IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v31y2023i3d10.1007_s10100-022-00822-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal tax policy for single homogeneous commodity on n markets with export costs as a Stackelberg game

Author

Listed:
  • Zrinka Lukač

    (University of Zagreb)

Abstract

Taxation is one of the most powerful instruments of fiscal policy, affecting economic growth and investments, as well as competitiveness of companies. Therefore, designing the optimal tax policy is of crucial importance for any government. This study formulates the problem of determining optimal tax policy for single homogeneous commodity produced by n competing companies located in n different countries with export costs as a Stackelberg game with multiple followers. Companies produce the commodity in their country of origin and sell it on all n markets. Countries have different tax systems. If a company is selling the product in a foreign country, it has to pay export costs consisting of transportation costs and duty costs. Government of country i is the leader and makes the tax amount decision with the objective of maximizing its tax revenue. Companies are the followers. They make decisions about production and export quantities in order to maximize their profit functions. The study derives the optimal tax policy, i.e. the optimal tax amount and the optimal value of tax revenue function as well as companies’ optimal production and export quantities. It discusses the properties of the tax revenue function and analyzes the effect of unit increase of taxes on optimal production and export quantities as well as on companies’ revenue and profit functions. Finally, the study shows how the tax burden is divided between producers and consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Zrinka Lukač, 2023. "Optimal tax policy for single homogeneous commodity on n markets with export costs as a Stackelberg game," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 31(3), pages 873-890, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:31:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10100-022-00822-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-022-00822-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10100-022-00822-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-022-00822-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hong Hwang & Chao‐Cheng Mai & Ya‐Po Yang, 2008. "Optimal Trade Policy under Homogeneous Bertrand Competition," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 1005-1009, November.
    2. Michael Hoy & John Livernois & Chris McKenna & Ray Rees & Thanasis Stengos, 2011. "Mathematics for Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 3, volume 1, number 0262015072, December.
    3. Johannes Becker & Clemens Fuest, 2011. "Optimal tax policy when firms are internationally mobile," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 18(5), pages 580-604, October.
    4. Jonathan Eaton & Gene M. Grossman, 1986. "Optimal Trade and Industrial Policy Under Oligopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(2), pages 383-406.
    5. Henrik Vetter, 2013. "Consumption taxes in monopolistic competition: a comment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 287-295, November.
    6. You-Qiang Wang, 1999. "Commodity Taxes under Fiscal Competition: Stackelberg Equilibrium and Optimality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 974-981, September.
    7. Philipp J. H. Schröder, 2004. "The Comparison between Ad Valorem and Unit Taxes under Monopolistic Competition," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 281-292, December.
    8. Gahvari, Firouz, 1989. "The nature of government expenditures and the shape of the laffer curve," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 251-260, November.
    9. Kojun Hamada & Takao Ohkawa & Makoto Okamura, 2022. "Optimal taxation in a free‐entry Cournot oligopoly: The average cost function approach," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 1166-1192, May.
    10. Kanbur, Ravi & Keen, Michael, 1993. "Jeux Sans Frontieres: Tax Competition and Tax Coordination When Countries Differ in Size," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(4), pages 877-892, September.
    11. Douglas A. Hibbs & Violeta Piculescu, 2010. "Tax Toleration and Tax Compliance: How Government Affects the Propensity of Firms to Enter the Unofficial Economy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 18-33, January.
    12. Brander, James A. & Spencer, Barbara J., 1985. "Export subsidies and international market share rivalry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 83-100, February.
    13. Todorova, Tamara & Vatoci, Besar, 2020. "Taxation and strategic reaction: A comparison of Cournot, Stackelberg and collusion," MPRA Paper 106487, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Stern, Nicholas, 1987. "The effects of taxation, price control and government contracts in oligopoly and monopolistic competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 133-158, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hiroshi Aiura & Hikaru Ogawa, 2019. "Indirect taxes in a cross-border shopping model: a monopolistic competition approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 128(2), pages 147-175, October.
    2. Haufler, Andreas & Pflüger, Michael, 2003. "Market structure and the taxation of international trade," Discussion Papers in Economics 106, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    3. Michel Cavagnac & Isabelle Péchoux, 2010. "Domestic Effects of Environmental Policies with Transboundary Pollution," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 76(1), pages 113-134.
    4. Mario Marazzi, 2002. "On the fragility of gains from trade under continuously differentiated bertrand competition," International Finance Discussion Papers 735, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    5. Wen‐Jung Liang & Chao‐Cheng Mai, 2010. "Optimal Trade Policy with Horizontal Differentiation and Asymmetric Costs," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 302-310, May.
    6. Aiura, Hiroshi & Ogawa, Hikaru, 2013. "Unit tax versus ad valorem tax: A tax competition model with cross-border shopping," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 30-38.
    7. Andreas Haufler & Guttorm Schjelderup & Frank Stähler, 2000. "Commodity Taxation and International Trade in Imperfect Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 376, CESifo.
    8. Holloway, Garth J., 1995. "Conjectural Variations With Fewer Apologies," Working Papers 225880, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Vijay Mohan & Bharat Hazari, 2012. "Tax Policy When Countries Compete for Third Market Exports," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 708-728, December.
    10. Fletcher, Stanley M. & Nadolnyak, Denis A., 2005. "Accommodating Imperfect Competition in A Model of World Peanut Trade," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19460, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Asplund, Marcus & Friberg, Richard & Wilander, Fredrik, 2007. "Demand and distance: Evidence on cross-border shopping," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1-2), pages 141-157, February.
    12. Philip C. Abbott & Panu K. S. Kallio, 1996. "Implications of Game Theory for International Agricultural Trade," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(3), pages 738-744.
    13. Csordas, Stefan, 2009. "The global welfare effects of international environmental cooperation," MPRA Paper 20787, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Andreas HaufLer & Guttorm Schjelderup & Frank Stähler, 2005. "Barriers to Trade and Imperfect Competition: The Choice of Commodity Tax Base," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(3), pages 281-300, May.
    15. Barbara J. Spencer & Ronald W. Jones, 1991. "Vertical Foreclosure and International Trade Policy," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(1), pages 153-170.
    16. Jan Jacobs & Jenny Ligthart & Hendrik Vrijburg, 2010. "Consumption tax competition among governments: Evidence from the United States," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 17(3), pages 271-294, June.
    17. Dewit, Gerda & Leahy, Dermot, 2004. "Rivalry in uncertain export markets: commitment versus flexibility," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 195-209, October.
    18. Bernard, Jean-Thomas & Dupéré, Marc & Roland, Michel, 2003. "International Competition between Public or Mixed Enterprises," Cahiers de recherche 0301, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    19. Haufler, Andreas & Schjelderup, Guttorm, 2004. "Tacit collusion and international commodity taxation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 577-600, March.
    20. Praveen Kujal & Juan Ruiz, 2003. "Cost Effectiveness of R&D and the Robustness of Strategic Trade Policy," International Trade 0302001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 04 Feb 2003.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:31:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10100-022-00822-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.