IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osk/wpaper/1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Endogenous Choice on Tax Instruments in a Tax Competition Model: Unit Tax versus Ad Valorem Tax

Author

Listed:
  • Nobuo Akai

    () (Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University)

  • Hikaru Ogawa

    () (School of Economics, Nagoya University)

  • Yoshitomo Ogawa

    () (Faculty of Economics, Kinki University)

Abstract

This paper analyzes an endogenous choice problem with regard to tax instruments in a capital tax competition model. Considering a symmetric and two-region model of tax competition, where each region is allowed to choose either unit or ad valorem tax, we show that selecting unit tax as a policy instrument is the dominant strategy of governments. An interpretation of this result is clearly explained by the properties of the best response curves.

Suggested Citation

  • Nobuo Akai & Hikaru Ogawa & Yoshitomo Ogawa, 2010. "Endogenous Choice on Tax Instruments in a Tax Competition Model: Unit Tax versus Ad Valorem Tax," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 10-01, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics and Osaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP).
  • Handle: RePEc:osk:wpaper:1001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.econ.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/global/dp/1001.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Keen & Jenny Ligthart, 2006. "Incentives and Information Exchange in International Taxation," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 13(2), pages 163-180, May.
    2. Lockwood, Ben & Wong, Kar-yiu, 2000. "Specific and ad valorem tariffs are not equivalent in trade wars," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 183-195, October.
    3. Wilson, John Douglas, 1999. "Theories of Tax Competition," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 52(2), pages 269-304, June.
    4. Marko Köthenbürger, 2005. "Leviathans, federal transfers, and the cartelization hypothesis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 449-465, March.
    5. Jan K. Brueckner, 2004. "Fiscal Decentralization with Distortionary Taxation: Tiebout vs. Tax Competition," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 11(2), pages 133-153, March.
    6. Itaya, Jun-ichi & Okamura, Makoto & Yamaguchi, Chikara, 2008. "Are regional asymmetries detrimental to tax coordination in a repeated game setting?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(12), pages 2403-2411, December.
    7. Zodrow, George R. & Mieszkowski, Peter, 1986. "Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation, and the underprovision of local public goods," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 356-370, May.
    8. Wildasin, David E., 1991. "Some rudimetary 'duopolity' theory," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 393-421, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Ben Lockwood, 2004. "Competition in Unit vs. Ad Valorem Taxes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 11(6), pages 763-772, November.
    11. Eckhard Janeba, 2000. "Tax Competition When Governments Lack Commitment: Excess Capacity as a Countervailing Threat," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1508-1519, 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. repec:kap:itaxpf:v:24:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s10797-016-9435-y is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Magnus Hoffmann & Marco Runkel, 2016. "A welfare comparison of ad valorem and unit tax regimes," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 23(1), pages 140-157, February.
    3. Koethenbuerger, Marko, 2014. "Competition for migrants in a federation: Tax or transfer competition?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 110-118.
    4. Junichi Haraguchi & Hikaru Ogawa, 2016. "Leadership in Tax Ccompetition with Fiscal Equalization Transfers ," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1031, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    5. Aiura, Hiroshi & Ogawa, Hikaru, 2013. "Unit tax versus ad valorem tax: A tax competition model with cross-border shopping," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 30-38.
    6. Runkel, Marco & Hoffmann, Magnus, 2012. "Why Countries Compete in Ad Valorem Instead of Unit Capital Taxes," Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century 62079, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. MORITA Tadashi & OGAWA Yoshitomo & ONO Yoshiyasu, 2017. "Corporate Tax Competition in the Presence of Unemployment," Discussion papers 17118, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Akira Yakita, 2014. "Capital Tax Competition and Cooperation with Endogenous Capital Formation," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 459-468, August.
    9. Hiroshi Aiura & Hikaru Ogawa, 2016. "Indirect Taxes in the Cross-border Shopping Model: A Monopolistic Competition Approach," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1014, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    10. Ogawa, Hikaru, 2016. "When ad valorem tax prevails in international tax competition," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Tax competition; Unit tax; Ad valorem tax;

    JEL classification:

    • H20 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - General
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism

    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:osk:wpaper:1001. 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: (Atsuko SUZUKI). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/feosujp.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.