IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mcm/deptwp/2008-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Equalization Payments in a Bargaining Model of Tax Competition

Author

Listed:
  • John Leach

Abstract

A model in which a high-productivity region and a low-productivity region bargain with each firm in a group of mobile firms is constructed. It differs from the Han and Leach [7] model in that the firms are identical, so that its comparative statics are more tractable. The model is used to examine the allocative effects of equalization payments (both non-contingent payments and "corrective subsidies"). The equilibrium is characterized by misallocation of capital and underprovision of public goods. Underprovision is more severe in the low-productivity region than the high-productivity region. A transfer of revenue from the high-productivity region to the low-productivity region augments public goods provision in the low-productivity region, allowing that region to make more generous offers to the firms. Likewise, underprovsion becomes more severe in the high-productivity region, so that its offers become less generous. Equilibrium is attained by a movement of firms from the high-productivity region to the low-productivity region, reducing the misallocation of capital.

Suggested Citation

  • John Leach, 2008. "Equalization Payments in a Bargaining Model of Tax Competition," Department of Economics Working Papers 2008-01, McMaster University.
  • Handle: RePEc:mcm:deptwp:2008-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/rsrch/papers/archive/2008-01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Han, Seungjin & Leach, John, 2008. "A bargaining model of tax competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1122-1141, June.
    2. Wildasin, David E., 1989. "Interjurisdictional capital mobility: Fiscal externality and a corrective subsidy," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 193-212, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Chris Doyle & Sweder Wijnbergen, 1994. "Taxation of foreign multinationals: A sequential bargaining approach to tax holidays," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 1(3), pages 211-225, October.
    5. Robin W. Boadway & Frank R. Flatters, 1982. "Efficiency and Equalization Payments in a Federal System of Government: A Synthesis and Extension of Recent Results," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 15(4), pages 613-633, November.
    6. DePeter James A. & Myers Gordon M., 1994. "Strategic Capital Tax Competition: A Pecuniary Externality and a Corrective Device," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 66-78, July.
    7. Marko Köthenbürger, 2002. "Tax Competition and Fiscal Equalization," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 9(4), pages 391-408, August.
    8. Wilson, John Douglas, 1999. "Theories of Tax Competition," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 52(2), pages 269-304, June.
    9. Bond, Eric W & Samuelson, Larry, 1986. "Tax Holidays as Signals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 820-826, September.
    10. Ian King & R. Preston McAfee & Linda Welling, 1993. "Industrial Blackmail: Dynamic Tax Competition and Public Investment," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(3), pages 590-608, August.
    11. Black, Dan A & Hoyt, William H, 1989. "Bidding for Firms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1249-1256, December.
    12. Wilson, John Douglas, 1999. "Theories of Tax Competition," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 52(n. 2), pages 269-304, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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:mcm:deptwp:2008-01. 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: () or (Candi Patterson) or (Katrina Wingle). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/demcmca.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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.