Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 831–862 | Cite as

Tax competition with spillover public goods in a median location model

  • Jyh-Fa TsaiEmail author
In Honor of Shin-Kun Peng


This study explores the role of median location in a core-periphery model (using a footloose entrepreneur version) with public goods. Taxation for each region is used for producing public good with spillovers effect among regions. Two kinds of taxation are considered. One is the Nash tax with the goal of each region’s utility. The other is the optimal taxation with the goal of the sum of each region’s utility. Two kinds of location configurations for three regions are considered: one is an equilateral triangle (with no median location). The other is the configuration in which three points are equidistant between two adjacent points on a line (with median region). The results show that the Nash tax rate of median region will be smaller than that of non-median region for a symmetric distribution of firms. On the contrary, the optimal tax of median region will be higher than that of non-median region.


Agglomeration Public goods Median location Economic geography Tax competition Optimal taxation 



I would like to thank two anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions and Xiwei Zhu as well as participants at the 7th Asian Seminar in Regional Science at National Taiwan University in 2017 for their comments. Financial support from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (NSC 102-2410-H-305-004-MY2) is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Ago T, Isono I, Tabuchi T (2006) Locational disadvantage of the hub. Ann Reg Sci 40:819–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson F, Forslid R (2003) Tax competition and economic geography. J Public Econ Theory 5:279–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin R, Krugman P (2004) Agglomeration, integration and tax harmonization. Reg Sci Urban Econ 48:1–23Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin R, Okubo T (2009) Tax reform, delocation, and heterogeneous firms. Scand J Econ 111:741–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin R, Okubo T (2014) Tax competition with heterogeneous firms. Spat Econ Anal 9:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer C, Davies R, Haufler A (2014) Economic integration and the optimal corporate tax structure with heterogeneous firms. J Public Econ 110:42–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker J, Fuest C (2011) Optimal tax policy when firms are internationally mobile. Int Tax Public Financ 18:580–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloch F, Zenginobuz E (2006) Tiebout equilibria in local public good economies with spillovers. J Public Econ 90:1745–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castro S, Correia-da-Silva J, Mossay P (2012) The core-periphery model with three regions and more. Pap Reg Sci 91:401–418Google Scholar
  10. Dixit AK, Stiglitz JE (1977) Monopolistic competition and optimum product diversity. Am Econ Rev 67(3):297–308Google Scholar
  11. Forslid R, Okubo T (2012) On the development strategy of countries of intermediate size—an analysis of heterogeneous firms in a multi-region framework. Eur Econ Rev 56(4):747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forslid R, Ottaviano G (2003) An analytically solvable core-periphery model. J Econ Geogr 3:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaspar JM, Castro S, Correia-da-Silva J (2018) Agglomeration patterns in a multi-regional economy without income effects. Econ Theor 66:863–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haufler A, Stähler F (2013) Tax competition in a simple model with heterogeneous firms: how larger markets reduce profit taxes. Int Econ Rev 54:665–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kato H, Okubo T (2018) Market size and globalization. J Int Econ 111:34–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kind HJ, Knarivk KHM, Schjelderup G (2000) Competing for capital in a ‘lumpy’ world. J Public Econ 78:253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krugman PR (1991) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99:483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ludema R, Wooton I (2000) Economic geography and the fiscal effects of regional integration. J Int Econ 52:331–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Sullivan A (2012) Urban economics, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Ogawa H (2006) Tax competition, spillovers, and subsidies. Ann Reg Sci 40:849–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Riou S (2006) Transfer and tax competition in a system of hierarchical governments. Reg Sci Urban Econ 36:249–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Samuelson P (1954) The transfer problem and transport costs, II: analysis of effects of trade impediments. Econ J 64:264–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Takahashi T (2003) International trade and inefficiency in the location of production. J Jpn Int Econ 17:134–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditure. J Polit Econ 64:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weber A (1909) Uber den Standort der industrie. In Germany, translated to theory of location and industries. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (in English in 1929) Google Scholar
  26. Wilson JD (1999) Theory of tax competition. Natl Tax J 52:269–304Google Scholar
  27. Zodrow G, Mieszkowski P (1986) Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation and the underprovision of local public goods. J Urban Econ 19:356–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Section of the Regional Science Association International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Urban PlanningNational Taipei UniversityNew Taipei CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations