755 research outputs found

    The Incidence and Efficiency Costs of Corporate Taxation when Corporate and Noncorporate Firms Produce the Same Good

    Get PDF
    This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of Arnold Harberger's celebrated model of the corporation income tax. While the model has been enormously useful as an analytical device for studying two sector economies, its usefulness for understanding the incidence and excess burden of the corporate income tax remains in question. One difficulty confronting all empirical analyses of the Harberger Model is how to treat noncorporate production in primarily corporate sectors and corporate production in primarily noncorporate sectors. The Harberger Model provides no real guide to this question since it assumes that one good is produced only by corporations and the other good is produced only by noncorporate firms. Stated differently, Harberger models the differential taxation of capital used in the production of different goods, rather than the taxation of capital used by corporations per se. This paper presents a two good model with corporate and noncorporate production of both goods. The incidence of the corporate tax in our Mutual Production Model (MPM) can differ markedly from that in the Harberger model. A hallmark of Harberger's corporate tax incidence formula is its dependence on differences across sectors in elasticities of substitution between capital and labor. In contrast, the incidence of the corporate tax in the MPM may fall 100 percent on capital regardless of sector differences in substitution elasticities. The difference between the two models in the deadweight loss from corporate taxation is also striking. Using the Harberger - Shoven data and assuming unitary substitution and demand elasticities, the deadweight loss is over ten times larger in the CES version of the MPM than in the Harberger Model. Part of the explanation for this difference is that in the Harberger Model only the difference in the average corporate tax in the two sectors is distortionary, while the entire tax is distortionary in the MPM. A second reason for the larger excess burden in the MPM is that the MPM has a very large, indeed infinite, substitution elasticity in demand between corporate and noncorporate goods; in contrast, applications of the Harberger Model assume this elasticity is quite small.

    A new mandate for UNFICYP the Canadian Contingent in Cyprus, July-August 1974

    Get PDF

    The structure of foreign policy attitudes in transatlantic perspective: comparing the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany

    Get PDF
    This is the final version of the article. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.While public opinion about foreign policy has been studied extensively in the United States, there is less systematic research of foreign policy opinions in other countries. Given that public opinion about international affairs affects who gets elected in democracies and then constrains the foreign policies available to leaders once elected, both comparative politics and international relations scholarship benefit from more systematic investigation of foreign policy attitudes outside the US. Using new data, we find a common set of core constructs structuring both American and European attitudes about foreign policy. Surveys conducted in four countries (the US, the UK, France, and Germany) provide an expanded set of foreign policy-related survey items that are analyzed using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). We specifically test for measurement equivalence and find a common four-factor structure that fits the data in all four countries. Consequently, we make valid, direct comparisons of the foreign policy preferences of four world powers. In the process, our four-factor model confirms and expands previous work on the structure of foreign policy attitudes. We also demonstrate the capability of ESEM in testing the dimensionality and cross-national equivalence of social science concepts.Data collection was funded by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom (RES-061-25-0405). All data supporting this research are available from the UK Data Archive (Study Number 851142): https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-851142/

    Company Taxation in the European Union

    Get PDF
    This paper investigates different measures of corporate tax burden ranging from the most basic ones such as the statutory tax rate to the effective tax rates. Each of these measures has advantages and disadvantages and they may lead to different rankings of countries. One of the reasons lies the fact that they measure different things. The comparison of the statutory tax rates to the effective ones for the EU-27 during the period of 1998-2009 sometimes reveals very significant differences between these indicators. Taking this into consideration, the paper suggests that corporate tax burden analysis should not be limited to the most basic and readily available measure in the form of the statutory tax rate. Different measures are tailored to answer different research questions. Moreover, the article presents changes of company taxation for the EU-27 within 1998-2009.W artykule dokonano przeglądu miar obciążenia podatkowego przedsiębiorstw. Rozpoczynając od wielkości najprostszych, jak stopa nominalna, a kończąc na miarach efektywnych. Każdy ze wskaźników ma wady i zalety, a jego wykorzystanie może prowadzić do różnego uszeregowania państw ze względu na poziom opodatkowania. Jedną z przyczyn jest fakt, iż wielkości te mierzą inne rzeczy. Porównanie stóp nominalnych i efektywnych w krajach UE-27, w latach 1998-2009, wskazuje na istnienie niekiedy bardzo istotnych różnic pomiędzy analizowanymi wskaźnikami. W związku z tym artykuł sugeruje, iż nie należy ograniczać analiz opodatkowania przedsiębiorstw, do najprostszego i najłatwiej dostępnego wskaźnika w postaci ustawowej stopy podatkowej a rozszerzyć je o miary efektywne. Wielkości te, stanowiące lepszy instrument do porównań międzynarodowych, umożliwiają przeprowadzenie wszechstronnych badań

    Corporate Taxation and the Efficiency Gains of the 1986 Tax Reform Act

    Get PDF
    The 1986 Tax Reform Act, while having little effect on the overall effective tax rate on U.S. capital income, did reduce significantly the difference in effective taxation of corporate and noncorporate capital within a number of U.S. industries. The Mutual Production Model developed in Gravelle and Kotlikoff (1989) can be used to study the efficiency gains from the reduction in corporate tax wedges within industries. Unlike the Harberger Model, the Mutual Production Model permits both corporate and noncorporate firms to produce the same goods and, therefore, to coexist within a given industry. This paper develops an 11 industry - 55 year dynamic life cycle version of the Mutual Production Model. We use this model to study the steady state efficiency gains associated with the new law. While we do not simulate the economy's transition path, our steady state welfare changes are those that arise from compensating transitional generations for the first order redistribution of income associated with the Tax Reform. We find that the 1986 Tax Reform law reduces excess burden by .85 percent of our model's economy's present value of consumption. This efficiency gain reflects the Tax Reform's reduction in corporate non-corporate tax wedges, particularly in those industries with significant non-corporate production. Measured as a flow the 1988 estimated efficiency gain from the Tax Reform Act is $31 billion.

    The structure of foreign policy attitudes in transatlantic perspective: comparing the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany

    Get PDF
    While public opinion about foreign policy has been studied extensively in the United States, there is less systematic research of foreign policy opinions in other countries. Given that public opinion about international affairs affects who gets elected in democracies and then constrains the foreign policies available to leaders once elected, both comparative politics and international relations scholarship benefit from more systematic investigation of foreign policy attitudes outside the United States. Using new data, this article presents a common set of core constructs structuring both American and European attitudes about foreign policy. Surveys conducted in four countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany) provide an expanded set of foreign policy‐related survey items that are analysed using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Measurement equivalence is specifically tested and a common four‐factor structure that fits the data in all four countries is found. Consequently, valid, direct comparisons of the foreign policy preferences of four world powers are made. In the process, the four‐factor model confirms and expands previous work on the structure of foreign policy attitudes. The article also demonstrates the capability of ESEM in testing the dimensionality and cross‐national equivalence of social science concepts

    Like Father, Like Son: Justin Trudeau and Valence Voting in Canada's 2015 Federal Election

    Get PDF
    This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Cambridge University Press via the DOI in this record.Canada’s 2015 federal election was an exiting, as well as a nostalgia provoking, contest. After nine years in office, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the governing Conservatives were defeated by the resurgent Liberals led by Justin Trudeau. Trudeau is the son of Pierre Trudeau, perhaps Canada’s best known prime minister. Analyses of national survey data demonstrate that party leader images—a major component of the “valence politics” model of electoral choice—were important in both cases. Unlike his father, Justin Trudeau was castigated as a “lightweight” and “just not ready.” However, articulating plausible policies to jump-start Canada’s sluggish economy and espousing “sunny ways,” the younger Trudeau was warmly received by many voters. In contrast, Harper’s image of managerial competence was tarnished by bad economic news, and his attempt to refocus the campaign on emotionally charged cultural issues failed. The result was a Liberal majority government and a prime minister named Trudeau
    corecore