Skip to main content

Local taxes and political influence: evidence from locally dominant firms in German municipalities


We analyze the impact of locally dominant firms—i.e. firms that contribute a sizeable share to municipalities’ revenues—on local business tax rates. We argue that these firms have considerable political power locally even if they are not large in the regional or national perspective. These locally dominant firms can use their political power to voice their concerns directly vis-à-vis the local government—a channel of influence that is hardly available in municipalities with an atomistic structure of tax payers. We hypothesize that municipalities with locally dominant firms will set lower tax rates than municipalities in which tax-payers’ concentration is low. We test the impact of tax-payers’ concentration on local business tax rates using data from 423 municipalities in the German state Hesse between 1998 and 2005. The estimation technique accounts for spatial lags and autoregressive disturbances. Results support our central hypothesis: the higher the tax-payers’ concentration, the lower the municipal business tax rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    We cannot rule out the possibility that this result is driven by an alternative interpretation. For details, see Sect. 3.

  2. 2.

    These rents result from the usage of common infrastructure, potentially increasing returns to scale due to clustering of economic activity and local policy promotion of interactions with other private actors or academic institutions which increase productivity (Holmes 1999).

  3. 3.

    Social scientists have compiled a large body of literature on the political influence of large firms in US politics. Drope and Hansen (2006) show that small firms engage in similar lobbying activities though to a smaller extent.

  4. 4.

    Haufler (1997) develops a model of two countries with different political power of labor unions. The difference in bargaining power of labor unions influences the allocation of capital and the business tax rates. Richter et al. (2009) show that firms in the USA can reduce the effective overall tax rate on their profits by lobbying. Unlike the literature reviewed above, they focus on the effect of lobbying on (firm-specific) tax breaks from narrow research and development credits and tax depreciation schedules. The effect on the nominal tax rate is not explored.

  5. 5.

    The mechanism “voice” has received very little attention in the tax and yardstick competition literature so far. Hendrick et al. (2007) are an exception. They find evidence for tax competition in property taxes but not in sales taxes for the Chicago metropolitan area. They conclude that “voice” is important because exit cannot save land-owners from bearing the tax burden of property taxes. Feld (1997) spells out the logic of exit and voice in the context of local income taxation and elements of direct democracy.

  6. 6.

    There are differences in the definition of the tax base for partnerships and corporations. These are of minor importance for the analysis to follow. It should also be noted that the German local business tax before 2008 allowed self-deductibility and thus the effective tax rate was lower than T/TB. However, these rules apply to all municipalities Therefore, we follow the existing studies and use the tax multiplier as central indicator to capture municipalities’ local business tax policies. For further details on the German local business tax, see for instance Scherf (2011).

  7. 7.

    Due to its privacy policy, the Statistical Office could not provide us with the data on the tax payments of the largest firm on the municipal level (not even the sum for the two or three largest firms).

  8. 8.

    Osterloh and Heinemann (2013) show that leftwing politicians are more supportive of harmonizing corporate taxes in the European Union. This results lends further support to our hypothesis.

  9. 9.

    Alternatively, the standardized revenues from the local business tax and local land tax are appropriate measures in this respect. Including standardized business tax revenues also helps to control for the possibility that a high HERFINDAHL variable is associated with an exceptionally large tax base. In this case, the low tax rate in this municipality may not result from fiscal pressure but from the fact that a low tax rate suffices to cover all expenditures. We did not include these variables in the regressions reported in the paper to avoid collinearity: The standardized revenues from the business tax are highly correlated with AV_TAXBASE (r = 0.82), while standardized revenues from the land tax are highly correlated with POP_DENS (r = 0.77). Further collinearity problems emerge from the fact that the fiscal equalization system directly links grants to own tax revenues. However, including standardized tax revenues from land and business taxes does not change the results.

  10. 10.

    This estimation approach follows the estimation theory developed by Kelejian and Prucha (1998, 2010). See also Anselin 1988, p. 186.

  11. 11.

    The displacement in rank for 1998 is more than 40 positions and more than 50 positions for 2004.

  12. 12.

    In the corresponding models, excluding the largest five municipalities requires us to use a new weighting matrix. This new matrix disregards any spatial influence of the five largest municipalities.

  13. 13.

    The difference is similar in 2001 and 2004.

  14. 14.

    We chose this approach and abstained from excluding the metropolitan area from the dataset like we did with the biggest 5 municipalities in table 4. The reason is that—in the spatial regression models used in this paper—excluding municipalities automatically requires to exclude their spatial influence altogether (i.e. exclude them from the weighting matrix).

  15. 15.

    We account for the fact that differences in tax rates between cities and smaller municipalities might result from different expenditure needs. The fact that German cities also have higher land taxes (“Grundsteuer”, which is the other main revenue source of municipalities for which they can choose the tax rate) points in this direction. To account for this, we ran an additional robustness check that follows Geys and Osterloh (2013) and replaces the endogenous variable with the difference between corporate tax rate and land tax rate. The HERFINDAHL variable remains significant, and the coefficient becomes even larger.


  1. Allers, M. A. (2012). Yardstick competition, fiscal disparities, and equalization. Economics Letters, 117, 4–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, J. E., & Wassmer, R. W. (1995). The decision to ‘bid for business’: Municipal behavior in granting property tax abatements. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 25, 739–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: Methods and models (studies in operational regional science). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Baldwin, R. E., & Krugman, P. (2004). Agglomeration, integration and tax harmonisation. European Economic Review, 48(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baldwin, R. E., & Okubo, T. (2014). Tax competition with heterogeneous firms. Spatial Economic Analysis, 9(3), 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baskaran, T. (2012). The flypaper effect: evidence from a natural experiment in Hesse. MPRA Paper No. 37144 (version March, 2012).

  7. Becker, G. S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Journal of Economics, XCVLL, 371–400.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Becker, S., Egger, P., & Merlo, V. (2012). How low business tax rates attract MNE activity: Municipality-level evidence from Germany. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 698–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Besley, T. J., & Case, A. C. (1995). Incumbent behavior: Vote seeking, tax setting and yardstick competition. American Economic Review, 85(1), 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bischoff, I., Boenisch, P., Haug, P., & Illy, A. (2013). Vertical grants and local public efficiency.IHW-Discussion Paper No 1/2013.

  11. Borck, R., & Pflüger, M. (2006). Agglomeration and tax competition. European Economic Review, 50(3), 647–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brueckner, J. K. (2003). Strategic Interaction among governments: An overview of empirical studies. International Regional Science Review, 26(2), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brueckner, J. K., & Saavedra, L. A. (2001). Do local governments engage in strategic property—Tax competition? National Tax Journal, LIV(2), 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Buettner, T. (2001). Local business taxation and competition for capital: The choice of the tax rate. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 21, 215–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Buettner, T. (2003). Tax base effects and fiscal externalities of local capital taxation: Evidence from a panel of German jurisdictions. Journal of Urban Economics, 54, 110–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buettner, T. (2006). The incentive effect of fiscal equalization transfers on tax policy. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 477–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chirinko, R. S., & Wilson, D. J. (2010). Can lower tax rates be bought? Business rent-seeking and tax competition among U.S. states. National Tax Journal, 63(4), 967–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dembour, C. (2008). Competition for business location: A survey. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 8, 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Drope, J. M., & Hansen, W. L. (2006). Does firm size matter? Analyzing business lobbying in the United States. Business and Politics, 8(2), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Drukker, D. M., Prucha, I. R., & Raciborski, R. (2011). Maximum-likelihood and generalized spatial two-stage least-squares estimators for a spatial-autoregressive model with spatialautoregressive disturbances. Technical report, ,

  21. Egger, P., Koethenbuerger, M., & Smart, M. (2010). Do fiscal transfers alleviate business tax competition? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Feld, L. P. (1997). Exit, voice and income taxes: The loyalty of voters. European Journal of Political Economy, 13, 255–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Foremny, D., & Riedel, N. (2012). Business taxes and the electoral cycle. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 3729.

  24. Fossen, F. M., & Steiner, V. (2014). The tax-rate elasticity of local business profits.Discussion Paper—School of Business and Economics—Freie Universität Berlin, No. 2014/28.

  25. Genschel, P., & Schwarz, P. (2011). Tax competition: A literature review. Socio-Economic Review, 9, 339–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Geys, B., & Osterloh, S. (2013). Borders as boundaries to fiscal policy interactions? An empirical analysis of politicians’ opinions on rivals in the competition for firms. Journal of Regional Science, 53(4), 583–606.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2001). Special interest politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Haufler, A. (1997). Factor taxation, income distribution and capital market integration. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 99(3), 425–446.

  29. Haufler, A., & Wooton, I. (1999). Country size and tax competition for foreign direct investment. Journal of Public Economics, 71, 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Heinemann, F., & Janeba, E. (2010). Viewing tax policy through party-colored glasses: What German politicians believe. German Economic Review, 12(3), 286–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hendrick, R., Wu, Y., & Jacob, B. (2007). Tax competition among municipal governments: Exit versus voice. Urban Affairs Review, 43, 221–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Holmes, T. J. (1999). How industries migrate when agglomeration economies are important. Journal of Urban Economics, 45(2), 240–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Inman, R. P. (1989). The local decision tax: Evidence from large U.S. cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 19, 455–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Janeba, E., Osterloh, S. (2012). Tax and the city—A theory of local tax competition and evidence for Germany. ZEW —Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 12-005.

  35. Kächelein, H. (2014). Asymmetric capital tax competition and choice of tax rate: Commuting as an explanation for tax differentials. International Tax and Public Finance, 21, 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kelejian, H. H., & Prucha, I. R. (1998). A generalized spatial two-stage least squares procedure for estimating a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 17(1), 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kelejian, H. H., & Prucha, I. R. (2010). Specification and estimation of spatial autoregressive models with autoregressive and heteroskedastic disturbances. Journal of Econometrics, 140(1), 53–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Koh, H., Riedel, N., & Böhm, T. (2013). Do governments tax agglomeration rents? Journal of Urban Economics, 75, 92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lai, Y. (2010). The political economy of capital market integration and tax competition. European Journal of Political Economy, 26, 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. La, Y. (2014). Asymmetric tax competition in the presence of lobbying. International Tax and Public Finance, 21, 66–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lenk, T., & Rudolph, H. -J. (2004). Die kommunalen Finanzausgleichssysteme in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Der Ausgleich von Finanzbedarf und Finanzkraft. Arbeitspapier Nr. 27 Institut für Finanzen Finanzwissenschaft, University of Leipzig.

  42. Lorz, O. (1998). Capital mobility, tax competition, and lobbying for redistributive capital taxation. European Journal of Political Economy, 14, 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Olson, M, Jr. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of public groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Osterloh, S., & Debus, M. (2012). Partisan politics in corporate taxation. European Journal of Political Economy, 28, 192–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Osterloh, S., & Heinemann, F. (2013). The political economy of corporate tax harmonization—Why do European politicians (dis)like minimum tax rates? European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 18–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Richter, B. K., Samphantharak, K., & Timmons, J. F. (2009). Lobbying and Taxes. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 893–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Revelli, F. (2006). Spatial interaction among governments. In: E. Ahmad & B. Giorgio (Eds.), Handbook of Fiscal Federalism (pp. 106–130) Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

  48. Scherf, W. (2011). Öffentliche Finanzen: Einführung in die Finanzwissenschaft (2nd ed.). Wien: UTB GmbH.

  49. Swank, D. (2002). Funding the welfare state: Globalization and the taxation of business in advanced market economies. Political Studies, 46, 671–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wilson, J. D. (1999). Theories of tax competition. National Tax Journal, 52(2), 269–304.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zimmermann, H. (2009). Kommunalfinanzen (2nd ed.). Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag

Download references


We thank Thushyanthan Baskaran Frédéric Blaeschke, Guido Bünstorf, Friedrich Heinemann, Steffen Osterloh, Reinhold Kosfeld and the participants of the Annual meeting of the EPCS 2014 in Cambridge, UK and two anonymous referees for helpful comments.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivo Bischoff.



See Table 6.

Table 6 Correlation matrix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bischoff, I., Krabel, S. Local taxes and political influence: evidence from locally dominant firms in German municipalities. Int Tax Public Finance 24, 313–337 (2017).

Download citation


  • Tax competition
  • Lobbying
  • Local business taxation
  • Germany
  • Spatial econometrics

JEL Classification

  • H71
  • C23
  • D72