Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical evidence on the effects of tax incentives

  • Published:
International Tax and Public Finance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers two empirical questions about tax incentives: (i) are incentives used as tools of tax competition and (ii) how effective are incentives in attracting investment? To answer these, we prepared a new dataset of tax incentives in over 40 Latin American, Caribbean and African countries for the period 1985–2004. Using spatial econometrics techniques for panel data to answer the first question, we find evidence for strategic interaction in tax holidays, in addition to the well-known competition over the corporate income tax (CIT) rate. We find no robust evidence, however, for competition over investment allowances and tax credits. Using dynamic panel data econometrics to answer the second question, we find evidence that lower CIT rates and longer tax holidays are effective in attracting FDI in Latin America and the Caribbean but not in Africa. None of the tax incentives is effective in boosting gross private fixed capital formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altshuler, R., & Goodspeed, T. J. (2002). Follow the leader? Evidence on European and US tax competition. Rutgers University Department of Economics Working Papers, 200226.

  • Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Hingham: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bond, S. R. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellano, M., & Bover, O. (1995). Another look at the instrumental variables estimation of error components models. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asiedu, E. (2002). On the determinants of foreign direct investment to developing countries: is Africa different. World Development, 30(1), 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asiedu, E. (2006). Foreign direct investment in Africa: the role of natural resources, market size, government policy, institutions and political instability. The World Economy, 29(1), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azemar, C., & Delios, A. (2008). Tax competition and FDI: the special case of developing countries. Journal of Japanese International Economics, 22, 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azemar, C., Desbordes, R., & Mucchielli, J.-L. (2007). Do tax sparing agreements contribute to the attraction of FDI in developing countries? International Tax and Public Finance, 14, 543–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besley, T., & Case, A. (1995). Incumbent behavior: vote-seeking, tax-setting, and Yardstick competition. American Economic Review, 85, 25–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, R. M. (2000). Tax incentives for investment in developing countries. In G. Perry, J. Whalley, & G. McMahon (Eds.), Fiscal reform and structural change in developing countries (Vol. 1, pp. 201–221). New York: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blonigen, B. A., Davies, R., Waddell, G. R., & Naughton, H. (2007). FDI in space: spatial autoregressive relationships in foreign direct investment. European Economic Review, 51(5), 1303–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blonigen, B. A., & Wang, M. (2004). Inappropriate pooling of wealthy and poor countries in empirical FDI studies. NBER working paper, 10378.

  • Bloom, N., Griffith, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2002). Do R&D tax credits work? Evidence from a panel of countries, 1979–1997. Journal of Public Economics, 85, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 11–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolnick, B. (2009). Investing in Mozambique: the role of fiscal incentives. Nathan Associates Inc., Arlington. Produced for USAID under the Mozambique Trade and Investment Project. http://www.tipmoz.com/library/resources/documents/NATHAN-226267-v1-Mozambique_Fiscal_Incentives.pdf.

  • Bondonio, D., & Greenbaum, R. T. (2007). Do local tax incentives affect economic growth? What mean impacts miss in the analysis of enterprise zone policies. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 37, 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brueckner, J. K. (2003). Strategic interaction among governments: an overview of empirical studies. International Regional Science Review, 26, 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucovetsky, S. (1991). Asymmetric tax competition. Journal of Urban Economics, 30, 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crabbé, K., & Vandenbussche, H. (2009). Are your firm’s taxes set in Warsaw? Spatial tax competition in Europe. CEPR discussion papers 7159.

  • Davies, R. B., & Voget, J. (2010). Tax competition in an expanding European Union. GEE papers 0033.

  • De Mooij, R. A., & Ederveen, S. (2003). Taxation and foreign direct investment: a synthesis of empirical research. International Tax and Public Finance, 10(6), 673–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereux, M. P., Griffith, R., & Klemm, A. (2002). Corporate income tax reforms and international tax competition. Economic Policy, 17(35), 451–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereux, M. P., Griffith, R., & Simpson, H. (2007). Firm location decisions, regional grants and agglomeration externalities. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereux, M., Lockwood, B., & Redoano, M. (2008). Do countries compete over corporate tax rates. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1210–1235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, A. (2006). The influence of globalization on taxes and social policy: an empirical analysis for OECD countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 22, 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elhorst, J. P. (2010). Spatial panel data models. In M. M. Fischer & A. Getis (Eds.), Handbook of applied spatial analysis (pp. 377–407). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M., Madies, T., & Paty, S. (2008). Public spending interactions and local politics. Empirical evidence from French municipalities. Public Choice, 137, 57–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. N., Matyas, L., & Sevestre, P. (2008). Dynamic models for short panels. In L. Matyas (Ed.), The econometrics of panel data: fundamentals and recent developments in theory and practice (pp. 249–278). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasset, K. A., & Hubbard, R. G. (2002). Tax policy and business investment. In A. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (Eds.), Handbook of public economics (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, J. R. (1999). Lessons from behavioral responses to international taxation. National Tax Journal, 52(2), 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson, D. W. (1963). Capital theory and investment behavior. American Economic Review, 53, 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judson, R. A., & Owen, A. L. (1999). Estimating dynamic panel data models: a practical guide for macroeconomists. Economics Letters, 1, 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen, M., & Mansour, M. (2009). Revenue mobilization in Sub-Saharan Africa: challenges from globalization. IMF working paper, WP/09/157.

  • 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, 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelejian, H. H., & Prucha, I. R. (2004). Estimation of simultaneous systems of spatially interrelated cross sectional equations. Journal of Econometrics, 118, 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemm, A. (2010). Causes, benefits and risks of tax incentives. International Tax and Public Finance, 17(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukenova, M. (2008). Spatial dynamic panel model and system GMM: a Monte Carlo investigation. MPRA paper, No. 11569, November.

  • Lee, L., & Yu, J. (2010). Some recent developments in spatial panel data models. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 40, 255–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, R., & Renelt, D. (1992). A sensitivity analysis of cross country growth regressions. American Economic Review, 82(4), 942–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madariaga, N., & Poncet, S. (2007). FDI in Chinese cities: spillovers and impact on growth. The World Economy, 30, 837–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankwin, N. G., Phelps, E. S., & Romer, P. M. (1995). The growth of nations. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1995(1), 275–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, J. M. (1995). Tax holidays and investment. In A. Shah (Ed.), Fiscal incentives for investment and innovation (pp. 165–194). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutti, J., & Grubert, H. (2004). Empirical asymmetries in foreign direct investment and taxation. Journal of International Economics, 62, 337–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T. C., Hoang, T. P., Cung, T. V., Freeman, N. J., & Ray, D. (2004). An empirical study of corporate income tax investment incentives for domestic companies in Vietnam. Vietnam National University. USAID. http://www.fiscalreform.net/images/vn_cit_incentives.pdf.

  • Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica, 49(6), 1417–1426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001). Corporate tax incentives for foreign direct investment. OECD Tax Policy Study, No. 4.

  • Overesch, M., & Rinke, J. (2009). What drives corporate tax rates down? A reassessment of globalization, tax competition, and dynamic adjustment to shocks. CESifo working paper, No. 2535.

  • Price Waterhouse/PriceWaterhouseCoopers, various years. World corporate tax guide.

  • Redoano, M. (2007). Fiscal interactions among European countries. Does the EU matter? CESIFO working paper, No. 1952, March.

  • Shah, A. (1995). Fiscal incentives for investment and innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinn, H.-W. (2003). The new systems competition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Swenson, D. L. (1994). The impact of US tax reform on foreign direct investment in the United States. Journal of Public Economics, 54, 243–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squalli, J., & Wilson, K. (2006). A new approach to measuring trade openness. EPRU working paper, 06-07.

  • Van Parys, S., & James, S. (2009). Why tax incentives may be an ineffective tool to encouraging investment? The role of the investment climate. Mimeo World Bank, December 2009.

  • Van Parys, S., & James, S. (2010). The effectiveness of tax incentives in attracting investment: panel data evidence from the CFA franc zone. International Tax and Public Finance, 17(4), 400–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, L. T., & Allen, N. (2001). Tax holidays to attract foreign direct investment: lessons from two experiments. In L. T. Wells, N. J. Allen, J. Morisset, & N. Prinia (Eds.), Using tax incentives to compete for foreign investment—are they worth the costs? Foreign Investment Advisory Service, Occasional Paper 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zee, H. H., Stotsky, J. G., & Ley, E. (2002). Tax incentives for business investment: a primer for policy makers in developing countries. World Development, 30(9), 1497–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zodrow, G. R., & Mieszkowski, P. (1986). Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation and the underprovision of local public goods. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 356–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Gent, Belgium

    Stefan Van Parys

  2. European Central Bank, Kaiserstrasse 29, 60311, Frankfurt, Germany

    Alexander Klemm

Authors
  1. Alexander Klemm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Van Parys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Van Parys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klemm, A., Van Parys, S. Empirical evidence on the effects of tax incentives. Int Tax Public Finance 19, 393–423 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-011-9194-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-011-9194-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation