Applying Pigovian Taxes on a Regional Basis: The Quest for a Normative Model

  • Luc Nijs


In Chapter 4 the concept of Pigovian taxes was broadly introduced. It was benchmarked against the current income tax systems and it was concluded that the Pigovian tax model can account for a robust model when introduced on a portfolio level and without the interference of other taxes applied at the same point in time. It could be instrumental towards all three major drivers of taxation, i.e. (1) consistently raising tax revenues, (2) redistribution of income, and (3) steering behavior towards socially desirable outcomes.


Member State Monetary Policy Comparative Advantage Regional Basis Economic Integration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. G. Whiteman, C. Hope, and P. Wadhams, (2013), Climate Science: Vast Costs of Arctic Change, Nature, Vol. 499, pp. 401–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    K. Ohmae, (2008), The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies, Harper Collins, New York, pp. 56–87, passim.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    EC, (2011), Proposal for a Council Directive regarding a common corporate consolidated tax base (CCCTB) of the EC of March 16, 2011, Com(2011) 121/4.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    S. Cnossen, (2013), Meer fiscale diversiteit in de Europese Unie, Rijkers bundel, Prisma Print, Tilburg University, pp. 27–46.Google Scholar
  5. 11.
    R. M. Bird, (1989), Tax Harmonization in Federations and Common Market, in M. Neumann and K. W. Roskamp (eds.), Public Finance and Performance of Enterprises, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, pp. 139–151.Google Scholar
  6. 12.
    S. Cnossen, (2013), Meer fiscale diversiteit in de Europese Unie, Rijkers bundel, Prisma Print, Tilburg University, pp. 44–45.Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    P. M. Romer, (1986), Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, pp. 1002–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. R. E. Lucas, (1988), On the Mechanics of Economic Development, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 16.
    A. Sen, (1994), Growth Economics: What and Why?, in L. Pasinetti and R. Solow (eds.), Economic Growth and the Structure of Long-Term Development, IEA Conference held in Varenna, Italy, Vol. 112.Google Scholar
  10. 17.
    A. Pike, A. Rodríguez-Pose, and J. Tomaney, (2006), Local and Regional Development, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  11. A. Pike, A. Rodríguez-Pose, and J. Tomaney, (2010), Handbook of Local and Regional Development, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  12. 19.
    A. J. Scott and M. Storper, (2003), Regions, Globalizations, Development, Regional Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 20.
    A. Ascani, R. Crescenzi, and S. Iammarinno, (2012), Regional Economic Development: A Review, Working Paper 01/03, London School of Economics and Political Science, p. 19.Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    R. Crescenzi and A. Rodríguez-Pose, (2011), Reconciling Top-Down and Bottom-Up Development Policies, Environment and Planning, A 43, pp. 773–780.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    A. Pike, A. Rodríguez-Pose, and J. Tomaney, (2006), Local and Regional Development, Routledge, London, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
  16. 26.
    P. Rozmahel, L. Kouba, L. Grochová, and N. Najman, (2013), Integration of CEE Countries: Increasing EU heterogeneity?, Working Paper Nr. 9, Their research was built on two fundamental questions: (1) what are the factors that distinguish between successful and less successful CEE countries in terms of the EU enlargement? and (2) how was heterogeneity in the EU developed during the last decade?Google Scholar
  17. 27.
    M. Höpner and A. Schäfer, (2012), Integration Among Unequals: How the Heterogeneity of European Varieties of Capitalism Shapes the Social and Democratic Potential of the EU, MPIfG Discussion Paper 12/5.Google Scholar
  18. 29.
    R. A. Dahl, (1999), Can International Organizations be Democratic? A Skeptic’s View, in I. Shapiro and C. Hacker-Cordón (eds.), Democracy’s Edges, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 19–36, in particular p. 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 30.
    N. Lindstrom, (2010), Service Liberalization in the Enlarged EU: A Race to the Bottom or the Emergence of Transnational Political Conflict?, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 48, pp. 1307–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 31.
    P. Manow, A. Schäfer, and H. Zorn, (2008), Europe’s Party-Political Centre of Gravity, 1957–2003, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 32.
    A. Schäfer, (2006), Resolving Deadlock: Why International Organizations Introduce Soft Law, European Law Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 194–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 33.
    J. Beckfield, (2006), European Integration and Income Inequality, American Sociological Review, pp. 964–985.Google Scholar
  23. Ph. Genschel, A. Kemmerling, and E. Seils, (2011), Accelerating Downhill: How the EU Shapes Corporate Tax Competition in the Single Market, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 49, pp. 585–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 34.
    M. Ciccarelli, E. Ortega, and M. T. Valderrama, (2012), Heterogeneity and Cross-Border Spill-overs in Macro-Economic Financial Linkages, ECB Working Paper Series, Nr. 1498.Google Scholar
  25. F. Canova, M. Ciccarelli, and P. Dallari, (2013), Spillover of Fiscal Shocks in the Euro Area, Working Paper, ECB Conference November 28–29, Heterogeneity in Currency Area.Google Scholar
  26. 35.
    J. König and R. Ohr, (2012), Homogeneous Groups within a Heterogeneous Community-Evidence from an Index Measuring European Economic Integration, Working Paper, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar
  27. 36.
    H. Badinger, (2005), Growth Effects of Economic Integration: Evidence from the EU Member States, Review of World Economics, Vol. 141, Issue 1, pp. 50–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R. Baldwin, (2006), In or Out: Does it Matter? An Evidence-Based Analysis of the Euro’s Trade Effects, Center for Economic Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
  29. 37.
    P. De Grauwe, (2006), What Have We Learnt about Monetary Integration since the Maastricht Treaty?, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 44, pp. 711–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. F. P. Mongelli and J. L. Vega, (2006), What Effects is EMU having on the Euro Area and its Member Countries? An Overview, ECB Working Paper, Nr. 599.Google Scholar
  31. 38.
    L. Baele, A. Ferrando, P. Hördahl, E. Krylova, and C. Monnet, (2004), Measuring Financial Integration in the Euro Area, ECB Occasional Paper Series, Nr. 14.Google Scholar
  32. 39.
    E. Nowotny, P. Mooslechner, and D. Ritzberger-Grünwald, (2009), The Integration of European Labour Markets, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 40.
    F. P. Mongelli, E. Dorrucci, and I. Agur, (2007), What Does European Institutional Integration Tell Us About Trade Integration?, Integration and Trade, Vol. 11, Issue 26, pp. 151–200.Google Scholar
  34. 42.
    I. Arribas, F. Pérez, and E. Tortosa-Ausina, (2006), Measuring International Economic Integration: Theory and Evidence of Globalization, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  35. A. Cheptea, (2011), Border Effects and European Integration, Economics Studies Conference on Measuring Economic Integration Working Paper.Google Scholar
  36. 44.
    S. G. Chechetti, A. Sen, J. Caruana, R. Menon, and J. D. Uribe, (2012), The Future of Financial Globalization, BIS Papers Nr. 69Google Scholar
  37. P. R. Lane, (2012) Financial Globalization and the Crisis, BIS Working Paper Nr. 397.Google Scholar
  38. S. Claessens and N. van Hooren, (2014), The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Banking Globalization, IMF Working Paper Nr. WP/14/197.Google Scholar
  39. 45.
    World Economic Forum, (2010), The Future of the Global Financial System, A Near-Term Outlook and Long-Term Scenarios, World Scenario Series.Google Scholar
  40. 47.
    D. Felix, (2003), The Past as Future? The Contribution of Financial Globalization to the Current Crisis of Neo-Liberalism as a Development Strategy, Working Paper Series Nr. 69, PERI, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  41. 48.
    S. B. Kamin, (2010), Financial Globalization and Monetary Policy, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System International Finance Discussion Papers, Nr. 1002.Google Scholar
  42. 49.
    E. Heckscher, (1919), The Effects of Foreign Trade on the Distribution of Income, Ekonomisk Tidskrift, Vol. 21, pp. 497–512.Google Scholar
  43. 50.
    B. Ohlin, (1967), Interregional and International Trade, Harvard University Press [1933], Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  44. 51.
    W. J. Baumol and A. S. Blinder, (2011), Economics: Principles and Policies, Cengage Learning, London, p. 50.Google Scholar
  45. 52.
    ‘If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage’. A. Smith, (2014), The Wealth of Nations, Simon and Brown [1776], New York, p. 133.Google Scholar
  46. 53.
    D. Ricardo, (2010), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Kessinger Publishing LLC [1817], Whitefish.Google Scholar
  47. 54.
    P. Krugman, (2010), A Globalization Puzzle, NY Times, February, 21.Google Scholar
  48. 60.
    W. R. Cline, (1997), Trade and Income Distribution, Institute for International Economics, Washington, pp. 183–185.Google Scholar
  49. 61.
    A. Heston, R. Summers, and B. Aten, (2012), Penn World Table Version 7.1, Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania, Scholar
  50. J. Srai and L. Alinaghian, (2013), Value Chain Reconfiguration in Highly Disaggregated Industrial Systems: Examining the Emergence of Health Care Diagnostics, Global Strategy Journal, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 88–108. Other industries prone to disaggregation are IT, retail, oil and gas, etc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 64.
    S. Redding and M. Vera-Martin, (2006), Factor Endowment and Production in European Regions, Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer, Vol. 142, Issue 1, pp. 1–32. The results of the different studies will not be reported or discussed in this work, as the focus remains on the usefulness of the H-O model within the context of a regional application of Pigovian taxes. The question of the (relative) factor characteristics of individual member states is therefore less relevant.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 65.
    A. M. Ferraginna and F. Pastore, (2004), Factor Endowment and Market Size in EU-CEE Trade: Would Human Capital Change the Actual Quality Trade Patterns?, Eastern European Economics, Vol. 43, Issue 1, pp. 5–33.Google Scholar
  53. 66.
    DG Regional Policy, (2009), A Study on the Factors of Regional Competitiveness. A Draft Final Report for the European Commission Directorate-General Regional Policy.Google Scholar
  54. 67.
    Y. Kandogan, (2005), Trade Creation and Diversion Effects of Europe’s Regional Liberalization Agreements, William Davidson Institute Working Paper Nr. 746.Google Scholar
  55. 68.
    L. Fontagné, M. Freudenberg, and G. Gaulier, (2005), Disentangling Horizontal and Vertical Intra-Industry Trade, CEPII Working Paper.Google Scholar
  56. OECD, (2005), Measuring Globalisation: OECD Handbook on Economic Globalisation Indicators, OECD, Paris — Glossary.Google Scholar
  57. 70.
    M. Cabral, R. Falvey, and Chris Milner, (2013), Endowment Differences and the Composition of Intra-Industry Trade, Vol. 21, Issue 3 (August 2013), pp. 401–418.Google Scholar
  58. 71.
    H. Berger and T. T. Moutos (eds.), (2004), Managing European Union Enlargement, CESifo Seminar Series, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  59. 72.
    B. Dettori, E. Maroccu, and R. Paci, (2009), Total Factor Productivity, Intangible Assets and Spatial Dependence in the European Regions, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  60. 73.
    D. R. Davis and D. E. Weinstein, (1999), Economic Geography and Regional Production Structure: An Empirical Investigation, European Economic Review, Vol. 43, pp. 379–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 74.
    D. R. Davis and D. E. Weinstein, (2001), Do Factor Endowments Matter for North-North Trade?, NBER Working Paper Nr. 8516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. S. Marjit and E. Yu (eds.), (2008), Contemporary and Emerging Issues in Trade Theory and Policy, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  63. K. L. Sokoloff and S. L. Engermann, (2000), Institutions, Factor Endowments, and Paths of Development in the New World, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 75.
    E. E. Leamer, (1995), The Heckscher-Ohlin Model in Theory and Practice, Princeton Studies in International Finance, Nr. 77.Google Scholar
  65. 78.
    J. Romalis, (2004), Factor Proportions and the Structure of Commodity Trade, American Economic Review, Vol. 94, Issue 1, pp. 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 79.
    A. Minondo and F. Requena, (2011), Does Complexity Explain the Structure of Commodity Trade?, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  67. 80.
    A. P. Cusolito and D. Lederman, (2009), Technology Adoption and Factor Proportions in Open Economies: Theory and Evidence from the Global Computer Industry, World Bank, Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 81.
    G. Schaur, C. Xiang, and A. Savkhin, (2006), Factor Uses and the Pattern of Specialization, Purdue University Working Paper.Google Scholar
  69. 82.
    R. Zymak, (2010), Factor Proportions and the Growth of World Trade, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  70. 85.
    S. B. Linder, (1961), An Essay on Trade and Transformation, Almqvist & Wicksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  71. 86.
    J. Vanek, (1968), The Factor Proportions Theory: The N-Factor Case, Kyklos, Vol. 21, pp. 749–756. The results based on this new statistical mode were unconvincing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. H. P. Bowen, E. E. Leamer, and L. Sveiskaus, (1987), Multi-country, Multifactor Tests of the Factor Abundance Theory, American Economic Review, Vol. 77, Issue 5, pp. 791–809.Google Scholar
  73. 87.
    D. Trefler and S. C. Zhu, (2000), Beyond the Algebra of Explanation: HOV for the Technology Age, American Economic Review, Vol. 90, Issue 2, pp. 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. D. R. Davis, D. E. Weinstein, S. D. Bradford, and K. Shimpo, (1997), Using International and Japanese Regional Data to Determine When the Factor Abundance Theory of Trade Works, American Economic Review, Vol. 87, Issue 3, pp. 421–446.Google Scholar
  75. 88.
    C. Edwards, (1985), The Fall of the Hecksher-Ohlin Theory, The Fragmented World: Competing Perspectives on Trade, Money, and Crisis, Methuen, London and New York, pp. 29–40.Google Scholar
  76. F. Stewart, (1989), Recent Theories of International Trade: Some Implications for the South, in H. Kierzkowski (ed.), Monopolistic Competition and International Trade, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 84–108, claiming that the Heckscher-Ohlin theory is badly adapted to analyze south-north trade problems.Google Scholar
  77. A. J. Cohen and G. C. Harcourt, (2003), Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 92.
    Y. Shiozawa, (2009), Samuelson’s Implicit Criticism against Sraffa and the Sraffians and Two Other Questions, The Kyoto Economic Review, Vol. 78, Issue 1, pp. 19–37.Google Scholar
  79. 93.
    M. Melitz, (2003), The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity, Econometrica, Vol. 71, Issue 6, pp. 1695–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. D. Greenaway and R. Kneller, (2007), Firm Heterogeneity, Exporting and Foreign Direct Investment, The Economic Journal, Vol. 117, Issue 517, pp. 134–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 95.
    K. H. O’Rourke, (2003), Heckscher-Ohlin and Individual Attitudes Towards Globalization, NBER Paper Nr. 9872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. R. Findlay, R. Henriksson, H. Lindgren, and M. Lundahl (eds.), (2006), Eli Heckscher, International Trade, and Economic History, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  83. 96.
    K. H. O’Rourke and J. F. Williamson, (2000), The Heckscher-Ohlin Model Between 1400 and 2000: When It Explained Factor Price Convergence, When It Did Not, and Why, CEPR Discussion Papers, Nr. 2372.Google Scholar
  84. 97.
    D. Hakura, (1999), A Test of the General Validity of the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem for Trade in the European Community, IMF Working Paper, WP/99/70.Google Scholar
  85. 98.
    E. Fisher and K. G. Marshall, (2013), Testing the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Paradigm in a World with Cheap Foreign Labor, California Polytech State University Working Paper, who in the same token criticize the former conventional practice of measuring the impact that countries have different technologies.Google Scholar
  86. 101.
    D. Trefler, (1995), The Case of the Missing Trade and Other Mysteries, American Economic Review, Vol. 85, Issue 5, pp. 1029–1046.Google Scholar
  87. 102.
    E. Fisher and K. G. Marshall, (2013), Testing the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Paradigm in a World with Cheap Foreign Labor, California Polytech State University Working Paper, pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
  88. 103.
    C. Bajona and T. J. Kehoe, (2010), Trade, Growth, and Convergence in a Dynamic Heckscher-Ohlin Model, Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, Vol. 13, Issue 3, pp. 487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 122.
    J. D. Merrifield, (1988), The Impact of Selected Abatement Strategies on Transnational Pollution, the Terms of Trade, and Factor Rewards. A General Equilibrium Approach, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 15, Issue 3, pp. 259–284. All models have in common that they use a general equilibrium model as benchmark, but a different number of countries are used, who produce a different composite good, and have some level of price-setting power and takes into account the dynamics of the flow of capital between the countries involved.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 123.
    R. E. Kohn, (1998), Environmental Protection by One or Both Trading Partners in a Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model, Open Economies Review, Vol. 9, Issue 4, pp. 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 124.
    R. B. Myerson, (1991), Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. vii-xi.Google Scholar
  92. 125.
    R. López, (1994), Environment as a Factor of Production: The Effects of Economic Growth and Trade Liberalization, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, September, pp. 163–184.Google Scholar
  93. 126.
    R. E. Kohn, (2000), The Effect of Environmental Taxes on the Volume of International Trade, Ecological Economics, Vol. 34, pp. 77–87. His paper was developed based on an earlier question posed by Røpke: ‘If it were possible to internalize all external costs’ he questions whether the ‘relatively dramatic changes of relative prices’ would cause international trade to ‘increase or decrease’? Neither prospect is necessarily bad from Røpke’s perspective, for an increase in trade can beneficially ‘increase the biophysical carrying capacity of the world’, whereas a decrease can fortuitously promote the ‘self-sufficiency’ of individual countries.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. I. Røpke, (1994), Trade, Development and Sustainability — A Critical Assessment of the Free Trade Dogma, Ecological Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. R. E. Kohn, (1997), Internalizing International Versus Domestic Damages of a Pure Global Pollutant: An Extension of Musgrave and Shibata, Public Finance: Finances Publiques, Vol. 52, pp. 145–156.Google Scholar
  96. R. E. Kohn, (1998), Pollution and the Firm, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  97. R. E. Kohn, (1998), Environmental Protection by One or Both Trading Partners in a Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model, Open Economics Review, Vol. 9, pp. 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. R. E. Kohn and P. E. Chambers, (2000), Pollution Abatement and International Self-Sufficiency, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 213–219.Google Scholar
  99. 128.
    L. Summers, (2014), The Inequality Puzzle, Democracy, Issue 34, Spring 2014.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Luc Nijs 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc Nijs

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations