Economia Politica

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 37–64 | Cite as

Balancing the equity-efficiency trade-off in personal income taxation: an evolutionary approach

  • Simone PellegrinoEmail author
  • Guido Perboli
  • Giovanni Squillero


In this paper we propose a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for supporting the definition of a personal income tax reform. As a case study, we apply this methodology to the Italian income tax, and consider a recently implemented tax cut. Our optimization algorithm can determine a set of tax structures that maximize the redistributive effect of the tax while minimizing its inefficiency—considering for the former the Reynolds–Smolensky index and for the latter the weighted average of taxpayers’ effective marginal tax rates. The approach also takes into account two additional factors: the tax has to guarantee a specific revenue and to minimize the share of losing taxpayers with respect to the pre-reform situation. Experimental results demonstrate that the methodology we employ can support the policymaker’s decisions in complex, real-world situations.


Personal Income Tax Evolutionary algorithms Multi-objective optimization 

JEL Classification

C63 C81 H23 H24 



We would like to thank Giampaolo Arachi, Massimiliano Piacenza, Gilberto Turati, Achille Vernizzi, and two anonymous referees for their useful comments that helped us improve the paper. Partial funding for this project was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) through its Discovery Grants program. While working on this paper, Guido Perboli was the head of the Urban Mobility and Logistics Systems (UMLS) initiative of the interdepartmental Center for Automotive Research and Sustainable mobility (CARS) at Politecnico di Torino, Italy.


  1. Aaberge, R., & Colombino, U. (2013). Using a microeconometric model of household labour supply to design optimal income taxes. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 115(2), 449–475. Scholar
  2. Adhikari, B., & Alm, J. (2016). Evaluating the economic effects of flat tax reforms using synthetic control methods. Southern Economic Journal, 83(2), 437–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alm, J., Sheffrin, S. M., & Dronyk-Trosper, T. (2017). What drives state tax reform. Public Finance Review,. Scholar
  4. Andersen, T. M., & Maibom, J. (2016). The big trade-off between efficiency and equity---is it there?, cepr discussion paper 11189, Tech. rep.Google Scholar
  5. Arachi, G., Bucci, V., Longobardi, E., Panteghini, P. M., Parisi, M. L., Pellegrino, S., et al. (2012). Fiscal reforms during fiscal consolidation: The case of italy, FinanzArchiv: Public Finance. Analysis, 68(4), 445–465. Scholar
  6. Bank of Italy. (2015). Household income and wealth in 2014, supplements to the statistical bulletin, year xxv (new series), no. 64., Tech. rep.Google Scholar
  7. Bucur, D., Iacca, G., Gaudesi, M., Squillero, G., & Tonda, A. (2016). Optimizing groups of colluding strong attackers in mobile urban communication networks with evolutionary algorithms. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 40, 416–426. Scholar
  8. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: Murray Google Scholar.Google Scholar
  9. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deplano, I., Squillero, G., & Tonda, A. (2016). Anatomy of a portfolio optimizer under a limited budget constraint. Evolutionary Intelligence, 9(4), 125–136. Scholar
  11. Eiben, A., & Smith, J. (2015). Introduction to evolutionary computing. Berlin: Springer. Scholar
  12. Feldstein, M. (1999). Tax avoidance and the deadweight loss of the income tax. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(4), 674–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fogel, D. B. (1998). Evolutionary computation: The fossil record. Hoboken: Wiley-IEEE Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gini, C. (1914). Sulla misura della concentrazione e della variabilità dei caratteri. Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 73(2), 1203–1248.Google Scholar
  15. Herrera, F., Lozano, M., & Sánchez, A. M. (2003). A taxonomy for the crossover operator for real-coded genetic algorithms: An experimental study. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(3), 309–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Italian Department of Finance, Statistical reports, Tech. rep. (2016).Google Scholar
  17. Kakwani, N. (1976). Measurement of tax progressivity: An international comparison. Economic Journal, 87(345), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lambert, P. J. (2001). The distribution and redistribution of income. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of political economy. Harlow: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
  20. Mirrlees, J. A. (1971). An exploration in the theory of optimum income taxation. The Review of Economic Studies, 38(2), 175–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mirrlees, J., Adam, S., Besley, T., Blundell, R., Bond, S., Chote, R., et al. (2011). Tax by design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Monti, M. G., Pellegrino, S., & Vernizzi, A. (2015). On measuring inequity in taxation among groups of income units. Review of Income and Wealth, 61(1), 43–58. Scholar
  23. Morini, M., & Pellegrino, S. (2018). Personal income tax reforms: A genetic algorithm approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(3), 994–1004. Scholar
  24. Pellegrino, S., Piacenza, M., & Turati, G. (2011). Developing a static microsimulation model for the analysis of housing taxation in italy. The International Journal of Microsimulation, 4(2), 73–85.Google Scholar
  25. Pellegrino, S., & Vernizzi, A. (2013). On measuring violations of the progressive principle in income tax systems. Empirical Economics, 45(1), 239–245. Scholar
  26. Peter, K., Buttrick, S., & Duncan, D. (2010). Global reform of personal income taxation, 1981–2005: Evidence from 189 countries. National Tax Journal, 63(3), 447–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reynolds, M., & Smolensky, E. (1977). Public expenditures, taxes and the distribution of income: The United States, 1950, 1961 1970. New York: New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Roed, K., & Strom, S. (2002). Progressive taxes and the labour market: Is the trade-off between equality and efficiency inevitable? Journal of Economic Surveys, 16(1), 77–110. Scholar
  29. Saez, E. (2001). Using elasticities to derive optimal income tax rates. The Review of Economic Studies, 68(1), 205–229. Scholar
  30. Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundation of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sanchez, E., Squillero, G., & Tonda, A. (2012). Industrial applications of evolutionary algorithms, vol. 34 of intelligent systems reference library. Berlin: Springer. (In Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Squillero, G., & Tonda, A. (2016). Divergence of character and premature convergence: A survey of methodologies for promoting diversity in evolutionary optimization. Information Sciences, 329, 782–799.,
  33. Takahashi, M., Kita, H. (2001). A crossover operator using independent component analysis for real-coded genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2001 congress on evolutionary computation, 2001 (Vol. 1, pp. 643–649). IEEE.Google Scholar
  34. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Statistics—ESOMASUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  2. 2.ICT for City Logistics and Enterprises CenterPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  3. 3.CIRRELTMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Politecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations