International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 43–62 | Cite as

Progressive and merging-proof taxation



We investigate the implications and logical relations between progressivity (a principle of distributive justice) and merging-proofness (a strategic principle) in taxation. By means of two characterization results, we show that these two principles are intimately related, despite their different nature. In particular, we show that, in the presence of continuity and consistency (a widely accepted framework for taxation) progressivity implies merging-proofness and that the converse implication holds if we add an additional strategic principle extending the scope of merging-proofness to a multilateral setting. By considering operators on the space of taxation rules, we also show that progressivity is slightly more robust than merging-proofness.


Taxation Progressivity Merging-proofness Consistency Operators 

JEL Classification

C70 D63 D70 H20 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chambers CP, Thomson W (2002) Group order preservation and the proportional rule for the adjudication of conflicting claims. Math Soc Sci 44: 235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de Frutos MA (1999) Coalitional manipulations in a bankruptcy problem. Rev Econ Des 4: 255–272Google Scholar
  3. Eichhorn W, Funke H, Richter WF (1984) Tax progression and inequality of income distribution. J Math Econ 13: 127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fellman J (1976) The effect of transformations on Lorenz curves. Econometrica 44: 823–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fleurbaey M, Maniquet F (2006) Fair income tax. Rev Econ Stud 73: 55–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Herrero C, Villar A (2001) The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems. Math Soc Sci 42: 307–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hokari T, Thomson W (2008) On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency. J Math Econ 44: 1057–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jakobsson U (1976) On the measurement of the degree of progression. J Public Econ 5: 161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ju B-G (2003) Manipulation via merging and splitting in claims problems. Rev Econ Des 8: 205–215Google Scholar
  10. Ju B-G, Moreno-Ternero JD (2008) On the equivalence between progressivity and inequality reduction in taxation. Soc Choice Welf 30: 561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ju B-G, Miyagawa E, Sakai T (2007) Non-manipulable division rules in claim problems and generalizations. J Econ Theory 132: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mirrlees J (1971) An Exploration in the Theory of Optimum Income Taxation. Rev Econ Stud 38: 175–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moreno-Ternero JD (2006) Composition, securement, and concede-and-divide. Span Econ Rev 8: 227–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moreno-Ternero JD (2007) Bankruptcy rules and coalitional manipulation. Int Game Theory Rev 9: 411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moreno-Ternero JD, Villar A (2006) New characterizations of a classical bankruptcy rule. Rev Econ Des 10: 73–84Google Scholar
  16. Moulin H (2002) Axiomatic cost and surplus-sharing. In: Arrow K, Sen A, Suzumura K (eds) The Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 289–357Google Scholar
  17. Moulin H (2008) Proportional scheduling, split-proofness, and merge-proofness. Games Econ Behav 63: 567–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Musgrave RA, Thin T (1948) Income tax progression. J Polit Econ 56: 498–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Neill B (1982) A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud. Math Soc Sci 2: 345–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sprumont Y (2005) On the discrete version of the Aumann–Shapley cost-sharing method. Econometrica 73: 1693–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thomson W (2003) Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey. Math Soc Sci 45: 249–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomson W (2006) How to divide when there isn’t enough: From the Talmud to game theory, Manuscript. University of Rochester, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomson W, Yeh C-H (2008) Operators for the adjudication of conflicting claims. J Econ Theory 143: 177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Young P (1987) On dividing an amount according to individual claims or liabilities. Math Oper Res 12: 398–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Young P (1988) Distributive justice in taxation. J Econ Theory 44: 321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Young P (1994) Equity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsKorea UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Universidad de MálagaMalagaSpain
  3. 3.Universidad Pablo de OlavideSevilleSpain
  4. 4.CORE, Université catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations