Interjurisdictional competition with adverse selection
In this paper we study competition among non-benevolent local governments for mobile firms and evaluate the consequences of imposing alternative regimes of competition. In our model politicians act as regulators that offer incentives in the form of recommended output levels and socially-costly transfers to induce firms, which have private information on their costs, to operate in their community. Politicians fail to estimate correctly the social costs of public funds and competition drives firms' information rents to higher levels than under a cooperative regime. Therefore, from the perspective of a benevolent federation, aggregate welfare is reduced and constitutional constraints on the competition process may be desirable. Imposing a system of coarser policy instruments improves welfare, even when politicians are benevolent, because it reduces the costly rents that are granted to firms in equilibrium –at the cost of distorting output choices. We find that gains from resorting to constitutional constraints are maximal when communities are identical, but if the extent of asymmetry between locations increases, the advantages of the constrained regime decrease and can be overturned, because it prevents the more productive locations from attracting the more efficient firms.
|Date of creation:||2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, MO 63166|
Web page: http://www.stlouisfed.org/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Email: |
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.:
- Stole, Lars A, 1995. "Nonlinear Pricing and Oligopoly," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(4), pages 529-62, Winter.
- Owens, Raymond E. & Sarte, Pierre-Daniel, 2002.
"Analyzing firm location decisions: is public intervention justified?,"
Journal of Public Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 223-242, November.
- Raymond E. Owens & Pierre-Daniel G. Sarte, 1999. "Analyzing firm location decisions : is public intervention justified?," Working Paper 99-08, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
- Martimort, David, 1994.
"Exclusive Dealing, Common Agency and Multiprincipals Incentive Theory,"
IDEI Working Papers
43, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised 1996.
- David Martimort, 1996. "Exclusive Dealing, Common Agency, and Multiprincipals Incentive Theory," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 1-19, Spring.
- Martimort, D., 1992. "Exclusive Dealing, Common Agency and Multiprincipals Incentive Thoery," Papers 92.278, Toulouse - GREMAQ.
- Gary S. Becker & Casey B. Mulligan, 1998.
"Deadweight Costs and the Size of Government,"
University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State
144, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Spulber, Daniel F., 1989. "Product variety and competitive discounts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 510-525, August.
- David Martimort & Lars Stole, 2001.
"The Revelation and Delegation Principles in Common Agency Games,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
575, CESifo Group Munich.
- David Martimort & Lars Stole, 2002. "The Revelation and Delegation Principles in Common Agency Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1659-1673, July.
- Epstein, Larry G. & Peters, Michael, 1999.
"A Revelation Principle for Competing Mechanisms,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 119-160, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedlwp:2012-052. 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: (Anna Xiao)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.