IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpi/wpaper/tax-mpg-rps-2017-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tax Mimicking in Local Business Taxation: Quasi-experimental Evidence from Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Mariana Lopes da Fonseca

Abstract

I exploit an exogenous reform introducing a local business tax in Portugal to study tax mimicking among jurisdictions. The identiï¬ cation strategy relies on a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences methodology and heterogeneity in treatment intensity. Results provide evidence of signiï¬ cant short-run tax mimicking that decreases over time. I study possible generating processes underlying the strategic interaction among municipalities and ï¬ nd signiï¬ cant evidence of electoral concerns. These electoral concerns are not met with electoral consequences at the local elections, which may be behind the diffusion of local business taxation in the long run.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariana Lopes da Fonseca, 2017. "Tax Mimicking in Local Business Taxation: Quasi-experimental Evidence from Portugal," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2017-08, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpi:wpaper:tax-mpg-rps-2017-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tax.mpg.de/RePEc/mpi/wpaper/TAX-MPG-RPS-2017-08.pdf
    File Function: Full text (original version)
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Besley, Timothy & Case, Anne, 1995. "Incumbent Behavior: Vote-Seeking, Tax-Setting, and Yardstick Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 25-45, March.
    2. Stephen Gibbons & Henry G. Overman, 2012. "Mostly Pointless Spatial Econometrics?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 172-191, May.
    3. Revelli, Federico, 2006. "Performance rating and yardstick competition in social service provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 459-475, February.
    4. John Douglas Wilson & Roger H. Gordon, 2003. "Expenditure Competition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(2), pages 399-417, April.
    5. Oliver, J. Eric & Ha, Shang E., 2007. "Vote Choice in Suburban Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 393-408, August.
    6. Berry, William D. & Baybeck, Brady, 2005. "Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(4), pages 505-519, November.
    7. Raphaël Parchet, 2019. "Are Local Tax Rates Strategic Complements or Strategic Substitutes?," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 189-224, May.
    8. Wildasin, David E., 1988. "Nash equilibria in models of fiscal competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 229-240, March.
    9. Charles F. Manski, 2000. "Economic Analysis of Social Interactions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 115-136, Summer.
    10. Janeba, Eckhard & Osterloh, Steffen, 2012. "Tax and the city: A theory of local tax competition and evidence for Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-005, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Janeba, Eckhard & Osterloh, Steffen, 2013. "Tax and the city — A theory of local tax competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 89-100.
    12. Lyytikäinen, Teemu, 2012. "Tax competition among local governments: Evidence from a property tax reform in Finland," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(7-8), pages 584-595.
    13. Zhuan Pei & Jörn-Steffen Pischke & Hannes Schwandt, 2019. "Poorly Measured Confounders are More Useful on the Left than on the Right," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(2), pages 205-216, April.
    14. Charles R. Shipan & Craig Volden, 2006. "Bottom‐Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(4), pages 825-843, October.
    15. Galletta, Sergio, 2017. "Law enforcement, municipal budgets and spillover effects: Evidence from a quasi-experiment in Italy," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 90-105.
    16. Koethenbuerger, Marko, 2011. "How do local governments decide on public policy in fiscal federalism? Tax vs. expenditure optimization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1516-1522.
    17. Baldwin, Richard E. & Krugman, Paul, 2004. "Agglomeration, integration and tax harmonisation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, February.
    18. Baicker, Katherine, 2005. "The spillover effects of state spending," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 529-544, February.
    19. Beatrix Eugster & Raphaël Parchet, 2011. "Culture and Taxes: Towards Identifying Tax Competition," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 11.05, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    20. George R. Zodrow & Peter Mieszkowski, 2019. "Pigou, Tiebout, Property Taxation, and the Underprovision of Local Public Goods," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: George R Zodrow (ed.), TAXATION IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Selected Essays of George R. Zodrow, chapter 17, pages 525-542, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    21. Wilson, John D., 1986. "A theory of interregional tax competition," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 296-315, May.
    22. David R. Agrawal, 2015. "The Tax Gradient: Spatial Aspects of Fiscal Competition," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 1-29, May.
    23. Baskaran, Thushyanthan, 2014. "Identifying local tax mimicking with administrative borders and a policy reform," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 41-51.
    24. Andrei Shleifer, 1985. "A Theory of Yardstick Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(3), pages 319-327, Autumn.
    25. David F. Bradford & Wallace E. Oates, 1971. "The Analysis of Revenue Sharing in a New Approach to Collective Fiscal Decisions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 85(3), pages 416-439.
    26. Wilson, John Douglas & Wildasin, David E., 2004. "Capital tax competition: bane or boon," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 1065-1091, June.
    27. Case, Anne C. & Rosen, Harvey S. & Hines, James Jr., 1993. "Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence : Evidence from the states," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 285-307, October.
    28. Bivand, Roger & Szymanski, Stefan, 1997. "Spatial dependence through local yardstick competition:: theory and testing," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 257-265, August.
    29. Isen, Adam, 2014. "Do local government fiscal spillovers exist? Evidence from counties, municipalities, and school districts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 57-73.
    30. Jan K. Brueckner, 2003. "Strategic Interaction Among Governments: An Overview of Empirical Studies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 26(2), pages 175-188, April.
    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. Frank M. Fossen & Lukas Mergele & Nicolas Pardo, 2017. "Fueling fiscal interactions: commodity price shocks and local government spending in Colombia," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(4), pages 616-651, August.
    2. Baskaran, Thushyanthan, 2014. "Identifying local tax mimicking with administrative borders and a policy reform," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 41-51.
    3. Sandy Fréret & Denis Maguain, 2017. "The effects of agglomeration on tax competition: evidence from a two-regime spatial panel model on French data," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(6), pages 1100-1140, December.
    4. Johan Lundberg, 2021. "Horizontal interactions in local personal income taxes," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 67(1), pages 27-46, August.
    5. Baskaran, Thushyanthan, 2015. "Tax mimicking in the short- and long-run: Evidence from German reunification," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 230, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    6. Thushyanthan Baskaran, 2021. "The revenue and base effects of local tax hikes: evidence from a quasi-experiment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(6), pages 1472-1518, December.
    7. Baskaran, Thushyanthan, 2013. "Identifying local tax mimicking: Administrative borders and a policy reform," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 157, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    8. Pantelis Kammas, 2011. "Strategic fiscal interaction among OECD countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 459-480, June.
    9. Yu, Jihai & Zhou, Li-An & Zhu, Guozhong, 2016. "Strategic interaction in political competition: Evidence from spatial effects across Chinese cities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 23-37.
    10. Chirinko, Robert S. & Wilson, Daniel J., 2017. "Tax competition among U.S. states: Racing to the bottom or riding on a seesaw?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 147-163.
    11. Ferraresi, Massimiliano, 2023. "JUE Insight: Immigrants, social transfers for education, and spatial interactions," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    12. Michael P. Devereux & Simon Loretz, 2013. "What Do We Know About Corporate Tax Competition?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 66(3), pages 745-774, September.
    13. Zareh Asatryan & Annika Havlik & Frank Streif, 2017. "Vetoing and inaugurating policy like others do: evidence on spatial interactions in voter initiatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 525-544, September.
    14. Blesse, Sebastian & Martin, Thorsten, 2015. "Let's stay in touch - evidence on the role of social learning in local tax interactions," ZEW Discussion Papers 15-081, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Borck, Rainald & Fossen, Frank M. & Freier, Ronny & Martin, Thorsten, 2015. "Race to the debt trap? — Spatial econometric evidence on debt in German municipalities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 20-37.
    16. Lyytikäinen, Teemu, 2012. "Tax competition among local governments: Evidence from a property tax reform in Finland," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(7-8), pages 584-595.
    17. Baskaran, Thushyanthan & Lopes da Fonseca, Mariana, 2013. "The economics and empirics of tax competition: A survey," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 163, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    18. Reingewertz, Yaniv, 2014. "Fiscal Decentralization - a Survey of the Empirical Literature," MPRA Paper 59889, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Thomas K. Bauer & Tanja Kasten & Lars-H. R. Siemers, 2017. "Business Taxation and Wages: Redistribution and Asymmetric Effects," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201732, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    20. Masayoshi Hayashi & Wataru Yamamoto, 2017. "Information sharing, neighborhood demarcation, and yardstick competition: an empirical analysis of intergovernmental expenditure interaction in Japan," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(1), pages 134-163, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    tax mimicking; yardstick competition; local reform;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • H71 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mpi:wpaper:tax-mpg-rps-2017-08. 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: Hans Mueller (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mptaxde.html .

    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.