Musgrave, m his Theory of Public Finance, argues that the pnce effect of a unit tax Abstract under monopoly is one half the effect under competition when demand and supply
curves are linear. It is shown here that this rule applies only for the constant-cost
case. For an increasing supply (marginal cost) schedule, the effect for monopoly is
smaller than under competition, but by a factor less than 2.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Behrman, J.N.1950. Distributive effects of an excise tax on a monopolist . Journal of Political Economy58:546-8.
2.
Bishop, Robert L.1968. The effects of specific and ad valorem taxes. Quarterly Journal of Economics82:198-218.
3.
Cohen, Kalman J., and Richard M. Cyert.1975. Theory of the firm: Resource allocation in a market economy. 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
4.
Henderson, James M., and Richard E. Quandt.1980. Microeconomic theory: A mathematical approach. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
Hyman, David N.1996. Public finance: A contemporary application of theory to policy5th ed. New York: Dryden.
6.
Kudrle, Robert Thomas.1984. Excise tax incidence in limit price oligopoly. Public Finance/ Finances Publiques39:321-45.
7.
Marlow, Michael L.1995. Public finance: Theory and practice. Orlando, FL: Dryden.
8.
Mixon, J. Wilson, Jr. 1986. On the incidence of excise taxes on a monopolist's price: A pedagogical note. Journal ofeconomic Education17:201-3.
9.
Musgrave, Richard A.1959. The theory of public finance: A study in public economy . New York: McGraw-Hill .
10.
Musgrave, Richard A., and Peggy B. Musgrave.1989. Public finance in theory and pratice. 5th ed. New York : McGraw-Hill.
11.
Rosen, Harvey S.1995. Public finance. 4th ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
12.
Stiglitz, Joseph E.1988. Economics of the public sector. 2nd ed. New York: Norton.
