International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1012–1027 | Cite as

Agglomeration, tax competition, and fiscal equalization

Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes the impact of fiscal equalization on asymmetric tax competition when positive agglomeration externalities are present. It uses a model focusing on the strategic reason for capital taxes to demonstrate that per capita fiscal capacity equalization improves the spatial allocation of capital provided a sufficiently rich (marginally) larger region and sufficiently strong agglomeration externalities. If tax revenue is used to finance public goods, per capita fiscal capacity equalization generally cannot simultaneously eliminate public good inefficiency and spatial inefficiency. However, the achievement of full efficiency for ex ante identical regions requires excessive (full) equalization in the presence (absence) of agglomeration externalities.

Keywords

Agglomeration Tax competition Fiscal equalization 

JEL Classification

R12 H71 H73 

Notes

Acknowledgements

A previous version of the paper was presented at PET 2009, at the annual conference of the Verein für Socialpolitik 2009, at a research seminar at the Barcelona Institute of Economics (IEB). Participant comments are appreciated. I have also greatly benefited from the comments of the co-editor of this journal, Eckhard Janeba, and two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Abdel-Rahman, H. M., & Anas, A. (2004). Theories of systems of cities. In J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2293–2339). New York: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, F., & Forslid, R. (2003). Tax competition and economic geography. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 5, 279–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, R. E., & Krugman, P. (2004). Agglomeration, integration and tax harmonization. European Economic Review, 48, 1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boadway, R., & Flatters, F. (1982). Efficiency and equalization payments in a federal system of government: a synthesis and extension of recent results. Canadian Journal of Economics, 15, 613–633. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boadway, R., & Shah, A. (2009). Fiscal federalism: principles and practice of multiorder government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boadway, R., & Watts, R. L. (2004). Fiscal federalism in Canada, the USA, and Germany. Working paper. IIGR. Queen’s University. Google Scholar
  7. Boadway, R., Cuff, K., & Marceau, N. (2004). Agglomeration effects and the competition for firms. International Tax and Public Finance, 11, 623–645. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borck, R., & Pflüger, M. (2006). Agglomeration and tax competition. European Economic Review, 50, 647–668. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bucovetsky, S. (1991). Asymmetric tax competition. Journal of Urban Economics, 30, 167–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bucovetsky, S., & Smart, M. (2006). The efficiency consequences of local revenue equalization: tax competition and tax distortions. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 8, 119–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burbidge, J., & Cuff, K. (2005). Capital tax competition and returns to scale. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35, 353–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choi, J. Y., & Yu, E. S. H. (2002). External economies in the international trade theory: a survey. Review of International Economics, 10, 708–728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlby, B. (2008). The Canadian federal-provincial fiscal equalization system. CESifo Dice Report 1/2008, pp. 3–9. Google Scholar
  14. DePater, J. A., & Myers, G. M. (1994). Strategic capital tax competition: a pecuniary externality and a corrective device. Journal of Urban Economics, 36, 66–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey, R. L., & Wettstein, G. (2008). Reform of the Swiss federal equalization system. CESifo Dice Report 1/2008, pp. 21–26. Google Scholar
  16. Fujita, M., & Thisse, J.-F. (2002). Economics of agglomeration. Cities, industrial location, and regional growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaigne, C., & Riou, S. (2007). Globalization, asymmetric tax competition, and fiscal equalization. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 9, 901–925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Köthenbürger, M. (2002). Tax competition and fiscal equalization. International Tax and Public Finance, 9, 391–408. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krogstrup, S. (2008). Standard tax competition and increasing returns. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 10, 547–561. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mansoorian, A., & Myers, G. M. (1993). Attachment to home and efficient purchases of population in a fiscal externality economy. Journal of Public Economics, 52, 117–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Michel, P., Perrot, A., & Thisse, J.-F. (1996). Interregional equilibrium with heterogeneous labor. Journal of Population Economics, 9, 95–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Myers, G. M. (1990). Optimality, free mobility, and the regional authority in a federation. Journal of Public Economics, 43, 107–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ottaviano, G., & van Ypersele, T. (2005). Market access and tax competition. Journal of International Economics, 67, 25–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peralta, S., & van Ypersele, T. (2005). Factor endowments and welfare levels in an asymmetric tax competition game. Journal of Urban Economics, 57, 258–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smart, M. (1998). Taxation and deadweight loss in a system of intergovernmental transfers. Canadian Journal of Economics, 31, 189–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wellisch, D. (1994). Interregional spillovers in the presence of perfect and imperfect household mobility. Journal of Public Economics, 55, 167–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wildasin, D. (1989). Interjurisdictional capital mobility: fiscal externality and a corrective subsidy. Journal of Urban Economics, 25, 193–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson, J. D. (1991). Tax competition with interregional differences in factor endowments. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 21, 423–451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson, J. D. (1999). Theories of tax competition. National Tax Journal, 52, 269–304. Google Scholar
  30. Zodrow, G. R., & Mieszkowski, P. (1986). Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation, and the underprovision of local public goods. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 356–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergNurembergGermany

Personalised recommendations