International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 618–630 | Cite as

Cross-border shopping and the Atkinson–Stiglitz theorem

  • Sebastian G. Kessing
  • Bernhard Koldert


We introduce cross-border shopping and indirect tax competition into a model of optimal taxation. The Atkinson–Stiglitz result that indirect taxation cannot improve the efficiency of information-constrained tax-transfer policies, and that indirect taxes should not be differentiated across goods, is shown to hold in this case even if countries are asymmetric. However, if the tax system must contain indirect taxation, differentiated indirect tax rates arise in the equilibrium and restricting differentiated indirect taxation can be welfare-increasing.


Cross-border shopping Atkinson–Stiglitz theorem Tax competition Direct and indirect taxes 

JEL Classification

H21 F15 



We would like to thank the editor Jack Mintz and two anonymous referees for their comments. The usual caveat applies. Financial support from a generous donation from Mrs. Barbara Lambrecht-Schadeberg is gratefully acknowledged. We also gratefully acknowledge support from the Forschungskolleg Siegen (FoKoS).


  1. Agrawal, D. (2011). The tax gradient: do local sales taxes reduce tax differentials at state borders? Paper presented at the Congress of the International Institute of Public Finance, 9 August 2011, Ann Arbor. Google Scholar
  2. Asplund, M., Friberg, R., & Wilander, F. (2007). Demand and distance: evidence on cross-border shopping. Journal of Public Economics, 91(1–2), 141–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A. B., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1976). The design of tax structure: direct versus indirect taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 6, 55–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boadway, R., Marchand, M., & Pestieau, P. (1994). Towards a theory of the direct–indirect tax mix. Journal of Public Economics, 55, 71–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boadway, R., & Pestieau, P. (2003). Indirect taxation and redistribution: the scope of the Atkinson–Stiglitz theorem. In R. Arnott, B. Greenwald, R. Kanbur, & B. Nalebuff (Eds.), Economics for an imperfect world: essays in honor of Joseph E. Stiglitz. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  6. Cremer, H., Pestieau, P., & Rochet, J.-C. (2001). Direct versus indirect taxation: the design of the tax structure revisited. International Economic Review, 42, 781–799. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Devereux, M. P., Lockwood, B., & Redoano, M. (2007). Horizontal and vertical indirect tax competition: theory and some evidence from the USA. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 451–479. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haufler, A. (1996). Tax coordination with different preferences for public goods: conflict or harmony of interest? International Tax and Public Finance, 3, 5–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huber, B. (1999). Tax competition and tax coordination in an optimum income tax model. Journal of Public Economics, 71(3), 441–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobs, J., Ligthart, J., & Vrijburg, H. (2010). Consumption tax competition among governments: evidence from the United States. International Tax and Public Finance, 17, 271–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanbur, R., & Keen, M. (1993). Jeux sans frontieres: tax competition and tax coordination when countries differ in size. The American Economic Review, 83, 877–892. Google Scholar
  12. Kaplow, L. (2006). On the undesirability of commodity taxation even when income taxation is not optimal. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6–7), 1235–1250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laroque, G. R. (2005). Indirect taxation is superfluous under separability and taste homogeneity: a simple proof. Economics Letters, 87, 141–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lipatov, V., & Weichenrieder, A. (2010). Optimal income taxation with tax competition. CESifo working paper 3108. Google Scholar
  15. Lockwood, B., & Migali, G. (2009). Did the single market cause competition in excise taxes? Evidence from EU countries. Economic Journal, 119, 406–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mintz, J., & Tulkens, H. (1986). Commodity tax competition between member states of a federation: equilibrium and efficiency. Journal of Public Economics, 29, 133–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Naito, H. (1999). Re-examination of uniform commodity taxes under a non-linear income tax system and its implication for production efficiency. Journal of Public Economics, 71, 165–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nielsen, S. B. (2001). A simple model of commodity taxation and cross-border shopping. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 103(4), 599–623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nielsen, S. B. (2002). Cross-border shopping from small to large countries. Economics Letters, 77, 309–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saez, E. (2004). Direct or indirect tax instruments for redistribution: short-run versus long-run. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 503–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simula, L., & Trannoy, A. (2010). Optimal income tax under the threat of migration by top-income earners. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–2), 163–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stiglitz, J. E. (1982). Self-selection and Pareto efficient taxation. Journal of Public Economics, 17, 213–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of SiegenSiegenGermany

Personalised recommendations