This article presents a model of tax competition between an arbitrarily large number of asymmetrical jurisdictions. Tax competition induces lower corporate taxes and lower public input provision than does tax coordination. This bias decreases with respect to the size and number of jurisdictions. Tax competition constitutes a cost of decentralization that may balance the gains presented by the decentralization theorem. A French panel of municipalities and intermunicipal jurisdictions is used to test these results, which are confirmed. Furthermore, the corporate tax increase due to cooperation leads to an increase in the corporate tax base: the fully decentralized situation is suboptimal.
AlesinaAlbertoSpolaoreEnrico. 1997. “On the Number and Size of Nations.”Quarterly Journal of Economics112:1027–56.
2.
ArzaghiMohammadHendersonVernon J.. 2005. “Why Countries are Fiscally Decentralizing.”Journal of Public Economics89:1157–89.
3.
BaldwinRichard E.KrugmanPaul. 2004. “Agglomeration, Integration and Tax Harmonisation.”European Economic Review48:1–23.
4.
BarankayIrwanLockwoodBen. 2007. “Decentralization and the Productive Efficiency of Government: Evidence from Swiss Cantons.”Journal of Public Economics91:1197–218.
5.
BellKathleen P.GabeTodd M.. 2004. “Tradeoffs between Local Taxes and Government Spending as Determinant of Business Location.”Journal of Regional Science44:21–41.
6.
BoadwayRobinHayashiFumio. 2001. “An Empirical Analysis of Intergovernmental Tax Interaction: The Case of Business Income Taxes in Canada.”Canadian Journal of Economics34:481–503.
7.
BucovetskySam. 1991. “Asymmetric Tax Competition.”Journal of Urban Economics30:167–81.
8.
BuettnerThiess. 2001. “Local Business Taxation and Competition for Capital: The Choice of the Tax Rate.”Regional Science and Urban Economics31:215–45.
9.
BuettnerThiess. 2003. “Tax Base Effects and Fiscal Externalities of Local Capital Taxation: Evidence from a Panel of German Jurisdictions.”Journal of Urban Economics54:110–28.
10.
GlaeserEdward L.GottliebJoshua D.. 2009. “The Wealth of Cities: Agglomeration Economies and Spatial Equilibrium in the United States.”Journal of Economic Literature47:983–1028.
11.
HoytWilliam H.1991. “Property Taxation, Nash Equilibrium, and Market Power.”Journal of Urban Economics30:123–31.
12.
LeprinceMatthieuMadiésThierryPatySonia. 2007. “Business Tax Interactions among Local Governments: An Empirical Analysis of the French Case.”Journal of Regional Science47:603–21.
13.
OatesWallace E.1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovitch.
14.
OatesWallace E.1999. “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism.”Journal of Economic Literature37:1120–49.
15.
PeraltaSuzannaYperseleTanguy van. 2006. “Coordination of Capital Taxation among Asymmetric Countries.”Regional Science and Urban Economics36:708–26.
16.
SchwabRobert M.OatesWallace E.. 1991. “Community Composition and the Provision of Local Public Goods: A Normative Analysis.”Journal of Public Economics44:217–37.
17.
SmartMichael. 1998. “Taxation and Deadweight Loss in a System of Intergovernmental Transfers.”Canadian Journal of Economics31:189–206.
18.
WildasinDavid E.1988. “Nash Equilibria in Models of Fiscal Competition.”Journal of Public Economics35:229–40.
19.
WilsonJohn D.1991. “Tax Competition with Interregional Differences in Factor Endowments.”Regional Science and Urban Economics212:423–51.
20.
ZodrowGeorges R.MieszkowskiPeter. 1986. “Pigou, Tiebout, Property Taxation, and the Underprovision of Local Public Goods.”Journal of Urban Economics19:356–70.
