IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iefpro/3205732.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Yardstick Competition and Tax Competition -Intergovernmental Relations and Efficiency of Public Goods-

Author

Listed:
  • Yasuyuki Nishigaki

    (Ryukoku University)

  • Hideya Kato

    (Ryukoku University)

Abstract

Several branches of the literature focus on the advantages of the provision of public goods by a local government. Tiebout (1956) indicated that ?voting with feet? leads to the optimal provision of local public goods if residents can emigrate from one municipality to another to maximize utility. Due to the free mobility of residents, local governments exhibit an inter-related performance in a competitive environment and are disciplined to achieve efficient provision of public goods, although rather unrealistic conditions, including perfect information and ?free mobility? of residents, are pre-requested.The theory of local yardstick competition, in the principal?agent setting with asymmetric information, states that the comparison of the public service level and tax rates of a government with that of nearby localities can provide a useful instrument to assess a government?s performance. By comparing the performance of similar jurisdictions, voters can elect good politicians and send non-performers packing. Due to such a yardstick comparison of residents, local governors are disciplined to exert maximum efforts toward supplying public goods (Besley and Case 1996, Besley and Smart 2007), although they fail in the optimal provision of public goods (Nishigaki et al. 2015).Furthermore, a political inter-relation among neighboring jurisdictions causes interdependence in policy decisions and mimicking of policy variables or tax rates in the yardstick competition. This interdependence of policy or tax rates caused by informational externality is frequently used as evidence of yardstick competition in empirical studies (Besley and Case 1996, Revelli 2006, Nishigaki et al. 2014).Tax competition among local governments, on the other hand, addresses interaction due to inter-jurisdictional mobility of the tax base. By using a competitive two-region model, studies have indicated that an unfavorable externality of loss in the tax base causes strategic behavior in tax setting and an undersupply of public goods arises as a result of intergovernmental competition (Wildersin 1988, Brueckner and Saavedra 2001). These studies have also indicated that even competition among benevolent governments with full information leads to unfavorable results.By introducing the production of private and public goods using the inter-regionally mobile factor of capital stock, this paper investigates tax competition in a yardstick competition model. The harmful effects of under-provision of public goods caused by tax competition and political competition are synthesized in the yardstick equilibrium. Furthermore, it is indicated that the externality caused by the loss in capital stock is internalized through the informational externality of the yardstick comparison.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasuyuki Nishigaki & Hideya Kato, 2016. "Yardstick Competition and Tax Competition -Intergovernmental Relations and Efficiency of Public Goods-," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 3205732, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:sek:iefpro:3205732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iises.net/proceedings/5th-economics-finance-conference-miami/table-of-content/detail?cid=32&iid=020&rid=5732
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lazear, Edward P & Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 841-864, October.
    2. Besley, Timothy & Smart, Michael, 2007. "Fiscal restraints and voter welfare," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 755-773, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Seabright, Paul, 1996. "Accountability and decentralisation in government: An incomplete contracts model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 61-89, January.
    5. Wildasin, David E., 1988. "Nash equilibria in models of fiscal competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 229-240, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Revelli, Federico, 2006. "Performance rating and yardstick competition in social service provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 459-475, February.
    8. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    9. Kotsogiannis, Christos & Schwager, Robert, 2008. "Accountability and fiscal equalization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(12), pages 2336-2349, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tong Yang, 2020. "Effect of agency costs on the optimal matching grant rate in a model of tax competition with benefit spillovers," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, December.

    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. Pierre Salmon, 2013. "Horizontal competition in multilevel governmental settings," Working Papers hal-00830876, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Matthieu Leprince & Sonia Paty & Emmanuelle Reulier, 2005. "Choix d'imposition et interactions spatiales entre collectivités locales. Un test sur les départements français," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 71(1), pages 67-93.
    6. 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.
    7. Raffaella SANTOLINI, 2007. "An Empitical Analysis of Political and Informative Trends on Municipalities of an Italian Region," Working Papers 294, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    8. Pantelis Kammas, 2011. "Strategic fiscal interaction among OECD countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 147(3), pages 459-480, June.
    9. Nakazawa, Katsuyoshi & Matsuoka, Hirokazu, 2016. "Change in Strategic Interaction after Introducing Policy," MPRA Paper 73512, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Mariana Lopes da Fonseca, 2017. "Tax Mimicking in Local Business Taxation: Quasi-experimental Evidence from Portugal," CESifo Working Paper Series 6647, CESifo.
    11. Reingewertz, Yaniv, 2014. "Fiscal Decentralization - a Survey of the Empirical Literature," MPRA Paper 59889, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Feld Lars P. & Reulier Emmanuelle, 2009. "Strategic Tax Competition in Switzerland: Evidence from a Panel of the Swiss Cantons," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 91-114, February.
    13. Kessing, Sebastian G., 2010. "Federalism and accountability with distorted election choices," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 239-247, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Hans Pitlik, 2007. "A race to liberalization? Diffusion of economic policy reform among OECD-economies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 159-178, July.
    16. Hatfield, John William & Kosec, Katrina, 2013. "Federal competition and economic growth," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 144-159.
    17. Allers, Maarten A., 2012. "Yardstick competition, fiscal disparities, and equalization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 4-6.
    18. Christos Kotsogiannis & Robert Schwager, 2006. "Fiscal Equalization and Yardstick Competition," Working Papers 2006-15, University of Kentucky, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.
    19. 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.
    20. Zhonghua Huang & Xuejun Du, 2017. "Strategic interaction in local governments’ industrial land supply: Evidence from China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(6), pages 1328-1346, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Local Public Goods; Asymmetric Information; Intergovernmental Externality; Yardstick Competition; Tax Competition;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods
    • H71 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sek:iefpro:3205732. 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: Klara Cermakova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iises.net/ .

    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.