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

Tax Principles and Tariff-Tax Reforms under International Oligopoly

  • Kenji Fujiwara

    ()

    (School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University)

This paper, in a two-country duopoly model, compares destination- and origin-based commodity taxes in a context of a unilateral tariff-tax reform that fixes the world price and foreign welfare. We find that the proposed reform reduces domestic welfare, and hence is strictly Pareto-deteriorating under the destination principle while the opposite holds under the origin principle. Moreover, it is shown that this ranking is reversed if exports are taxed. In short, which is preferable between destination and origin taxation depends on the tax principle and which between imports and exports are taxed.

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://192.218.163.163/RePEc/pdf/kgdp116.pdf
Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found. If this is indeed the case, please notify (Toshihiro Okada)


File Function: First version, 2014
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University in its series Discussion Paper Series with number 116.

as
in new window

Length: 25 pages
Date of creation: Mar 2014
Date of revision: Mar 2014
Handle: RePEc:kgu:wpaper:116
Contact details of provider: Postal: 1-155 Uegahara Ichiban-cho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 662-8501
Phone: +81-(0)798-546496
Fax: +81-(0)798-510944
Web page: http://www-econ.kwansei.ac.jp/~econ/index_e.html

More information through EDIRC

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. Keen, M. & Ligthart, J.E., 2004. "Coordinating Tariff Reduction and Domestic Tax Reform under Imperfect Competition," Discussion Paper 2004-78, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  2. Hatzipanayotou, Panos & Michael, Michael S. & Miller, Stephen M., 1994. "Win-win indirect tax reform : A modest proposal," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 147-151.
  3. Andreas Haufler & Michael Pflüger, 2001. "International Commodity Taxation Under Monopolistic Competition," CESifo Working Paper Series 529, CESifo Group Munich.
  4. Lockwood, B., 2000. "Tax Competition and Tax Co-Ordination Under Destination and Origin Principles: A Synthesis," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 567, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  5. Michael Keen & Johanna Elisabeth Ligthart, 1999. "Coordinating Tariff Reduction and Domestic Tax Reform," IMF Working Papers 99/93, International Monetary Fund.
  6. 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.
  7. Kenji Fujiwara, 2013. "A Win–Win–Win Tariff–Tax Reform under Imperfect Competition," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(5), pages 857-867, November.
  8. Michael Keen & Thomas Baunsgaard, 2005. "Tax Revenue and (or?) Trade Liberalization," IMF Working Papers 05/112, International Monetary Fund.
  9. Takumi Naito & Kenzo Abe, 2008. "Welfare- and Revenue-Enhancing Tariff and Tax Reform under Imperfect Competition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(6), pages 1085-1094, December.
  10. MINTZ, Jack & TULKENS, Henry, . "Commodity tax competition between member states of a federation: equilibrium and efficiency," CORE Discussion Papers RP -693, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  11. Keen, Michael & Lahiri, Sajal, 1998. "The comparison between destination and origin principles under imperfect competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 323-350, August.
  12. Markusen, James R. & Venables, Anthony J., 1988. "Trade policy with increasing returns and imperfect competition : Contradictory results from competing assumptions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3-4), pages 299-316, May.
  13. Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1997. "An Economic Theory of GATT," NBER Working Papers 6049, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Emran, M. Shahe & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2005. "On selective indirect tax reform in developing countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(4), pages 599-623, April.
  15. Haufler, Andreas & Schjelderup, Guttorm & Stähler, Frank, 2005. "Barriers to trade and imperfect competition: The choice of commodity tax base," Munich Reprints in Economics 20414, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  16. Lockwood, Ben, 1993. "Commodity tax competition under destination and origin principles," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 141-162, September.
  17. Keen, Michael & Lahiri, Sajal & Raimondos-Moller, Pascalis, 2002. "Tax principles and tax harmonization under imperfect competition: A cautionary example," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1559-1568, September.
  18. Scott McCracken & Frank Staehler, 2007. "Economic integration and the choice of commodity tax base with endogenous market structures," Working Papers 0701, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2007.
  19. Baier, Scott L. & Bergstrand, Jeffrey H., 2001. "The growth of world trade: tariffs, transport costs, and income similarity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-27, February.
  20. Keen, Michael, 1989. "Pareto-improving indirect tax harmonisation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-12, January.
  21. Keen, Michael & Lahiri, Sajal, 1993. "Domestic tax reform and international oligopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 55-74, May.
  22. Lahiri, Sajal & Raimondos-Moller, Pascalis, 1997. "On the tying of aid to tariff reform," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 479-491, December.
  23. Kemp, Murray C. & Wan, Henry Jr., 1976. "An elementary proposition concerning the formation of customs unions," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 95-97, February.
  24. Emran, M. Shahe, 2005. "Revenue-increasing and welfare-enhancing reform of taxes on exports," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 277-292, June.
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:kgu:wpaper:116. 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: (Toshihiro Okada)

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.