IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/luc/wpaper/19-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is a dynamic approach of tax games relevant?

Author

Listed:
  • Nora Paulus

    (CREA, Université du Luxembourg)

  • Patrice Pierreti

    (CREA, Université du Luxembourg)

  • Benteng Zou

    (CREA, Université du Luxembourg)

Abstract

In this paper we argue that static models provide an incomplete analysis of interjurisdictional tax competition. According to Wilson (1987) a static tax competition model might predict the long-run outcomes of government decision making in a dynamic setting. We show that this conjecture is only true when policymakers commit to a tax path at the start of the game without future updates (open-loop behavior), with the proviso that they are time-indifferent and/or capital is perfectly mobile. Static models however never predict future outcomes when policymarkers continuously update their tax rates (Markovian behavior). In particular, we address the following aspects. How do long-run outcomes in a dynamic setting change relative to static games? How does social welfare change accordingly? If policymakers have the choice, which strategical behavior (Markovian or open-loop) should they adopt? In light of this, which one confers the highest social advantage?

Suggested Citation

  • Nora Paulus & Patrice Pierreti & Benteng Zou, 2019. "Is a dynamic approach of tax games relevant?," DEM Discussion Paper Series 19-09, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    • Handle: RePEc:luc:wpaper:19-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10993/52956
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wildasin, David E., 2003. "Fiscal competition in space and time," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(11), pages 2571-2588, October.
    2. Sam Bucovetsky & Michael Smart, 2006. "The Efficiency Consequences of Local Revenue Equalization: Tax Competition and Tax Distortions," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 8(1), pages 119-144, January.
    3. Han, Yutao & Pieretti, Patrice & Zanaj, Skerdilajda & Zou, Benteng, 2014. "Asymmetric competition among nation states: A differential game approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 71-79.
    4. repec:bla:reviec:v:8:y:2000:i:2:p:360-71 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Becker, Johannes & Fuest, Clemens & Riedel, Nadine, 2012. "Corporate tax effects on the quality and quantity of FDI," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1495-1511.
    6. Haaparanta, Pertti, 1996. "Competition for foreign direct investments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 141-153, December.
    7. Haufler, Andreas & Wooton, Ian, 1999. "Country size and tax competition for foreign direct investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 121-139, January.
    8. Wildasin, David E., 2011. "Fiscal competition for imperfectly-mobile labor and capital: A comparative dynamic analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1312-1321.
    9. Slemrod, Joel, 1990. "Optimal Taxation and Optimal Tax Systems," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 157-178, Winter.
    10. Black, Dan A & Hoyt, William H, 1989. "Bidding for Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1249-1256, December.
    11. Fershtman, Chaim & Muller, Eitan, 1986. "Turnpike properties of capital accumulation games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 167-177, February.
    12. Kanbur, Ravi & Keen, Michael, 1991. "Jeux Sans Frontieres: Tax Competition and Tax Coordination when Countries Differ in Size," Queen's Economics Department Working Papers 273217, Queen's University - Department of Economics.
    13. Hartman, David G., 1985. "Tax policy and foreign direct investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 107-121, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Pedro P. Barros & Luís Cabral, 2000. "Competing for Foreign Direct Investment," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(2), pages 360-371, May.
    16. Wolfgang Eggert & Jun-Ichi Itaya, 2014. "Tax Rate Harmonization, Renegotiation, and Asymmetric Tax Competition for Profits with Repeated Interaction," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(5), pages 796-823, October.
    17. Michael Devereux & Harold Freeman, 1995. "The impact of tax on foreign direct investment: Empirical evidence and the implications for tax integration schemes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 2(1), pages 85-106, February.
    18. Kato, Hayato, 2015. "The importance of government commitment in attracting firms: A dynamic analysis of tax competition in an agglomeration economy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 57-78.
    19. Fershtman, Chaim & Muller, Eitan, 1984. "Capital accumulation games of infinite duration," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 322-339, August.
    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. O. Amerighi & G. De Feo, 2007. "Competition for FDI in the Presence of a Public Firm and the Effects of Privatization," Working Papers 605, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    2. Wagener, Andreas, 2001. "Double Bertrand tax competition: a fiscal game with governments acting as middlemen," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2-3), pages 273-297, April.
    3. Yutao Han & Patrice Pieretti & Benteng Zou, 2013. "The Dynamics of the Location of Firms – A Revisit of Home-Attachment under Tax Competition," DEM Discussion Paper Series 13-15, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    4. Haufler, Andreas & Wooton, Ian, 1999. "Country size and tax competition for foreign direct investment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 121-139, January.
    5. Ben Ferrett & Ian Wooton, 2010. "Competing for a duopoly: international trade and tax competition," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 776-794, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Becker, Johannes & Fuest, Clemens, 2010. "EU regional policy and tax competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 150-161, January.
    8. Jie Ma, 2013. "Market Size, Local Sourcing and Policy Competition for Foreign Direct Investment," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(5), pages 984-995, November.
    9. Yutao Han & Zhen Song, 2022. "On regional integration, fiscal income, and GDP per capita," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(5), pages 506-532, November.
    10. Hayato Kato, 2018. "Lobbying and tax competition in an oligopolistic industry: a reverse home-market effect," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 276-295, July.
    11. Han, Yutao & Pieretti, Patrice & Zou, Benteng, 2013. "An extension of the home-attachment criteria under dynamic tax competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 508-510.
    12. Yutao Han & Zhen Song, 2017. "On regional integration, fiscal income, and GDP per capita," CEMA Working Papers 600, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
    13. Nora Paulus & Patrice Pieretti & Benteng Zou, 2018. "Tax Competition - An intertemporal perspective," DEM Discussion Paper Series 18-10, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    14. Ronald B. Davies & Hartmut Egger & Peter Egger, 2003. "Tax Competition for International Producers and the Mode of Foreign Market Entry," University of Oregon Economics Department Working Papers 2006-19, University of Oregon Economics Department, revised 10 Jun 2003.
    15. Hopp, Daniel & Kriebel, Michael, 2019. "The political economy of interregional competition for firms," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    16. Haufler, Andreas & Lülfesmann, Christoph, 2015. "Reforming an asymmetric union: On the virtues of dual tier capital taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 116-127.
    17. Agrawal, David R. & Trandel, Gregory A., 2019. "Dynamics of policy adoption with state dependence," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    18. Han, Yutao & Pieretti, Patrice & Zanaj, Skerdilajda & Zou, Benteng, 2014. "Asymmetric competition among nation states: A differential game approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 71-79.
    19. Hikaru Ogawa & Yasuhiro Sato & Toshiki Tamai, 2016. "Who gains from capital market integration? Tax competition between unionized and non-unionized countries," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(1), pages 76-110, February.
    20. Pieretti, Patrice & Zanaj, Skerdilajda, 2011. "On tax competition, public goods provision and jurisdictions' size," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 124-130, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • F21 - International Economics - - International Factor Movements and International Business - - - International Investment; Long-Term Capital Movements
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H87 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - International Fiscal Issues; International Public Goods

    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:luc:wpaper:19-09. 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: Marina Legrand (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crcrplu.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.