Effective Levels of Company Taxation in the New Member States: A Quantitative Analysis," Taxation Papers 7, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission, revised Dec 2004.
    4. Piteli, Eleni E.N., 2009. "Foreign Direct Investment in Developed Economies: A Comparison between European and non - European Countries," Papers DYNREG44, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    5. Christian Bellak, 2004. "The Impact of Enlargement on the Race for FDI," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp086, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    6. repec:bof:bofitp:urn:nbn:fi:bof-201505061170 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:epr:enepwp:004. 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: (CEPS). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eneprea.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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    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.