Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Does tax competition really promote growth?

By Marko Koethenbuerger and Ben Lockwood

Abstract

This paper considers the relationship between tax competition and growth in an endogenous growth model where there are stochastic shocks to productivity,and capital taxes fund a public good which may be for final consumption or an infrastructure input. Absent stochastic shocks, decentralized tax setting (two or more jurisdictions) maximizes the rate of growth, as the constant returns to scale present with endogenous growth implies “extreme” tax competition. Stochastic shocks imply that households face a portfolio choice problem, which may dampen down tax competition and may raise taxes above the centralized level. Growth can be lower with decentralization. Our results also predict a negative relationship between output volatility and growth, consistent with the empirical evidence

Topics: HG
Publisher: University of Warwick, Department of Economics
Year: 2007
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:1404

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2003). Are Nash Tax Rates too Low or Too High? The Role of Endogenous Growth in Models with Public Goods”,
  2. (1995). Cross-Country Evidence on the Link Between Volatility and Growth”, doi
  3. (1994). Distributive Politics and Economic Growth”, doi
  4. (2006). Federalism, Taxation, and Economic Growth”, unpublished paper, doi
  5. (2007). Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth Reconsidered”, doi
  6. (2005). Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth Revisited: An Empirical Note”, doi
  7. (1998). Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Study”, doi
  8. (1998). Fiscal Decentralization and LDC Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation”,
  9. (2002). Fiscal Decentralization Contributes to Economic Growth: Evidenc from State-Level Cross Section Data from the US”, doi
  10. (1998). Fiscal Decentralization, Public Spending, and Econ o m i cG r o w t hi nC h i n a ” doi
  11. (2006). Fiscal Federalism and Economic Growth”, doi
  12. (2000). Government Policy in a Stochastic Growth Model with Elastic Labour Supply”, doi
  13. (2005). Local Decentralization and Economic Growth: A Cross-Sectional Examination doi
  14. (2005). Neoclassical Models of Endogenous Growth: The Effects of Fiscal Policy, Innovation doi
  15. (2003). On the dynamics of growth and fiscal policy with redistributive transfers”, doi
  16. (1986). Pi g o u ,T i e b o u t ,P r o p e r t yT a x a t i o n ,a n d the Underprovision of Local Public Goods”, doi
  17. (1990). Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth”, doi
  18. (1997). Tax Competition and Redistribution in a TwoCountry Endogenous Growth Model”, International Tax and Public Finance 4, 485-497. 10Details of these calculations are available on request.
  19. (2004). Taxation of Mobile Factors as Insurance Under Uncertainty”, doi
  20. (2004). Taxation, risk-taking and growth: a continuous-time stochastic general equilibrium analysis with labor-leisure choice”, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.