Public Choice

, Volume 161, Issue 3–4, pp 451–470 | Cite as

Do jurisdictions compete on taxes? A meta-regression analysis

  • Joan Costa-Font
  • Filipe De-Albuquerque
  • Hristos DoucouliagosEmail author


A sizable empirical literature examines government fiscal interactions. However, the empirical evidence is very mixed. We apply meta-regression analysis to quantify the size of inter-jurisdictional fiscal interactions and to explain the heterogeneity in empirical estimates. Several robust results emerge. While there are significant country differences, tax interactions exist in all countries studied and they are strongest in terms of total tax and weakest in terms of income tax. Interactions differ according to level of government: compared to the municipal level, horizontal tax competition is stronger when the jurisdiction is a county or a nation. We show that tax competition has actually not grown over time and that econometric specifications and estimation strategies influence reported fiscal interactions.


Fiscal interactions Horizontal tax competition Meta-regression analysis 

JEL Classification

H0 H73 R1 


  1. Adam, A., Kammas, P., & Lagou, A. (2013). The effect of globalization on capital taxation: What have we learned after 20 years of empirical studies? Journal of Macroeconomics, 35, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Besley, T. (2006). Principled agents? The political economy of good government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Besley, T., & Case, A. (1995). Incumbent behavior: Vote-seeking, tax-setting, and yardstick competition. American Economic Review, 85, 25–45.Google Scholar
  4. Besley, T., & Rosen, H. (1999). Sales taxes and prices: An empirical analysis. National Tax Journal, 52(2), 157–178.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. M. (1980). The power to tax: Analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Breton, A. (1996). Competitive governments: An economic theory of politics and public finance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brueckner, J. K. (2000). Welfare reform and the race to the bottom: Theory and evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 66, 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brueckner, J. K. (2003). Strategic interaction among governments: an overview of empirical studies. International Regional Science Review, 26, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Case, A. (1993). Interstate tax competition after TRA86. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12, 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Case, A., Rosen, H., & Hines, J. (1993). Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: Evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics, 52, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis in the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Costa-Font, J., & Pons-Novell, J. (2007). Public health expenditure and spatial interactions in a decentralized national health system. Health Economics, 16(3), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devereux, M., Griffith, R., & Klemm, A. (2002). Corporate income tax reform and international tax competition. Economic Policy, 35, 449–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Disdier, A.-C., & Head, K. (2008). The puzzling persistence of the distance effect on bilateral trade. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Djankov, S., & Murrell, P. (2002). Enterprise restructuring in transition: A quantitative survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 736–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doucouliagos, C. (1995). Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49, 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doucouliagos, C., & Stanley, T. D. (2013). Are all economic facts greatly exaggerated? Theory competition and selectivity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2), 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edmark, K., (2007). Strategic competition in Swedish local spending on childcare, schooling and care for the elderly. Department of Economics, Uppsala Universitet, Working Paper 21.Google Scholar
  19. Feld, L. P., & Heckemeyer, J. H. (2011). FDI and taxation: A meta-study. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(2), 233–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2001). Multinational companies and productivity: A meta-analysis. The Economic Journal, 111, 723–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haufler, A. (2001). Taxation in a global economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Henmi, M., & Copas, J. B. (2010). Confidence intervals for random effects meta-analysis and robustness to publication bias. Statistics in Medicine, 29, 2969–2983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelejian, H., & Prucha, I. (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, 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelejian, H., & Prucha, I. (1999). A generalized moments estimator for the autoregressive parameter in a spatial model. International Economic Review, 40, 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelejian, H., Prucha, I., & Yuzefovich, Y. (2004). Instrumental variable estimation of a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances: large and small sample results. In J. LeSage & R. K. Pace (Eds.), Advances in econometrics (Vol. 18, pp. 163–198). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Leibrecht, M., & Hochgatterer, C. (2012). Tax competition as a cause of falling corporate income tax rates: A survey of the empirical literature. Journal of Economy Surveys, 26, 616–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. LeSage, J. P., & Fischer, M. M. (2008). Spatial growth regressions: Model specification, estimation and interpretation. Spatial Economic Analysis, 3, 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. LeSage, J. P., & Pace, R. K. (2012). The biggest myth in spatial econometrics, manuscript.
  29. Oates, W. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1120–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts, C. J., & Stanley, T. D. (2005). Meta-regression analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Rom, M. (2006). Policy races in the American States. In K. Harrison (Ed.), Racing to the bottom? Provincial interdependence in the Canadian Federation (pp. 229–256). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  33. Salmon, P. (1987). Decentralization as an incentive scheme. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 3, 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schram, S. (2000). After welfare: The culture of postindustrial social policy. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  35. Simeon, R. (2006). Federalism and social justice. In S. L. Greer (Ed.), Territory, democracy, and justice: Regionalism and federalism in western democracies (pp. 18–43). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from chaff: Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stanley, T. D. (2008). Meta-regression methods for detecting and estimating empirical effects in the presence of publication selection. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 70, 103–127.Google Scholar
  38. Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, C. (2010). Picture this: A simple graph that reveals much ado about research. Journal of Economic Surveys, 24, 170–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. C. (2012). Meta-regression analysis in economics and business. Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. C. (2013a). Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods,. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1095.Google Scholar
  41. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, C. H. (2013b). Better than random: Multiple weighted least squares meta-analysis. SWP, Economics Series 2013-2, Deakin University.Google Scholar
  42. Stanley, T. D., Doucouliagos, H., Giles, M., Heckemeyer, J., Johnston, R. J., & Laroche, P. (2013). Meta-analysis of economics research reporting guidelines. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2), 390–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stanley, T. D., & Jarrell, S. B. (1989). Meta-regression analysis: A quantitative method of literature surveys. Journal of Economic Surveys, 3, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson, J. (1986). A theory of interregional tax competition. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, J. (1999). Theories of tax competition. National Tax Journal, 52, 269–304.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, J., & Wildasin, D. (2004). Tax competition: Bane or boon. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1065–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zodrow, G., & 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 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joan Costa-Font
    • 1
    • 2
  • Filipe De-Albuquerque
    • 4
  • Hristos Doucouliagos
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.London School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK
  2. 2.CESifoMunichGermany
  3. 3.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsBirkbeck, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations