Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

When are origin and destination regimes equivalent?


A series of equivalence results are established which show that a switch from a destination regime of commodity taxation to an origin regime has no real effects. These significantly generalize those in the existing literature. Assuming uniformity of taxes within each country, equivalence applies (1) in a general competitive economy with an arbitrary (finite) number of goods and factors of production, arbitrary factor taxes, and arbitrary transport costs; (2) in an imperfectly competitive economy with any form of imperfect competition and with transport costs; and (3) in monetary economies where there is some price rigidity (such as nominal wage rigidity) as long as the exchange rate is flexible. Conditions under which nonequivalence applies are also identified and discussed.

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


  1. Berglas, E. (1981). “Harmonization of Commodity Taxes: Destination, Origin and Restricted Origin Principles.”Journal of Public Economics 16, 377–387.

  2. Blanchard, O.J., and S. Fischer. (1989).Lectures on Macroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  3. Dosser, D. (1964). “Welfare Effects of Tax Unions.”Review of Economic Studies 31, 179–184.

  4. Gale, D. (1982).Money: In Equilibrium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  5. Grossman, G.M. (1980). “Border Tax Adjustments: Do They Distort Trade?”Journal of International Economics 10, 117–128.

  6. Kanbur, R., and M. Keen. (1993). “Jeux sans frontieres: Tax Competition and Tax Coordination When Countries Differ in Size.”American Economic Review 83, 877–892.

  7. Lahiri, S., and M. Keen. (1992). “Destination and Origin Principles of Commodity Taxation: The Comparison Under Imperfect Competition.” Mimeo, University of Essex.

  8. Lee, C., M. Pearson, and S. Smith. (1988). “Fiscal Harmonisation: An Analysis of the European Commission's Proposals.” Institute of Fiscal Studies, Report No. 28.

  9. Lockwood, B. (1993). “Commodity Tax Competition Under Destination and Origin Principles,”Journal of Public Economics 52, 141–162.

  10. Lockwood B., D. de Meza, and G. D. Myles. (1993). “The Equivalence Between Destination and Restricted Origin Regimes.” University of Exeter Discussion Paper No. 93-06.

  11. Mintz, J., and H. Tulkens. (1986). “Commodity Tax Competition Between Member States of a Federation: Equilibrium and Efficiency.”Journal of Public Economics 29, 133–172.

  12. Shibata, H. (1967). “The Theory of Economic Unions: A Comparative Analysis of Customs Unions, Free Trade Areas and Tax Unions.” InFiscal Harmonisation in Common Markets (ed. C. Shoup). New York: Columbia University Press.

  13. Sinn, H.-W. (1989). “Tax Harmonisation and Tax Competition in Europe.”European Economic Review 34, 489–504.

  14. Whalley, J. (1979). “Uniform Domestic Tax Rates, Trade Distortions and Economic Integration.”Journal of Public Economics 11, 213–221. -. (1981).

  15. — 1981.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lockwood, B., De Meza, D. & Myles, G.D. When are origin and destination regimes equivalent?. Int Tax Public Finan 1, 5–24 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00874086

Download citation

Key words

  • origin
  • destination
  • taxation
  • equivalence