Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:31:18.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade integration and the destination of subsidies1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Nelly Exbrayat ,
Carl Gaigné  and
Stéphane Riou
Nelly Exbrayat
Affiliation:
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) and CREUSET-CNRS, Université de Saint-Etienne. E-mail: [email protected]
Carl Gaigné
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1302, Rennes. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Summary

We build a model of trade and location with two countries which differ with respect to their level of productivity. Public spending has two possible allocations: a direct subsidy to immobile households or a wage subsidy to mobile firms. We show that firms receive a lower net of tax subsidy in the high-productivity country than in the low-productivity one. Despite this less generous policy, the former country can host a larger share of firms, so that its total spending for firms can be higher than in the low-productivity country when trade costs are low enough. The welfare analysis suggests that the second-best optimum requires an increase in the subsidy to households in both countries when the economies are weakly integrated or the productivity gap is low or the share of capital incomes redistributed outside the two economies is high.

Résumé

Résumé

Nous développons un modèle de commerce et de localisation comprenant deux pays différents en terme de productivité. Les dépenses publiques ont deux affectations possibles : une subvention forfaitaire aux ménages immobiles et une aide aux firmes mobiles diminuant le coût salarial qu'elles supportent. Nous montrons qu'à l'équilibre en subventions le pays à haute productivité alloue aux firmes une aide publique nette de taxe plus faible. En dépit de cette politique moins généreuse, le premier pays accueille une plus grande part de firmes de sorte que ses dépenses totales en faveur de ces dernières peuvent être plus importantes que dans le pays à faible productivité quand l'intégration commerciale est suffisamment avancée. L'analyse de bien-être suggère que l'optimum de second rang nécessite une politique plus généreuse vis-à-vis des ménages lorsque les économies sont faiblement intégrées, que l'écart de productivité est faible ou qu'une part importante des propriétaires du capital réside en dehors des deux économies.

Keywords

coûts aux échangeslocalisationstructure des dépenses publiquesF12F15H23trade integrationfirm locationpublic expenditure compositionF12F15H23
Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 75 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 407 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We wish to thank for their comments and suggestions participants at the 53rd congress of the RSAI in Toronto, at the workshop ‘regional agglomeration, growth, and multi-level governance’ in Ghent, at the workshop ‘EU countries in fiscal competition’ in Mannheim and at the 21st annual congress of the EEA in Vienna.

References

Andersson, F. and Forslid, R. (2003). “Tax competition and economic geography”, Journal of Public Economic Theory, vol. 5(2), pp. 279–303.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. and Krugman, P. (2004). “Agglomeration, integration and tax harmonization”, European Economic Review, vol. 48(1), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R.E., Forslid, R., Martin, P., Ottaviano, G. and Robert-Nicoud, F. (2003). Economic geography and public policy, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Benassy-Quéré, A., Gobalraja, N. and Trannoy, A. (2007). “Tax and public input competition”, Economic Policy, vol. 22(50), pp. 385–430.Google Scholar
Behrens, K. and Picard, P. (2005). “Tax competition, location, and horizontal foreign direct investment”, CORE Discussion Paper 2005/91.Google Scholar
Charlton, A. (2003). “Incentive bidding for mobile investment: economic consequences and potential responses”, OECD Working Paper, n° 203.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (1996). “Incentives and foreign direct investments”, New York and Geneva: United Nations, Series A n° 30.Google Scholar
European Commission (2005). State Aid Scoreboard. COM(2005)624 final, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Devereux, M.P., Griffith, R. and Klemm, A. (2002). “Corporate income tax reforms and international tax competition”, Economic Policy, vol. 17(35), pp. 451–495.Google Scholar
Dreher, A., Sturm, J-E, and Ursprung, H.W. (2008). “The impact of globalization on the composition of government expenditures: evidence from panel data”. Public Choice, vol. 134(34), pp. 263–292.Google Scholar
Garrett, G. and Mitchell, D. (2001). “Globalization, government spending and taxation in the OECD”, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 39(2), pp. 145–177.Google Scholar
Haufler, A. and Wooton, I. (2007). “Competition for firms in an oligopolistic industry: Do firms or countries have to pay?”, Discussion paper 2007–13, University of Munich.Google Scholar
Inspection Générale (2007). Rapport sur les aides publiques aux entreprises, Inspection générales des Finances, des Affaires Sociales et de ’Administration, France.Google Scholar
Keen, M. and Marchand, M. (1997). “Fiscal competition and the pattern of public spending”, Journal of Public Economies, vol. 66(1), pp. 33–53.Google Scholar
Kind, H., Midelfart-Knarvik, K. and Schjelderup, G. (2000). “Competing for capital in a lumpy world”, Journal of Public Economies, vol. 78(3), pp. 253–274.Google Scholar
Ludema, R. and Wooton, I. (2000). “Economie geography and the fiscal effects of regional integration”, Journal of International Economics, vol. 52(2), pp. 331–357.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, M. (2000). “A note on the composition of public expenditure under capital tax competition”, International Tax and Public Finance, vol. 7(6), pp. 691–697.Google Scholar
Ottaviano, G.I.P., Tabuchi, T. and Thisse, J.-F. (2002). “Agglomeration and trade revisited”. International Economic Review, vol. 43(2), pp. 409–436.Google Scholar
Ottaviano, G. and Van Ypersele, T. (2005). “Market access and tax competition”, Journal of International Economics, vol. 67(1), pp. 25–46.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far?, Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. (1998). “Why do more open economies have bigger governments?”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 106(5), pp. 997–1032.Google Scholar
Sanz, I. and Velasquez, F. (2004). “The evolution and convergence of the government expenditure composition in the OECD countries”, Public Choice, vol. 119(1–2), pp. 61–72.Google Scholar
Schulze, G.G. and Ursprung, H.W. (1999). “Globalisation of the economy and the nation state”, The World Economy, vol. 22(3), pp. 295–352.Google Scholar
Zodrow, G.R., and Mieszkowski, P. (1986). “Pigou, Tiebout, property taxation and the underprovision of local public goods”, Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 19(3), pp. 356–370.Google Scholar