The importance of the corporation income tax in overall tax revenue is as high in ASEAN member countries—Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand—as in selected developed countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. This article surveys available fiscal incidence studies for ASEAN members and, after a critical evaluation of their methodologies, employs a two-sector general equilibrium model in order to study the incidence of the corporation income tax in ASEAN. It concludes that, except in Singapore, the tax is borne entirely by the owners of capital in contrast to the usual presumption that the tax is shifted. The policy implication of capital across the economy bearing the corporate tax is that double taxation of dividends—present, at least partially, in each ASEAN member—should be curtailed if these economies are to avoid the necessarily detrimental ramifications for capital formation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndicF. M. (1977) “Poverty and tax incidence in West Malaysia.”. Public Finance Q. 5: 329–350.
2.
AsherM. G. (1983) “Some issues in corporate income taxation in ASEAN.”. Asian Pacific Tax and Investment Bull. 1: 66–70.
3.
BatraR. N. (1973) Studies in the Pure Theory of International Trade. London: MacMillan.
4.
BerndtE. R. (1976) “Reconciling alternative estimates of the elasticity of substitution.”. Rev. of Economics and Statistics48: 59–68.
5.
BoothA. (1980) “The incidence of taxation: A preliminary analysis,” pp. 100–130 in AsherM.OsborneO. (eds.) Issues in Public Finance in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Univ. Press.
6.
Congressional Budget Office (1978) Analysis of the Roth-Kemp Tax Cut Proposal. Washington, DC: author.
7.
CraggJ. G.HarbergerA. C.MieszkowskiP. (1967) “Empirical evidence on the incidence of the corporation income tax.”. J. of Pol. Economy75: 811–821.
8.
GuptaA. P. (1977) Fiscal Policy for Employment Generation in India. Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.
9.
HarbergerA. C. (1962) “The incidence of the corporation income tax.”. J. of Pol. Economy60: 215–240.
10.
HayamiY.RattanV. W. (1971) Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
11.
JensenM. C.MecklingW. H. (1977) Can the Corporation Survive? Reprint Paper 6. Los Angeles: International Institute for Economic Research.
12.
Joint Legislative-Executive Tax Commission (1974) A Study of Tax Burdens by Income Class in the Philippines. Manila: author.
13.
JonesR. W. (1965) “The structure of simple general equilibrium models.”. J. of Pol. Economy63: 557–572.
14.
KopckeR. W. (1978) “The decline in corporate productivity.” Kansas City Federal Reserve. (unpublished).
15.
KrongkaewM. (1975) “The income redistributional effects of taxes and public expenditres in Thailand.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.
16.
LianosT. P. (1971) “The relative share of labor in the United States agriculture, 1949–68.” Amer. J. of Agricultural Economics (August): 411–422.
17.
MarrelliM.SalvadoriN. (1983) “Tax incidence and growth models.”. Public Finance28: 409–418.
18.
McCLUREC. E.Jr. (1972) “The incidence of taxation in West Malaysia.”. Malayan Econ. Rev.17: 66–98.
19.
MeermanJ. (1979) Public Expenditure in Malaysia: Who Benefits and Why. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
20.
MeermanJ. (1978) “Do empirical studies of budget incidence make sense?”. Public Finance33, 3: 295–312.
21.
MeermanJ.ShomeP. (1980) “Estimating counterfactual incomes in studies of budget incidence.”. Public Finance35, 2: 291–299.
22.
MusgraveR. A.KrzyzaniakM. (1963) The Shifting of the Corporation Income Tax. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
23.
MusgraveR. A. (1974) “The distribution of fiscal burdens and benefits.” Public Finance Q. 2 (3).
24.
PechmanJ. A.OknerB. A. (1974) Who Bears the Tax Burden? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
25.
PiggottJ. R. (1980) “A general equilibrium evaluation of Australian tax policy.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of London.
26.
PiggottJ. R.WhalleyJ. (1980) “A summary of some findings from a general equilibrium tax model for the U.K.” Presented at the Carnegie-Rochester Conference on Public Policy.
27.
PittM. M. “Food preferences and nutrition in rural Bangladesh.” Rev. of Economics and Statistics55: 105–114.
28.
RattiR. A.ShomeP. (1977a) “The general equilibrium theory of tax incidence under uncertainty.”. J. of Econ. Theory14: 68–83.
29.
RattiR. A.ShomeP. (1977b) “On a general equilibrium model of the incidence of the corporation tax under uncertainty.”. J. of Public Economics8: 233–238.
30.
RattiR. A.ShomeP. (1977c) “The incidence of the corporation income tax: A long-run, specific factor model.”. Southern Econ. J.44: 85–98.
31.
SalkinJ. S. (1974) “On the direct measurement of tax progressivity in Thailand.”. National Tax J. 27: 301–318.
32.
SallehI. M. (1977) “Tax incidence and income distribution in West Malaysia.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.
33.
ShomeP. (1981) “The general equilibrium theory and concepts of tax incidence in the presence of third or more factors.”. Public Finance36: 22–38.
34.
ShomeP. (1978) “The incidence of the corporate income tax in India: A general equilibrium analysis.”. Oxford Econ. Papers30: 64–73.
35.
ShovenJ. B. (1983) “Applied general equilibrium tax modeling.”. Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund30, 2: 394–420.
36.
ShovenJ. B.WhalleyJ. (1977) “Equal yield tax alternatives: General equilibrium computational techniques.”. J. of Public Economics8: 211–224.
37.
TanE. A. (1975) “Philippine taxation, government spending, and income distribution,” in Income Distribution, Employment, and Economic Development in Southeast and East Asia, Vol. 1. Manila: Council for Asian Manpower Studies.
38.
WhalleyJ. (1975) “A general equilibrium assessment of the 1973 United Kingdom tax reform.” Economica: 139–161.
39.
ZarembkaP. (1972) Toward a Theory of Economic Development. San Francisco: Holden-Day.
40.
ZarembkaP. (1970) “On the empirical relevance of the CES production function.”. Rev. of Economics and Statistics42: 47–53.
