International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 397–415 | Cite as

Majority voting and endogenous timing in tax competition

Article

Abstract

We model a timing game in tax competition where the initial capital is unevenly endowed within the country and the tax policies are determined under a majority voting regime. The model is characterized by a novel feature: The decisive voter imports capital at the individual level, while the country exports it at the national level. The paper finds that governments endogenously choose to play a sequential-move game, which is unlikely to associate with full capital ownership in the tax competition literature.

Keywords

Tax competition Endogenous timing Voting 

JEL Classification

H30 H87 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments, which have helped to substantially improve this paper. The research has been supported by Grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Nos. 25245042 and 15H03366).

References

  1. Altshuler, R., & Goodspeed, T. (2002). Follow the leader? Evidence on European and US tax competition. In Working Papers 200226. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  2. Altshuler, R., & Goodspeed, T. (2015). Follow the leader? Evidence on European and US tax competition. Public Finance Review, 43, 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bárcena-Ruiz, J. C. (2007). Endogenous timing in a mixed duopoly: Price competition. Journal of Economics, 91, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borck, R. (2003). Tax competition and the choice of tax structure in a majority voting model. Journal of Urban Economics, 54, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chatelais, N., & Peyrat, M. (2008). Are small countries leaders of the European tax competition?. Documents de travail du Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne 2008.58-ISSN:1955-611X.2008.Google Scholar
  7. Congleton, R. D. (2004). The median voter model. In C. K. Rowley & F. Schneider (Eds.), The encyclopedia of public choice (pp. 707–712). Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Congleton, R. D., & Benett, R. W. (1995). On the political economy of state highway expenditures: Some evidence of the relative performance of alternative public choice models. Public Choice, 84, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Congleton, R. D., & Shughart, W. F. (1990). The growth of social security: Electoral push or political pull? Economic Inquiry, 28, 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies, R. B., & Naughton, H. T. (2014). Cooperation in environmental policy: A spatial approach. International Tax and Public Finance, 21, 923–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  12. Dowrick, S. (1986). von Stackelberg and Cournot duopoly. The RAND Journal of Economics, 17, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eichner, T. (2014). Endogenizing leadership and tax competition: Externalities and public goods provision. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 46, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuest, C., & Huber, B. (2001). Tax competition and tax coordination in a median voter model. Public Choice, 107, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey, B. (1994). The role of democracy in securing just and prosperous societies direct democracy: Politico-economic lessons from swiss experience. American Economic Review, 84, 338–342.Google Scholar
  16. Gal-Or, E. (1985). First mover and second mover advantages. International Economic Review, 26, 649–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton, J., & Slutsky, S. (1990). Endogenous timing in duopoly games: Stackelberg or Cournot equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior, 2, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holcombe, R. (1980). An empirical test of the median voter model. Economic Inquiry, 18, 260–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hindriks, J., & Nishimura, Y. (2015a). A note on equilibrium leadership in tax competition models. Journal of Public Economics, 121, 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hindriks, J., & Nishimura, Y. (2015b). Equilibrium leadership in tax competition models with capital ownership: A rejoinder. CORE discussion paper 2015/21.Google Scholar
  22. Ida, T. (2014). International tax competition with endogenous sequencing. International Tax and Public Finance, 21, 228–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Itaya, J., Okamura, M., & Yamaguchi, C. (2008). Are regional asymmetries detrimental to tax coordination in a repeated game setting? Journal of Public Economics, 92, 2403–2411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kawachi, K., Ogawa, H., & Susa, T. (2015). Endogenous timing in tax and public investment competition. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 171, 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kempf, H., & Rota-Graziosi, G. (2010). Endogenizing leadership in tax competition. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 768–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kempf, H., & Rota-Graziosi, G. (2015). Further analysis on leadership in tax competition: The role of capital ownership—a comment. International Tax and Public Finance, 22, 1028–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ogawa, H. (2013). Further analysis on leadership in tax competition: The role of capital ownership. International Tax and Public Finance, 20, 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Overesch, M., & Rincke, J. (2011). What drives corporate tax rates down? A reassessment of globalization, tax competition, and dynamic adjustment to shocks. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 113, 579–602.Google Scholar
  29. Peralta, S., & van Ypersele, T. (2005). Factor endowments and welfare levels in an asymmetric tax competition game. Journal of Urban Economics, 57, 258–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (1992). The politics of 1992: Fiscal policy and European integration. The Review of Economic Studies, 59, 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Redoano, M. (2007). Fiscal Interactions among European countries. Does the EU Matter? CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1952.Google Scholar
  32. Wilson, J. D. (1986). A theory of interregional tax competition. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zodrow, G. R., & Mieszkowski, P. M. (1986). Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation, and the under-provision of public goods. Journal of Urban Economics, 19, 356–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EconomicsThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Public PolicyThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  3. 3.College of Business Administration and Information ScienceChubu UniversityKasugai-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations