International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 338–349 | Cite as

Equilibrium leadership in tax competition models with capital ownership: a rejoinder



This paper reconciles two opposite results in the tax competition literature. Kempf and Rota-Graziosi (J Public Econ 94(9–10):768–776, 2010) and Hindriks and Nishimura (J Public Econ 121:66–68, 2015) have shown that the two Stackelberg outcomes prevail as the subgame perfect equilibria when capital is entirely owned by nonresidents. However, Ogawa (Int Tax Public Finance 20(3):474–484, 2013) has shown that the simultaneous-move outcome prevails when capital is entirely owned by residents. We develop a model in which capital ownership can vary freely between these two polar cases. We show that there exists a unique degree of residential capital ownership such that the equilibrium switches from the Stackelberg to the simultaneous-move outcomes. The chance for the simultaneous-move outcome to prevail increases with the extent of production asymmetry between regions. Partial ownership also induces a novel effect of tax leadership that we call the preference reversion effect.


Endogenous timing Tax competition Capital ownership 

JEL Classification

H30 H87 C72 



The authors would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief (Ronald Davies) and two anonymous referees for their useful comments and suggestions to our paper. Nishimura acknowledges the financial support from the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, 24530348, 15K03511) and Strategic Young Researcher Overseas Visits Program for Accelerating Brain Circulation (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, J2402).


  1. Eichner, T. (2014). Endogenizing leadership and tax competition: Externalities and public good provision. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 46, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hamilton, J. H., & Slutsky, S. M. (1990). Endogenous timing in duopoly games: Stackelberg or Cournot equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior, 2(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Harsanyi, J. C., & Selten, R. (1988). A general theory of equilibrium selection in games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hindriks, J., & Nishimura, Y. (2015). A note on equilibrium leadership in tax competition models. Journal of Public Economics, 121, 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kawachi, K., Ogawa, H., & Susa, T. (2015). Endogenous timing in tax and public investment competition. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 171(4), 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kempf, H., & Rota-Graziosi, G. (2010). Endogenizing leadership in tax competition. Journal of Public Economics, 94(9–10), 768–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kempf, H., & Rota-Graziosi, G. (2015a). Further analysis on leadership in tax competition: The role of capital ownership—A comment. International Tax and Public Finance, 22(6), 1028–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kempf, H., & Rota-Graziosi, G. (2015b). Endogenous leadership in tax competition models with market power: Capital distribution matters. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  9. Ogawa, H. (2013). Further analysis on leadership in tax competition: The role of capital ownership. International Tax and Public Finance, 20(3), 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and COREUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.Graduate School of EconomicsOsaka UniversityToyonaka-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations