Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T11:47:16.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remodeling the Competition for Capital: How Domestic Politics Erases the Race to the Bottom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2004

SCOTT J. BASINGER  and
MARK HALLERBERG
SCOTT J. BASINGER
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
MARK HALLERBERG
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper proposes and tests a new formal model of the competition for capital, using the analogy of a “tournament” as a substitute for the ”race-to-the-bottom” model. Our key insight is that political costs that accompany legislating have both direct and indirect effects on the likelihood and scale of reforms. While countries with higher political costs are less likely themselves to enact reforms, the presence of these costs also reduces competing countries' incentives to reform regardless of their own political costs. Domestic politics therefore mitigates the pressures for downward convergence of tax policy despite increased capital mobility. We examine the capital tax policies in OECD countries during the period from 1980 to 1997 and find that states are sensitive to tax reforms in competitor countries, although their responses to reforms are mediated by their own domestic costs to reform. We define two potential sources of political costs of reform: transaction costs, due to the presence of multiple veto players in the legislative process, and constituency costs, due to ideological opposition to policy changes that benefit capital. Our evidence reveals that a reduction in these costs either domestically or abroad increases the likelihood that a country enacts tax reforms.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 98 , Issue 2 , May 2004 , pp. 261 - 276
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

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.)

References

Andrews David M. 1994. “Capital Mobility and State Autonomy.” International Studies Quarterly 38 (June): 193– 218.Google Scholar
Beck Neal. 2001. “Time-Series-Cross-Section-Data: What Have We Learned in the Past Few Years?” Annual Review of Political Science 4: 271– 93.Google Scholar
Cary David, and Harry Tchilinguirian. 2000. “Average Effective Tax Rates on Capital, Labour and Consumption.” OECD Economics Working Paper 258.
Clark William R., and Mark Hallerberg. 2000. “Strategic Interaction between Monetary and Fiscal Actors under Full Capital Mobility.” American Political Science Review 94 (June): 323– 46.Google Scholar
Dehejia Vivek H., and Philipp Genschel. 1999. “Tax Competition in the European Union.” Politics and Society 27 (3): 403– 30.Google Scholar
Devereux Michael, and Rachel Griffith. 1998. “Taxes and the location of production: Evidence from a panel of US multinationals.” Journal of Public Economics 68 (June): 335– 67.Google Scholar
Ganghof Steffen. 1999. “Steuerwettbewerb und Vetospieler: Stimmt die These der blockierten Anpassung?” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 40 (4): 458– 72.Google Scholar
Ganghof Steffen. 2000. “Adjusting National Tax Policy to Economic Internationalization: Strategies and Outcomes.” In From Vulnerability to Competitiveness. Welfare and Work in the Open Economy, ed. Fritz W. Scharpf and Vivien A. Schmidt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 597– 646.
Garrett Geoffrey. 1998. Partisan Politics in the Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Genschel Philipp. 2000. “Tax Competition and the Welfare State.” Prepared for the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
Hall Peter A., and David Soskice, eds. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hallerberg Mark, and Scott J. Basinger. 1998. “Internationalization and Changes in Tax Policy in OECD Countries: The Importance of Domestic Veto Players.” Comparative Political Studies 31 (June): 321– 53.Google Scholar
Hallerberg Mark, and Scott J. Basinger. 1999. “Globalization and Tax Reform: An Updated Case for the Importance of Veto Players.” Poltische Vierteljahresschrift 40 (4): 618– 27.Google Scholar
Hallerberg Mark, and William Roberts Clark. 1997. “How Should Political Scientists Measure Capital Mobility? A Review.” Presented at the American Political Science Association Meetings.
Henisz Witold J. 2000. “The Institutional Environment for Economic Growth.” Economics and Politics 12 (March): 1– 31.Google Scholar
Hibbs Douglas. 1977. “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy.” American Political Science Review 71 (December): 1467– 87.Google Scholar
Hines James R., Jr. 1999. “Lessons from Behavioral Responses to International Taxation.” National Tax Journal 52 (June): 305– 23.Google Scholar
Inclan Carla, Dennis P. Quinn, and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2001. “Origins and Consequences of Changes in U.S. Corporate Taxation, 1981–1998.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (January): 179– 201.Google Scholar
Laver Michael, and W. Ben Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.
Lazear Edward P. 1995. Personnel Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lazear Edward P., and Sherwin Rosen. 1981. “Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts.” Journal of Political Economy 89 (October): 841– 64.Google Scholar
Lee Dwight R., and Richard B. McKenzie. 1989. “The International Political Economy of Declining Tax Rates.” National Tax Journal 42 (March): 79– 83.Google Scholar
Markowitz Harry M. 1952. “Portfolio Selection.” Journal of Finance 7 (March): 77– 91.Google Scholar
Markowitz Harry M. 1959. Portfolio Selection. New York: John Wiley.
Mendoza Enrique G, Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, and Patrick Asea. 1997. “On the Ineffectiveness of Tax Policy in Altering Long-Run Growth: Harberger's Superneutrality Conjecture,” Journal of Public Economics 66 (October): 99– 126.Google Scholar
Mendoza Enrique G, Assaf Razin, and Linda Tesar. 1994. “Effective Tax Rates in Macroeconomics: Cross-Country Estimates of Tax Rates on Factor Incomes and Consumption.” NBER Working Paper 4864.
Mosley Layna. 2000. “Room to Move: International Financial Markets and National Welfare States.” International Organization 54 (Autumn): 737– 73.Google Scholar
Oates William. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). 2000. Tax Burdens: Alternative Measures. OECD: Paris.
Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD). 2001. Tax Ratios: A Critical Survey. OECD: Paris.
Radaelli Claudio. 1998. “Game Theory and Institutional Entrepreneurship: Transfer Pricing and the Search for Coordination in International Tax Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 26 (Winter): 603– 19.Google Scholar
Ruding Report. 1992. Report of the Committee of Independent Experts on Company Taxation. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Shugart Matthew Soberg, and John M. Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shugart Matthew Soberg, and Stephan Haggard. 2001. “Institutions and Public Policy in Presidential Systems.” In Presidents, Parliaments, and Policy, ed. Stephan Haggard and Mathew McCubbins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64– 104.
Simmons Beth. 1999. “The Internationalization of Capital.” In Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism, ed. Herbert Kitchelt, Peter Lange, Gary Marks, and John D. Stephens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 36– 69.
Steinmo Sven. 1993. Taxation and Democracy: Swedish, British and American Approaches to Financing the Modern State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Steinmo Sven, and Caroline J. Tolbert. 1998. “Do Institutions Really Matter? Taxation in Industrialized Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 31 (April–May): 165– 87.Google Scholar
Strange Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swank Duane. 1998. “Funding the Welfare State: Globalization and the Taxation of Business in Advanced Market Economies.” Political Studies 46 (September): 671– 92.Google Scholar
Swank Duane. 2002. Global Capital, Political Institutions, and Policy Change in Developed Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swank Duane, and Sven Steinmo. 2002. “The New Political Economy of Taxation in Advanced Capitalist Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (July): 642– 55.Google Scholar
Thomas Kenneth P. 2000. Competing for Capital: Europe and North America in a Global Era. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Tsebelis George. 1995. “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism, and Multipartyism.” British Journal of Political Science 25 (July): 289– 325.Google Scholar
Tsebelis George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tsebelis George, and Jeanette Money. 1997. Bicameralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Volkerink Bjorn, and Jakob de Haan. 2000. “Tax Ratios: A Critical Survey.” Manuscript. University of Groningen.
Wagschal Uwe, 1999a. “Schranken staatlicher Steuerungspolitik: Warum Steuerreformen scheitern können.” In Nationaler Staat und internationale Wirtschaft, ed. Andreas Busch and Thomas Plümper. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 223– 47.
Wagschal Uwe. 1999b. “Blockieren Vetospieler Steuerreformen?” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 40 (4): 628– 40.Google Scholar
Wheeler David, and Ashoka Mody. 1992. “International Investment Location Decisions: The Case of U.S. Firms,” Journal of International Economics 33 (August): 57– 76.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.